Posted by Pat Cunningham on Oct 17, 2012 in Uncategorized | 9 comments
I’m afraid you can’t move your computer mouse fast enough to deal with THIS.
Here’s a link that will give you actual information on Romney’s tax plan. Liberals need not go to the link. Too many details. It will blow apart your party’s meme on Romney and his tax plan.
doc: That sketchy B.S. to which you linked may impress you, but anyone with half a brain ain’t buying it.
Tellingly, Romney was unable to give details last night on which loopholes, etc., he would advocate to make his plan work out without stinging the middle class.
I’m guessing you also believe that nonsense from Romney and Ryan about the so-called six independent studies that support Mitt’s claims about his tax plan. Even Chris Wallace of Fox News called Romney out on that nonsense.
doc: Here’s what the Associated Press fact-checker says:
Romney is proposing to cut all income tax rates by 20 percent, eliminate the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax, maintain and expand tax breaks for investment income, and do it all without adding to the deficit or shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. He says he would pay for the tax cuts by reducing or eliminating tax deductions, exemptions and credits, but he can’t achieve all of his goals under the budget rules presidents must follow.
The Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, says in a study that the tax cuts proposed by Romney would reduce federal tax revenues by about $5 trillion over 10 years. The study concludes that there aren’t enough tax breaks for the wealthy to make up the lost revenue, so the proposal would either add to the deficit or shift more of the tax burden onto the middle class.
Romney’s campaign cites studies by conservative academics and think tanks that say Romney’s plan will spur economic growth, generating enough additional money to pay for the tax cuts without adding to the deficit or shifting the tax burden to the middle class. But Congress doesn’t recognize those kinds of economic projections when it estimates the budget impact of tax proposals.
It was certainly more impressive than the site that you linked to.
Anybody who thinks our fiscal crisis can be solved without “stinging” everybody is crazy. It’s just a matter of how hard you want to be stung and when.
The Romney/Ryan ticket have been very clear that the details of which loopholes are closed and on who are worthy of bipartisan discussion after the election.
In order to begin to solve our problems we will need some sort of “grand plan” on tax reform that will stimulate economic growth and be fiscally responsible to our debt/deficit.
By the way, doc, you’ve been carrying on here for weeks about the Benghazi matter, parroting every Republican talking point that comes your way.
But you’ve yet to respond to this post from yesterday:
When you get around to it, stick to the particulars of the piece to which I’ve linked. Spare us all the baseless right-wing crapola.
I love how all the liberals want every single little detail about mitt’s tax plan. Sure would have been nice if they gave everyone a warning about what was in ObamaCare before they passed it the first time. Heck, months after it originally passed the House, there was still plenty of discussion about what was, and wasn’t, in the bill. But now they claim to be the champions of transparency. Hypocrites.
I am happy to comment on the Benghazi link.
1) I agree with the author, it is an amazing tale of heroism under fire.
2) The article clearly notes that this was not some demonstration gone wrong or the result of outrage about some idiot’s You-Tube video.
3) The testimony doesn’t talk about whether the level of security at the compound was appropriate (obviously it wasn’t) and any prior communications requesting more security or communications about decreasing the level of security.
4) If there wasn’t a cover up there was a severe lack of good intelligence and accurate information and there was a political desire of the administration to deflect criticism about an obvious failure and terrorist act.
doc: Here’s what Ed Kilgore of the Washington Monthly says:
Conservatives have now had over a month to tie their endless finger-pointing over the events in Benghazi to some larger theme, and have basically failed. If I were them, I’d probably argue the whole series of incidents shows that the administration (and Democrats generally) think the Global War on Terror—which they never much believed in to begin with—ended with the killing of Osama bin Laden, and have been proven very dangerously wrong. But instead, some conservative have gotten distracted by their Islamophobia into going nuts over the administration’s “apologies” for an obnoxious video, and others have gotten distracted by their lust for war with Iran into making this all about “signals” of America’s “lack of resolve.” And Mitt Romney’s done a little of everything without much clarity.
Last night he stumbled on the threshold of another opportunity to make the Libya killings a major issue by getting an important fact wrong. Had he not done so, he would have still probably devolved into incoherent non sequiturs about the killings somehow emboldening Iran or upsetting the Only Ally In the Whole Wide World Who Matters, Bibi Netanyahu. I suppose he’ll have another few days to get his argument together before the final debate. But the idea that he got “hosed by the ref” at Hofstra is absurd. He planned a hit on Obama, and just screwed it up.
Forget a larger scheme. You only need to focus on the facts.
The events in Benghazi are an unquestioned foreign policy failure of the Obama administration. It had nothing to do with a You Tube video. It was a terrorist attack on a poorly protected diplomatic facility in a dangerous country. A facility for which it seems more security was requested and denied.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of followup comments via email. You can also subscribe without commenting.
Rockford Register Star | rrstar.com