|
44585. concerned - 10/4/2012 4:48:26 AM Just watched most of the first debate. I give Romney a solid 'B' and 0bama a 'C'. Both of them could have done better. Romney tends to play 'small ball', not going for the unifying conclusion when he could sometimes. He could have emphasized more that businesses are holding back hiring because of the uncertainty regarding future tax increases and 0bamacare. I would have given 0bama a 'C+' but he kept misrepresenting Romney's positions, such as saying he was going to 'cut education', 'end Frank-Dodd' and 'reduce taxes on the rich by $5 trillion dollars' even after Romney made clear that none of these were his positions. Fortunately, Romney made sure that these lies and distortions by 0bama did not stand by restating his true positions. 44586. concerned - 10/4/2012 5:26:00 AM Chris Matthews actually said he and his fellow journalists had their knives out (this is commentary on a presidential debate?!?), but it looks like Romney brought a gun to this knife fight. 44587. judithathome - 10/4/2012 8:04:04 PM Romney won the battle but he won't win the war.
Luckily, there was no "truthometer" on the screen or Con'd would be singing a different tune. 44588. concerned - 10/5/2012 12:37:30 AM Now, I've heard some people accuse Romney of 'lying'. I haven't been following that closely up until the debate, so what are they referring to here? 44589. arkymalarky - 10/5/2012 4:09:36 AM Mainly about what he said wrt his health and tax plans vs what's actually in them. But also other numbers, data, assertions. But it was on Obama to call that out and he didn't. I was very pissed at his phoning it in last night. He needs to read the tortoise and the hare. 44590. thoughtful - 10/5/2012 5:16:57 AM Yes BO really stank at the debate in that he failed to latch onto Romney's lies and distortions and make not only his position clear, but Romney's as well. About the only think Lehrer asked is how do you differ and it was very hard to discern the difference when, despite the "conservative" moniker, romney/ryan are proposing a drastic change in the tax system....yeah yeah everyone gets a tax cut, but the middle class will be gutted even more when they lose their home mortgage deduction which romney casually referred to as "eliminating loopholes". BO really missed it big time on that one. Rom/Ry want to eliminate medicare and replace it with a voucher system. Another radical move, yet BO didn't make it clear that's what they are up to.
BO should've hammered it home that the medicare cut they enacted was because of a misstatement in the law which led to overpayments....that they corrected it saving lots of money without people losing benefits...precisely the kind of efficiencies Romney was bragging he'll effect. Again IOKIYAR.
But it's easy to make points and be dramatic if you don't have to stick to the facts. Make it up as you go along and it's going to sound terrific...and leave your opponent stunned as you deny that your plan consists of the things you said your plan consisted of for months.
romney lies 44591. thoughtful - 10/5/2012 5:29:13 AM This is beyond lying as it is so nonsensical.
ROMNEY: “My plan is not like anything that’s been tried before. My plan is to bring down rates, but also bring down deductions and exemptions and credits at the same time so the revenue stays in, but that we bring down rates to get more people working.”
If you cut the tax rate but eliminate the deductions so it remains revenue neutral, that is NOT going to get more people working. That is only a redistribution of the tax burden among taxpayers. If the total tax take remains the same, how on earth is that going to create jobs?!? That certainly isn't stimulative.
And this from the Wall st journal
Romney's Tax Plan hits middle class
The study basically concludes that eliminating tax breaks to offset the impact of Mr. Romney’s rate cuts would inevitably hurt the middle class. .....
Even assuming that tax breaks such as the charitable and mortgage interest deductions are eliminated for the wealthy first, and only then reduced as needed for other income groups, “the net effect of the plan would be a tax cut for high-income households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income households,” the study concludes.
All lies, said with such a straight face. And then to accuse BO of being like his teenagers for repeating untruths! Hah!
Actually I thought Romney was getting so worked up that towards the end, he started looking manic. 44592. thoughtful - 10/5/2012 5:32:46 AM I did notice one change...the anti "class warfare" mantra has apparently gone out the window. I guess the gop can no longer deny that lie that they aren't just for the wealthy.
Another interesting thing is Mitt seems to have thrown the gopers to the wind in the debate. He came off sounding very "socially conscience" and almost "liberal" in his support for entitlement programs. I wonder if the party will hold it against him, or if they understand, just like at the local level, that you are expected to say and do whatever will get you elected, and then once in office, you pursue your original, radical, hidden agenda. 44593. judithathome - 10/5/2012 6:28:55 PM He did that because he knew he was playing to an audience of 50-60 million people, not just HIS fans.
That's why he used the term "trickle down government" 9 times in 7 minutes yesterday during a speech...he's using this "free time" from his far right moneymen/controllers to get in as many pokes as he can...including telling Sean Hannity last night that he was "dead wrong" about his 47% remarks.
He figures his "bounce" will come in the polls from his debate performance and the people who control the money can't draw back (as they were starting to do pre-debate) because they want him to maintain a lead in the polls. So he's sort of going on a "reset" to appeal more to the masses and get the money guys back in tow.
Never mind that he has never met a principle he wouldn't run over with a truck if it meant conning anyone out there into one vote. 44594. concerned - 10/5/2012 8:33:44 PM Rom/Ry want to eliminate medicare and replace it with a voucher system.
No, they don't. Romney repeatedly said that the voucher system would only be an option.
Where do you get that Romney wants to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction? Are you simply making that up? 44595. concerned - 10/5/2012 8:35:15 PM Romney doesn't have a radical 'hidden' agenda. That is just conspiracymongering. 44596. concerned - 10/5/2012 8:37:52 PM In the real world, 0bama said in Virginia just a little while ago: "We don't believe anybody is entitled to success in this country."
He's dead wrong here. People who have earned it are entitled to success. There's no justification for the government trying to diminish or steal from the successes of people. I have come by all my successes the hard way - I have earned them - of course I am entitled to them.
44597. concerned - 10/5/2012 8:47:13 PM First of all, Romney is only *considering* a limit on tax deductions. This is what you would want any good presidential candidate to do who is really trying to reform our tax system and reduce deficits.
It's hypocrisy to blindly buy into a failed health care 'reform' and then start screaming like chickens when a candidate start talking about closing tax loopholes like Romney is doing.
And it must be admitted, anybody who is getting more than $20,000 in itemized deductions on their Federal tax return is pretty well off with an income probably over $100,000 per year in the first place. I think they can survive a limit on itemized deductions without any risk of being thrown into a homeless shelter. Sheesh!
It's totally contradictory to scream about Romney being 'for rich people' and then turn around and scream that he's going to close deductions that rich people almost the only ones who benefit from. Don't you realize that you are totally contradicting yourselves here? 44598. concerned - 10/5/2012 8:48:27 PM It's totally contradictory to scream about Romney being 'for rich people' and then turn around and scream that he's going to close deductions that rich people are almost the only ones who benefit from. Don't you realize that you are totally contradicting yourselves here? 44599. concerned - 10/5/2012 8:51:34 PM I did notice one change...the anti "class warfare" mantra has apparently gone out the window. I guess the gop can no longer deny that lie that they aren't just for the wealthy.
Kool-Aid overdose there, 'thoughtful' when you are whingeing about his considering closing tax loop holes 'for the wealthy'?
Your anti-Romney postings so far are basically self-nullifying.
44600. concerned - 10/5/2012 8:58:34 PM Re. 44591 -
Link doesn't work. Perhaps the article was pulled because of its low quality and political bias? 44601. concerned - 10/5/2012 9:04:00 PM Also, how can you Lefties hyperventilate about 'lying' when Romney is primarily assessing his options, and nothing has eventuated from any of them that a lie could be told about?
The truth is that you don't want to hear any idea from Romney that 0bama wouldn't approve. When you do, you immediately start frothing about 'how this is so far beyond lying, it shouldn't exist in this universe!!!!' and similar over the top hyperbole.
Given your total supinity for every hare-brained Lefty idea, most of which have been proven either not to work well, or to be outright failures, your overreactions here to simple planning and evaluation of ideas are beyond farcical.
Puh-leeze. 44602. concerned - 10/5/2012 9:11:41 PM Btw, I was able to find a summary of this 'study' elsewhere than your bad link, and their worst case doomsday scenario with a raft of unsubstantiated assumptions was $500 a year more in Federal taxes. So, since Romney hasn't even settled on any plan remotely resembling what this 'study' assumes as what it admits is an all-worst case scenario, the fair, sensible thing to do is to call 'bullshit' on this study. 44603. concerned - 10/5/2012 9:17:03 PM Btw, if 0bama wins, Taxageddon in January 2013 is going to result in thousands of dollars more in middle class taxes, guaranteed.
I'll take even this crappy study's worst case distortions of Romney's ideas over that any day, as would any sensible person.
Where is your sense of fairness, lefties? I'm not seeing it. 44604. concerned - 10/5/2012 9:48:16 PM So, let's see how Romney's 'worse than worst case' $500/yr middle class tax increase stacks up against 0bama's and the Democrats' Taxmageddon planned for January 2013, shall we?
The Tax Policy Center, founded by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution (absolutely not 'right wing') gives the following
table for the middle class tax increases of Taxmageddon:
Income Average Tax Hike:
Below $20,113............. $412
$20,114 - $39,790...... $1,231
$39,791 - $64,484...... $1,984
$64,485 - $108,266 ..... $3,540
$108,267 - $143,373..... $6,359
$143,374 - $204,296..... $8,271
$204,297 - $506,210..... $14,871
Household Average $3446
Look how hard 0bama's Taxmageddon hits households making less than $40,000 when 0bama's plan is allowed to go forward if he is elected.
The Fiscal Times says 0bama's Taxmageddon will hit nearly 7 out of 8 households with higher taxes and says that "..... most economists believe a fiscal shock of that magnitude would immediately throw the economy into recession, which would sharply reduce actual collections."
So, a possible but unlikely *maximum* of $500 if Romney wins vs an *average* of $3446 if 0bama wins along with a guaranteed full blown recession.
At least I can tell which candidate is going to give the middle class a better tax deal even if 'thoughtful' and her ilk can't.
|
