Speak Out: Mitt Romeny

Replies (39)

• "His party has preached reduction of federal government, but yet we have only seen growth evertime one is elected."

  We have only seen growth whichever party is elected. However, he is the only major party candidate that is talking reducing or reversing growth.

  I do not expect to see reduction in government under him. Too many votes are needed to accomplish that, and too many candidates from both parties see growth as necessary to their re-election. However, I expect to see slower government spending increase under him than under Mr. Obama.

  By the way, what is Mr. Obama running on this election? Staying the course? More of the same? Not being Romney? I've not actually seen a plan from him, just excoriation of the Republican plans?

  What is his party offering? More of the same? More trillion dollar deficits, more class warfare, more government spending, and more crippling regulation? Do they actually have a plan that differs from the one they tried to enact in 2007 - 2010 that brought us to the brink of collapse? If so, I've not seen it.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 10:54 AM

• The Democrats didn't bring "us" to the brink of collapse, they saved us from total collapse. The republicans are the one's who brought us there, and I believe they will take those of us considered middle class back, if elected. I can't prove it, but I don't want to find out that I am right.

  -- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 11:43 AM

• "The Democrats didn't bring "us" to the brink of collapse, they saved us from total collapse."

  No. They brought us there. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were in charge of the Congress when it collapsed, not the Republicans. They opposed reforms proposed to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They were warned, repeatedly, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in precarious financial condition, and would bring down the economy if they were not reined in. They ignored the warnings, and the economy suffered because of it.

  To be sure, the Republicans were also warned, and knew the danger, but they make some attempts to rein in the excesses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, unsuccessfully. And, after all, they were out of power in Congress when the economy fell. Ms. Pelosi was quite adamant about that. "Elections have consequences", she was quick to remind us. Now, she seeks to ignore the consequences caused by the election that put her in power, and place the blame on those she replaced. Unfortunately some, such as yourself, believe it.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 12:03 PM

• Freddie Mac mortgage rates near all time low. Did you do that? Bush?

  -- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 12:07 PM

• http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42760.pdf

  "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are charted by Congress as government-sponsored enterprises

  (GSEs) to provide liquidity in the mortgage market and promote homeownership for underserved

  groups and locations. They purchase mortgages, guarantee them, and package them in mortgagebacked

  securities (MBSs), which they either keep as investments or sell to institutional investors.

  In addition to the GSEs' guarantees, investors widely believe that MBSs are implicitly guaranteed

  by the federal government. In 2008, the GSEs financial condition had weakened and there were

  concerns over their ability to meet their obligations on $1.2 trillion in bonds and $3.7 trillion in

  "MBSs that they had guaranteed. In response to the financial risks, the federal government took

  control of these GSEs in a process known as conservatorship as a means to stabilize the mortgage credit market.

  "Congressional interest in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has increased in recent years, primarily

  because the federal government's continuing conservatorship of these GSEs, at a time of

  uncertainty in the housing, mortgage, and financial markets, has raised doubts about the future of the enterprises and the potential cost to the Treasury of guaranteeing the enterprises' debt. Since more than 60% of households are homeowners, a large number of citizens could be affected by the future of the GSEs. Congress exercises oversight over the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which is both regulator and conservator of the GSEs, and is considering legislation to shape the future of the GSEs. Legislation introduced in the 112th Congress, the future of the GSEs, and ways to reduce the cost to the federal government are analyzed in CRS Report R41822, Proposals to Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the 112th Congress, by N. Eric

  Weiss.

  "Estimates of the eventual total cost to the federal government of supporting the GSEs use

  different baselines and vary widely. FHFA estimates that Treasury is likely to purchase $220

  billion-$311 billion of senior preferred stock by the end of 2014. The Congressional Budget

  Office estimates the budget cost to be more than $300 billion. Standard & Poor's has estimated

  the cost at $280 billion plus $405 billion to create a replacement system.

  "Under terms of the federal government's support agreement as amended and effective on August

  17, 2012, the enterprises will pay the Treasury all of their quarterly profits (if any). Under the

  previous agreements, the enterprises paid Treasury dividends of nearly $20 billion annually (10% of the support). Paying the federal government all profits earned in a quarter could prevent the GSEs from accumulating funds to redeem the senior preferred stock. However, it would appear that the GSEs could make quarterly redemptions.

  "The financial condition of the GSEs appears to be improving. In the first and second quarters of

  2012, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reported profits for the first time since the fourth quarter of 2006. Also, the second quarter of 2012 was first time that neither GSE had to request financial support from the Treasury.

  "Legislation introduced in the 112th Congress, the future of the GSEs, and ways to reduce the cost to the federal government are analyzed in CRS Report R41822, Proposals to Reform Fannie Mae

  and Freddie Mac in the 112th Congress, by N. Eric Weiss."

  _____

  I think it's interesting that the last time Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were profitible was also the last quarter in which the Republicans held the Congress (Q4 2006). While that does not mean the Democrats were culpable, it does mean that the need to enact reforms became more pressing by Q2 2007, at which time the Democrats were in charge and ignoring the warnings (17 of them issued by the Bush administration in 2008) on the need to reform the GSEs.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 12:26 PM

• I cannot see going back to the same old policies and ideas that got us in the shape we were in. I will subscribe to the same ideas my Republican friends used when W was running for his second term. "we have to give him the second term to finish what he started" The sad thing is I bought it.

  -- Posted by Therealworld on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 12:46 PM

• So what is the only viable alernative to the oncoming Obama diaster? At this time Romney is the only chance we've got going to avoid going over the cliff of financial ruin.

  Its either Romney or Obama. Make your choice.

  -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 2:51 AM

• Mitt can't be trusted, he knows no middle class folks. We can't help him.

  -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 6:29 AM

• And Obama can be trusted? Dexterite Obama don't care about the middle class all we hear from him is the same thing he was cheerleading for in the 2008 campaign and I bought in on it and voted for him. Not this time I will cast my vote for Mitt Romney.

  -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 7:05 AM

• So what is the only viable alernative to the oncoming Obama diaster? At this time Romney is the only chance we've got going to avoid going over the cliff of financial ruin.

  Its either Romney or Obama. Make your choice.

  -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Oct 20, 2012, at 2:51 A

  How about some faith in the constitution.

  I don't get the gloom and doom over presidential candidates.

  -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 12:25 PM

• swamp, Rominy is going to do away with capital gain taxes and that will help all Americans,,,bulls***.

  -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 12:49 PM

• Rominy is going to do away with capital gain taxes and that will help all Americans,,,bulls***. -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 12:49 PM

  In 2006 66% of private-sector working Americans had a 401K retirement investment. If Romney were to lower capital gains taxes then 2/3rds of the country would benefit. That's a far, far piece from your usual "1%er" "BS" talking point.

  Maybe you're in the other 1/3 that doesn't have an investment? I don't know, but 66% would benefit from a 401k capital gain tax reduction. And that doesn't even include 403b plans. Didn't look those numbers up but there are a bunch as well.

  What you seemingly don't understand is that most investment income (not all) has already been taxed! And additional capital gains tax isn't enough for you? How much money do you want out of every hard working Americans pocket?

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 1:15 PM

• -- Posted by Dug on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 1:15 PM

  401ks are exempt from capital gains.

  -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 1:44 PM

• "401ks are exempt from capital gains."

  Not entirely true. 401(k)s are tax-deferred. All gains, including capital gains, are transferred to regular income when paid out. The regular income is then taxed. The theory of tax deferrment is that a retiree will have a lower income level when retired, and thus his income will be taxed at the lower rate.

  The removal of capital gains will thus not benefit the retiree who draws from his 401(k), but the lowered tax rates proposed by Mr. Romney will do so.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 1:59 PM

• obama lovess the middle class and will do everything in his power to help them. If you don't believe me, just ask him.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 2:35 PM

• -- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Oct 19, 2012, at 12:07 PM

  And that was one of the big problems. The Democrats loosened the qualifications so much anyone with a signature was good to go. And who pushed that......

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&list=FLKG8Bwrdw2LW9TYTQQFP8mw&index=8...

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 2:49 PM

• "401ks are exempt from capital gains."

  Not entirely true. 401(k)s are tax-deferred. All gains, including capital gains, are transferred to regular income when paid out. The regular income is then taxed. The theory of tax deferrment is that a retiree will have a lower income level when retired, and thus his income will be taxed at the lower rate.

  The removal of capital gains will thus not benefit the retiree who draws from his 401(k), but the lowered tax rates proposed by Mr. Romney will do so.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 1:59 PM

  Exactly.

  My response was in rebuttle to Dug who incorrectly identified that average Americans would benefit from elimination of the Capital Gains because of 401ks.

  That is income tax, not capital gains.

  However, if most people were concerned with Romney and tax issues should be far more concerned with the elimination of the elimination of mortgage interest and child deductions.

  -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 4:11 PM

• No matter , his replacement , what-ever party , will say the same -- "look at the mess I was left with" .

  ggeeezzz...wake up

  -- Posted by .Rick. on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 5:33 PM

  Rick,

  Hopefully, whoever gets left with the mess Obama leaves will have more class than to whine like Obama has for going on 4 years now.

  Obama has no class and he does not act Presidential. Never has.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 5:50 PM

• No matter , his replacement , what-ever party , will say the same -- "look at the mess I was left with" .

  ggeeezzz...wake up

  -- Posted by .Rick. on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 5:33 PM

  Rick,

  Hopefully, whoever gets left with the mess Obama leaves will have more class than to whine like Obama has for going on 4 years now.

  Obama has no class and he does not act Presidential. Never has.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 5:50 PM

• Sorry, double dribble.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 5:51 PM

• Rick, don't forget. There's always impeachmdent.

  -- Posted by voyager on Mon, Oct 22, 2012, at 6:25 PM

• "However, if most people were concerned with Romney and tax issues should be far more concerned with the elimination of the elimination of mortgage interest and child deductions."

  Only if your mortgage and child deductions total more than 20% of your total tax bill, since that is the amount he suggests lowering taxes before removing the deductions.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 6:01 AM

• Hello all!

  I see that very little has changed in the time that I have been absent from these threads. Basically, the same people with the same opinions. We all seem to have our heels dug in. The election is in two weeks and we will know then who has prevailed.(at least for four years)

  For the present I will remain on the sidelines and attempt to catch up with the discussion.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 7:12 AM

• "Interesting and concerning retirement facts. 401k participation has been slipping since 200., The most likely reason, employers have reduced or stopped their matching contribution; which was a huge employee contribution motivator."

  Another factor may be simply a move away from tax-deferrment into pre-taxed retirement plans. Many retirement planners are pushing that, given that few now expect tax rates in the coming decade to be as low as or lower than the current rates.

  With $16 trillion in debt, the government is going to raise tax rates, or tax a broader base, in order to keep spending. They've had their eye on retirement plans for years as a source of revenue. Deferring taxes from today's low rates and paying them later at much higher rates does not make economic sense.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 8:04 AM

• "Shapley already corrected Dug on 401k deferment. I will add a little clarification, not all 401k "contributions" are tax deferred (ie some plans allow for after- tax elective contributions). However, all growth is tax deferred till normal withdrawal (ie retirement age), subject to taxation and penality for early withdrawal."

  I was aware of that, but didn't want to get into too long of an explanation on the nature of the plans. Thanks for the clarification, nonetheless.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 8:27 AM

• Interesting and concerning retirement facts. 401k participation has been slipping since 200., The most likely reason, employers have reduced or stopped their matching contribution; which was a huge employee contribution motivator.

  -- Posted by Me'Lange on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 7:45 AM

  Well they have also raised the limits of Roth IRAs.

  -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 9:15 AM

• Only if your mortgage and child deductions total more than 20% of your total tax bill, since that is the amount he suggests lowering taxes before removing the deductions.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 6:01 AM

  Thanks. I did not know that. It has been vague about the details.

  Do you have a link I can read up on that.

  -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 9:16 AM

• Such as it exists, here is what Mr. Romney proposes:

  "Individual Taxes

  America's individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

  "Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates

  Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains

  Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains

  Eliminate the Death Tax

  Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

  Corporate Taxes

  "The U.S. economy's 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation's businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

  "Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent

  Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit

  Switch to a territorial tax system

  Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)"

  http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 9:30 AM

• Dug, who stated "I don't quote things off-the-cuff. I know what I'm talking about." -- Posted by Me'Lange on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 7:45 AM

  First, that was a post on another thread where you were terribly wrong and "off the cuff" yourself - but never admitted it.

  Second, Shapley did correct me as I was thinking about personal investment and confused that with my 401K - where you are taxed higher than capital gains depending on your annual income.

  Third, Shapley pointed it out - you didn't know the difference yourself so no point in gloating.

  Fourth - you are wrong again. 66% of private sector Americans have a 401K. Look it up. Also look up the term "403b" if you are not familiar. The article and quote: "In 1980, 60 percent of private-sector workers with retirement plans had employer-paid pensions; by 2006, only 10 percent did, AND 66 PERCENT HAD 401(k)s. Private sector workers.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:03 AM

• By my figureing, then, using a hypothetical situation of a $60,000 Head-of-Household wage earner with a mortgage interest of $7,200 (estimated as 60% of a $12,000/year mortgage) and two children, I get the following:

  Current tax rates - taxable income = $60,000 - $7,2000 - ($3,650 x 2) = $45,500. Tax = $6,214 That figures to a 10.3% rate on the original $60,000. (I know that's a simplification, but I haven't time to run a full tax calculation based on hypotheticals.)

  The tax rate on a $60,000 taxable income for head of household comes to 16.26%. A 20% rate reduction puts it at 13%. Thus, the tax on $60,000 with no deductions comes to $7,800, or an increase of $1,586.

  However, Mr. Romney was talking about a 'cap' on deductions in the debates, similar to my proposed 'flat tax with floor' (a flat rate tax on incomes over a certain level). That would change the arrangement significantly, and I have no way of calculating taxes based on that limited information. As I understand him, the deductions would still be there, up to a threshold above which no more would be allowed. His original figure was $17,000, though he mentioned as high as $25,000 or more. Since the deductions in my hypothetical above equated to $14,500, there would have been no loss of deductions in my hypothetical example above, and the taxes for the wage earner would not increase.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:03 AM

• -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:03 AM

  Unfortuantly, this is all assumption.

  Romney has yet to provide the details.

  Now, I do not think he will try, or accomplish, getting rid of the mortage and child deductions. However, vagueness on the matter does not help his cause.

  -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 10:07 AM

• -- Posted by Me'Lange on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:02 PM

  Ok. We all know that the statement Posted by Dug is incorrect on may different levels.

  Lets leave it alone and just move on because it is really not relevant to the discussion.

  -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:11 PM

• PS You might want to consider a name change to ~Duh~ -- Posted by Me'Lange on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:02 PM

  More name calling, personal attacks and bullying from a liberal... not surprised. Are you going to suggest to the moderator that you be banned?

  Apparently you don't know the difference between a pension and a 401k and 403b plan. Get educated.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:22 PM

• "Romney has yet to provide the details.

  "Now, I do not think he will try, or accomplish, getting rid of the mortage and child deductions. However, vagueness on the matter does not help his cause."

  He stated quite clearly that any final bill will be subject to the congressional process, any 'specifics' he could propose would be moot.

  Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has proposed nothing other than his vague 'make the wealthy contribute a little bit more' statements. Why is Mr. Romney's vagueness any more troubling than Mr. Obama's.

  As Mr. Romney noted, none of Mr. Obama's math has added up, so he is in no position to make claims about Mr. Romney's mathematics.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:22 PM

• "~But the word you missed was WITH-- Thus those with a 401k are 66% of 60% of private sector workers."

  That's also not accurate. It is (or was) 66% of the less than half that have retirement accounts, not 66% of 60%...

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:28 PM

• He stated quite clearly that any final bill will be subject to the congressional process, any 'specifics' he could propose would be moot.

  Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has proposed nothing other than his vague 'make the wealthy contribute a little bit more' statements. Why is Mr. Romney's vagueness any more troubling than Mr. Obama's.

  As Mr. Romney noted, none of Mr. Obama's math has added up, so he is in no position to make claims about Mr. Romney's mathematics.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:22 PM

  Why are you mentioning Obama? I thought we were discussing Romeny's tax plan? We are not discussing Obama because he never threatened elimination of the child card or mortgage deduction.

  First you tried to speak for Romeny, then you want to focus on Obama. Neither have anything to do with what we are discussing.

  -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:32 PM

• "several readers are laughing the bee-hinds off"-- Posted by Me'Lange on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:34 PM

  Do you subscribe to the SE Missourian "premium" edition with sound? Where do I get this?

  Have you asked the moderator to ban yourself for bullying? You whine about it so much, set us an example and have yourself removed. Then you might have 1 ounce of credibility when you whine.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:37 PM

• Dug,

  I don't believe she likes you any better than she does me.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:40 PM

• Wheels - just look at the name calling! Outrageous!

  Me'Lange is the only person on here that would consider it bullying to get her banned! I point this out so in the future when she begins whining about bullying and name calling everyone will remember her tactics - "do as I say, not as I do".

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:44 PM