To borrow a post about tax cuts from another board:
"Fact: Tax rebates are free for the government.
Fact: Giving people "rebates" who never paid into the system in the first place is just another form of welfare.
Fact: Tax rebates to the consumer do nothing to "stimulate the market" and in fact only hurt us in the long term
Tax rebates are a band-aid that politicians are handing out to a crying child who just fell off their bicycle so that they can get their vote again this year.
I'll go in order.
For every dollar spent by a consumer, how much of that dollar is paid back to the government in tax? The answer is close to all of it. They tax the consumer when they earn it, they tax the store's profits, maybe there's a sales tax in there, they tax the distributor's profits, they tax the producer's profits and everyone in between PLUS all of their employees that they have to pay. Money only comes from one place - the labor market. Any tax levied against the rich, evil corporations or any off "them" (just not me) is, in fact, a tax against you. Because of that, the government will take back every single penny of this rebate as it is spent. This is not a rebate, it's a loan. As soon as it's spent, the government takes it back. (and actually, they tax it if you keep it, too, just at a slower rate)
The tax rebates are 100% free for the government to give out.
To give money to people who never earned it with the logic that "well they're the ones who will spend it" is a bunch of socialist bull crap. See also: vote buying.
Since the government is going to take it all back, what makes you think that it's going to stimulate the economy? It won't. What will actually happen in the long run is that the economy will suffer because you're now providing people with real goods (which must be produced) in exchange for money that was never earned (at least partially - see socialism, above). What's going to happen when you force corporations to sell their products in exchange for having their workers not actually produce anything extra? There's two options - either we're going to produce more and give it away for free out of the kindness of our hearts because we know that it'll be good for "the economy" ... OR we're going to raise the prices on all other goods to make up for the loss. Which do you think is more likely?
Tax rebates will do absolutely nothing to improve the economy. I'm not saying I won't spend mine if I get it (which, I don't think I will), just that if we really wanted to fix the economy instead of just talking about fixing the economy, we'd cut taxes across the board so that the trickle-down effect actually favors the consumer.
As it stands, we've got a bunch of politicians that know somewhere between jack and crap about economics that are all trying to pay lip service to the 'common good' all the while skimming our money and our votes."
Then so far as Mitt's tax stance: He's notorious in MA for a reason.
Like raising fees, including those on licenses to acquire firearms.
Economy: there's this glorious thing called a Cabinet
. You know, where people discuss what the problems are and the heads of the departments make suggestions. Even George Washington listened to his advisers...
2nd Amendment: yeah, raise taxes, keep support up for the MA AWB, support the Brady Bill... oh wait, I'm thinking of Romney again.
Bipartisanship merely makes sure that one will be able to actually pass bills in Congress and do stuff. You may wish to look at how often divided government has failed to produce a "good" period in American history...
Just a few things. Nevermind that Romney supported pro-choice as governor of Ma, either.