Mitt Romney - No New Taxes!

[Moseley]

Romney boasts that he is the first Republican presidential candidate to sign a no-new tax pledge offered by the conservative Americans for Tax Reform. He did so in January, a day after he concluded his term as governor.

I would assume this means he has no intention of signing into law a revision of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which, since it has not adjusted for inflation since its creation, has been affecting more and more people, and will soon increase taxes for those making as little as 55k.

Or will he just promote a ballooning national debt?

Or.....anyone know?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I don't know Mitt's intention, but I do know this. I'm voting for the candidate who will eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[andyfox]

No new taxes--just more of the old ones. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Romney boasts that he is the first Republican presidential candidate to sign a no-new tax pledge offered by the conservative Americans for Tax Reform. He did so in January, a day after he concluded his term as governor.

I would assume this means he has no intention of signing into law a revision of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which, since it has not adjusted for inflation since its creation, has been affecting more and more people, and will soon increase taxes for those making as little as 55k.

Or will he just promote a ballooning national debt?

Or.....anyone know?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does "no new taxes" = not eliminating an old tax?

[W brad]

Mitt Romney - Michael Dukakis redux

Romney appointed judge releases a killer. He moves to Seattle and kills again.

What is it with Massachusetts leniency?

Soft-on-cons Bay State

"Mauck, 30, and his recent bride, Beverly, 28, were shot to death last weekend, allegedly by Daniel Tavares Jr., released from Massachusetts custody just four months ago after killing his mother with a carving knife in 1991."

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Mitt Romney - Michael Dukakis redux

Romney appointed judge releases a killer. He moves to Seattle and kills again.

What is it with Massachusetts leniency?

Soft-on-cons Bay State

"Mauck, 30, and his recent bride, Beverly, 28, were shot to death last weekend, allegedly by Daniel Tavares Jr., released from Massachusetts custody just four months ago after killing his mother with a carving knife in 1991."

[/ QUOTE ]

a liberal state, bending over backwards for criminal's rights, with no death penalty....doesnt sound like its limited to Mass.

BTW I was glad to see 2 recent articles that show that the death penalty is indeed a deterrent. Common sense supported by science. whoda thunk.

[ConstantineX]

I thought I read exactly the opposite recently, Copernicus.

EDIT: I am completely wrong. But an economist, Justin Wolfers, is arguing that the noise levels in the data is too large to draw conclusions and those that draw conclusions either way are doing so more on ideological blinders than any analysis.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought I read exactly the opposite recently, Copernicus.

EDIT: I am completely wrong. But an economist, Justin Wolfers, is arguing that the noise levels in the data is too large to draw conclusions and those that draw conclusions either way are doing so more on ideological blinders than any analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think people commit more murders because of the death penalty. It has to be some sort of deterrent but how much of one would seem to be the question.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought I read exactly the opposite recently, Copernicus.

EDIT: I am completely wrong. But an economist, Justin Wolfers, is arguing that the noise levels in the data is too large to draw conclusions and those that draw conclusions either way are doing so more on ideological blinders than any analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think people commit more murders because of the death penalty. It has to be some sort of deterrent but how much of one would seem to be the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting, from the Freakonomics NYT blog:
[ QUOTE ]

Given the evidence I’ve examined, I believe that Wolfers is on the right side of this debate. There are recent studies of the death penalty — most bad, but some reasonable — that find it has a deterrent effect on crime. Wolfers and John Donohue published an article in the Stanford Law Review two years ago that decimated most of the research on the subject.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Analyses of data stretching farther back in time, when there were many more executions and thus more opportunities to test the hypothesis, are far less charitable to death penalty advocates . On top of that, as we wrote in Freakonomics, if you do back-of-the-envelope calculations, it becomes clear that no rational criminal should be deterred by the death penalty , since the punishment is too distant and too unlikely to merit much attention.


[/ QUOTE ]

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought I read exactly the opposite recently, Copernicus.

EDIT: I am completely wrong. But an economist, Justin Wolfers, is arguing that the noise levels in the data is too large to draw conclusions and those that draw conclusions either way are doing so more on ideological blinders than any analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think people commit more murders because of the death penalty. It has to be some sort of deterrent but how much of one would seem to be the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting, from the Freakonomics NYT blog:
[ QUOTE ]

Given the evidence I’ve examined, I believe that Wolfers is on the right side of this debate. There are recent studies of the death penalty — most bad, but some reasonable — that find it has a deterrent effect on crime. Wolfers and John Donohue published an article in the Stanford Law Review two years ago that decimated most of the research on the subject.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Analyses of data stretching farther back in time, when there were many more executions and thus more opportunities to test the hypothesis, are far less charitable to death penalty advocates . On top of that, as we wrote in Freakonomics, if you do back-of-the-envelope calculations, it becomes clear that no rational criminal should be deterred by the death penalty , since the punishment is too distant and too unlikely to merit much attention.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, my point was that I don't think the death penalty encourages many people to commit murder i.e. they commit murder because the death penalty exists but wouldn't commit murder if the death penalty didn't exist. So if that assumption is right then we have people who don't factor in the death penalty when they commit murder and those people who are discouraged from committing murder because the death penalty exists. The vast majority of people who commit murder may be those that don't factor in the death penalty when they murder.

Maybe there are statistics that show the death penalty does encourage people to murder when they otherwise wouldn't. I assume there isn't but I fully concede that could be wrong.