Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Mitt Romney Proposes Trillions In Tax Cuts For the 1% and $54 for the 99%
By: Guest ContributorNov. 4th, 2011more from Guest Contributor
"I want to make the gap between the one and the ninety nine percent this big."
As Mitt Romney continues to sell his tax cuts disguised as an economic recovery plan, the Obama campaign pointed out that Romney’s plan would cut taxes for those making $40,000-$50,000 a year by $54.
Romney plans to give corporations and millionaires $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, but as Obama for America pointed out, he plans to give the middle class much, much less.
According to the Obama campaign,
Tax breaks for corporations and millionaires, forcing the middle class to pay a higher share. Romney has proposed additional tax cuts for corporations and wealthy Americans. Families with over $1 million a year in income would receive nearly half of Romney’s tax break for corporations and two-thirds of his proposal to eliminate all taxes on inherited estates. And while his tax break on unearned income is limited to families making less than $200,000 a year, a typical middle-class family with $40,000 to $50,000 in income would have gotten a tax cut worth only $54 in 2011. These regressive tax cuts for corporations and unearned income would shift a greater share of the tax burden onto wages earned by the middle class. Romney has also supported Republican budget plans that protect tax subsidies for oil and gas companies.
In October, Team Obama pointed out that the biggest tax break in Romney’s plan goes to corporations, “The largest tax cut would go to corporations. Romney promised to immediately reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, while exploring further reductions paired with steps to remove deductions and credits. The independent Tax Policy Center has estimated that this policy would cost over $100 billion a year.”
Romney wrote in a USA Today op-ed that he wants to, “Eliminate every government program that is not absolutely essential. There are many things government does that we may like but that we do not need. The test should be this: “Is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money to pay for it?”
Guess which programs Romney doesn’t consider essential?
In typical Romney fashion he has refused to say that he supports Paul Ryan’s plan to kill Medicare and Medicaid, but he did agree with the goals of budget. One of the big goals of Ryan’s plan is the gutting of Medicare and Medicaid. Romney’s own budget plan would cut funding for education by 25%, more for road and bridge repair by 33%.
As the right screams about the class warfare behind Occupy Wall Street, their likely presidential nominee has drawn up an economic plan that would solidify economic inequality for decades to come. Under a Romney administration, the 1% gets trillions, while you get fifty four bucks.
Remind me again who the class warriors are.
Paul Ryan welcomed himself to the Romney campaign by claiming on 60 Minutes that he wants to eliminate t ...
Mitt Romney showed just how out of touch he is when he claimed today that people earning $200,000-$250,0 ...
Mitt Romney is telling so many lies at the first presidential debate with Barack Obama that we had to ta ...
Mitt Romney's Paul Ryan bounce was over before it started as the Obama campaign released a new video hit ...
Frustration with the Romney/Ryan camp's refusal to get specific is growing. Earlier today at a rally in ...
Anne
Nov. 4th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
While he is definitely an unethical shape-shifter, his obvious bias toward the wealthy and corporations over the 99% is unequivocal. Both are good reasons not to even vote him as a dog catcher.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Nov. 4th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Wow, folks could almost take their families to McDonald’s for an unhealthy lunch on that
Anomaly100
Nov. 4th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Not at the rate of inflation thanks to the trickle down effect, money is now trickling upward. That explains their denial of gravity.
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 4th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
68% of millionaires according to a poll heard on MSNBC say it’s just fine with them If you tax them more. I want to know who Republicans are protecting.
I also want to know how cutting millionaires tax rates in Corporation tax rates will create demand. Are the people who vote Republican this stupid? Did I just seriously ask that question?
Conservative Heart
Nov. 4th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Shut up, for once, Libtards! $54 per 99% is plenty tax relief for the middle and lower class.
That’s at least two free dinners for a family of 4. And heck, if you took my advise from a previous post and actually got a job working at McD’s, you could even invoke your employee discount! That way, the $54 can actually buy you three meals!
Let them eat Fries!
Michael Humphrey
Nov. 4th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
You mindless fool.Had it ever occurred to you that more of your tax dollars that should be paying for the growth of the United States is instead paying for the growth of the corporations and the wealthy few ?
Plus that free meal may come once every month for those in the middle class making $40-50,000 dollars a year.Why would you want to further shift the tax burden on people making less than $100,000 or even lower than that ? Then again I suppose this shouldn’t surprise me that someone would actually think that this plan by Romney is even a sane plan to get America out of the ditch created by eight years of reckless government by the Republicans.
At least I know who you’re voting for in 2012.
Middle Molly
Nov. 12th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Are you serious.. or engaging in satire? Don’t bother to answer.
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 12th, 2011 at 8:45 am
The answer is B: Satire
g bolen
Nov. 4th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
I am as much one of the 99% as you can get and the inequity in this story infuriates me. However, this headline and the way the whole story is presented very clearly exaggerates that inequity by stating the per person amount of tax savings for working people to the total amount saved by all of the wealthiest and the corporations. I think the inequity would still be very clear if the comparisons were made total to total or individual to individual. This here leaves the Democratic cause too wide open to criticism of distortion. Personally, I appreciate impeccable reporting that cannot be dissected by its critics, especially of the causes that I support. Complete credibility requires flawless arguments.