Mitt Romney Comes Out Against Tax Deal

[jefferson_dem]

Mitt Romney Comes Out Against Tax Deal
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, on Tuesday added his voice – and a 2012 flavor – to the growing chorus of Republican discontent with the tax compromise the party’s congressional leaders reached with President Obama.

Writing in USA Today on Tuesday, Mr. Romney, a likely leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, called the tax compromise “a disappointing agreement” and said the congress should work toward a better solution.

“Because the extension is only temporary, a large portion of the investment and job growth that characteristically accompanies low taxes will be lost,” Mr. Romney writes. “What some are calling a grand compromise is not grand at all, except in its price tag. The total package will cost nearly $1 trillion, resulting in substantial new borrowing at a time when we are already drowning in red ink.”

Much of the media attention about the tax compromise has been the split within the Democratic party, and in particular the anger among liberals with Mr. Obama.

But the growing chasm within the Republican party over the legislation may be more significant as Republicans gear up for a presidential contest next year. Taxes are a core issue for Republicans, and at least right now, there appears to be little consensus about how to judge the deal

<SNIP>

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/mitt-romney-comes-out-against-tax-deal/?src=twt&twt=thecaucus

[bushisanidiot]

1. He's only doing this to look "mavericky" for the lemming repuke voters in 2012

He has the political cover to go against his party. count on the tea bagging idiots to flock to him.

[flamingdem]

7. yup, hope they don't mind his magic underwear tho nt

[ClassWarrior]

2. Wow, people can oppose a policy from the left AND right? Shades of health care.

NGU.

[jefferson_dem]

15. My thoughts exactly.

This will be interesting. Seems many "progressives" line up with the Repuglican front runners on virtually all of President Obama's signature policy achievements - health care reform, financial reform, now the tax deal. I wonder who they will support come November 2012.

[ClassWarrior]

19. No, your thoughts are backwards.

Progressives oppose many of the Prez's policies from the diametrical opposite of the Republicons, proving how tepid, mediocre and largely worthless those policies are.

I know it's complex, but try hard to understand.

NGU.

[jefferson_dem]

20. So you oppose them, as do the Repuglicans, only for different reasons...

Ah...

Rught.

:rofl:

[Bluenorthwest]

22. The President opposes equal rights for my people

for the same reasons as say, Sarah Palin does. Exact same reasons, a pile of purist dogmas. Not even different reasons, the exact same reasons. Theological purity.

[phleshdef]

30. "Your people". You make it sound like you are from another planet.

[jefferson_dem]

32. "my people"?

Do you own some population? What's the hell?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. If They Were So Tepid How Did They Inspire Such Vocal Opposition?

.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. The President's religion, which is the basis for his opposition to

equal rights for all, has long passages in which passionate objection to 'lukewarm' and tepid principles are derided for being neither one thing or the other, and one is encouraged to spit such lukewarm thinking out of one's mouth.
So it is common, even in religion, for tepid positions to meet passionate objections.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

27. But the Repubs wouldn't be opposing them if they didn't do anything

Granted, they don't want Government doing ANYTHING to meddle with the so-called "free market" but they wouldn't be so eager to get rid of them if they didn't honestly believed that the policies were "tepid," "mediocre", and "largely worthless". The policies may not be as strong as we think they might be and there's always room for improvement thereof but the Republicans don't generally get worked into a tizzy over meaningless gestures.

Do they? :shrug:

[Exilednight]

3. He's right about the tax deal being bad, he's just wrong about the reasons. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Yeah-He Wants To Make Them Permanent

Which is exactly what we will get next month if this bill fails.

[rurallib]

8. does Obama have a veto yet?

Can't someone decouple unemployment insurance from tax cuts? Are the Democrats totally inept in things legislative?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Why Would He Veto His Own Bill?

I know his detractors think he's weak but I didn't know they think he's an imbecile.

[Exilednight]

12. An imbecile? No. Economically inept? Yes. n/t

[rurallib]

21. Veto making the tax cuts permanent as suggested will happen next month.

I would hope he would do that. He does have that power.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. What If They Come Back With The Same Bill That He Supported?

The only thing accomplished by this entire exercise would be that he was rolled by his own party on something he deemed of vital importance. I am trying to think of instances in history where a president was rolled by members of his own party on a matter of this much significance.


And then the ignominy of having to sign the bill after it was passed by a Republican Congress... He would be politically neutered. He would be the de jure president while The Cryer would be the de facto one...

[Exilednight]

11. A party is only as strong as its weakest link, and right now the weakest link is ..............

Obama. People seem to be more worried about keeping Obama in office in 2012 than they are about actually getting something useful done while we hold the office.

[jefferson_dem]

17. Getting something useful done?

You just recommended he veto his own proposed tax cuts (for the middle class). So to do nothing is to do something useful?

[Exilednight]

31. Yes, something useful. Vetoing the current bill would be useful, as it

stands right now. The bill is garbage for our long term economic survival, and everyone knows it, although they will not admit it to themselves.

[jefferson_dem]

16. Winning strategy right there.

Vote for me! I vetoed your tax cuts...and opposed your unemployment insurance.

[Exilednight]

9. Temporary or permanent doesn't really matter. Any tax breaks for the rich are ..............

are bad news for our future economic growth. It gives the elite no reason to invest in workers and boost employment. They can now continually lay off more workers, demand more from the ones they keep, and make huge sums of money knowing that they will not get taxed.

It's a win situation for the top 2 percent and a very bad deal for the other 98 of us.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. You Don't Get An Argument From Me. I'm Justing Telling You What Is Possible.

A man and his son get in a horrific car accident where his son has to have his leg amputated below the knee. The doctor tells him there is no alternative but to amputate the leg below the knee. The man asks the doctor what if they wait a few weeks to see what happens. The doctor says he can pump his son full of anti-biotics but by delaying they might lose the whole leg but they can save part of it if they act now. That's where we are.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. As Does Sarah Palin

The 2012 Republican presidential candidates desperately want this bill to fail because they know it would wound President Obama politically and the Repubs can get a better bill in a couple of weeks.

How does that simple truth escape us?

We are supposed to be the smart ones...

[BeyondGeography]

6. Self-defense for the anti-Romneycare fire-eating baseheads

Like he wouldn't have jumped for this deal...even they won't be fooled by this.

[rucky]

14. reading between the lines, it sounds like he's not very confident

that extending the Bush tax cuts will help create jobs.

He's using the same bullshit excuse for corporations to sit on their cash for two more years. He's not figuring job gains into his predicted budgetary shortfalls.

I tend to agree that it won't create jobs, but then what's the argument for extending tax cuts at all - much less making them permanent?

[MidwestTransplant]

18. That guy is such a loser. How long did it take him to figure out what position to take?

[subterranean]

25. As usual, Mitt stands firmly on both sides of the issue.

The tax cuts are bad because they increase the deficit...and we need to make them permanent!

[golfguru]

26. Tax cuts for the rich is really a simple issue

It is widely publicized that half of those earning over 250,000 are small businesses.
Fine. Which means the other half of high earners do not create any direct jobs.

So, let ALL tax cuts for the rich expire and give those who actually employ people,
a tax credit for each employee. Most small business people file on individual basis
and they will all be eligible for the employee credit. Corporations will not.

Problem solved. Businesses will hire more people to get the tax credit, and their
overall tax will not go up. Those rich who just sit on their investments or earn
a high salary (CEO types who do not own the business) can pay more tax.

[Still a Democrat]

29. Is this an admission tax cuts increase the deficit?

“What some are calling a grand compromise is not grand at all, except in its price tag. The total package will cost nearly $1 trillion, resulting in substantial new borrowing at a time when we are already drowning in red ink.”

[Supersedeas]

33. McConnell having issues coralling all of his kittens...mittens.

[Highway61]

34. The SOB

He was against health care reform....but never mentioned HE was the one who got public health care reform in Mass. while HE was Gov. BTW...MA. to date offers the best health care than any other state.

Now this? Where was his outrage when Bush originally pushed these cuts through?? WTF

Ya know what though? I blame the people of this great nation. They are way too stupid to know what the hell is really going on. Too busy watching reality TV.

I am so weary of it all

[Supersedeas]

35. A Beltway Media myopically focused on COMPROMISE, just lets this one slide??

Fair and Balanced, I guess.