Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
84 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Interesting fox news interview with Ryan rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/30/ryan-on-romneys-tax-pl...

I thought the host pushed medium hard for details, none of which were given by ryan. At the end Chris Wallace just lets Ryan say whatever he wants. I found this part interesting as a fiscal conservative.

Quote:
“But you haven’t given me the math,” the Fox News host pressed.

“I don’t have the time,” Ryan laughed. “It would take me too long to go through all the math. But let me say it this way, you can lower tax rates by 20 percent across the board by closing loopholes and still have preferences for the middle class for things like charitable deductions, for home purchases, for health care. So what we’re saying is, people are going to get lower tax rates.”

“If — just suppose — that the doubters are right, President Romney takes office the math doesn’t add up… what’s most important to Romney?” Wallace asked. “Would he scale back on the 20 percent tax cut for the wealthy?”

“No,” Ryan said.

“Would he scale back and say, ‘OK, we’re going to have to raise taxes for the middle class?’” Wallace continued. “What’s most important to him in his tax reform plan?”

“Keeping tax rates down,” the vice presidential candidate remarked. “That’s more important than anything.”



I can't see how you can cut my taxes by 20%, leave me with my home deduction, AND be revenue neutral. People who make less than $125k basically have the home deduction, charitable deductions, and that's it. Cutting my taxes by 20% is going to blow a huge hole in the budget.

As I've said before-- this is not the fiscally conservative party that I used to vote for.

This related post
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/tax-reform/news...
Goes into how the corporate loopholes are off the table and it's either increased taxes on the lower income and middle class folks or a 5 trillion dollar gap.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LeeDambis wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:

Goes into how the corporate loopholes are off the table and it's either increased taxes on the lower income and middle class folks or a 5 trillion dollar gap.

Is that before or after the defense budget increases that even DoD didn't ask for? Or the emergency funding for the invasions of Iran and Pakistan?




The problem is that neither candidate has a remotely sane plan for addressing the fiscal problems facing our country. The fiscal cliff looms and we only get "reduce taxes" and "raise taxes on only the wealthy". The middle-class is going to have to take a lot of pain, regardless of who is President.

I thought that answer by Ryan was lame.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
The problem is that neither candidate has a remotely sane plan for addressing the fiscal problems facing our country. The fiscal cliff looms and we only get "reduce taxes" and "raise taxes on only the wealthy".


This seems incredibly disingenuous. Tax increases on the wealthy are only a relatively small part of the President's deficit reduction plan, as you surely must know. They are important, but to say that this is all he's offering is just false.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
The problem is that neither candidate has a remotely sane plan for addressing the fiscal problems facing our country. The fiscal cliff looms and we only get "reduce taxes" and "raise taxes on only the wealthy".


This seems incredibly disingenuous. Tax increases on the wealthy are only a relatively small part of the President's deficit reduction plan, as you surely must know. They are important, but to say that this is all he's offering is just false.


The disingenuous part, at least on the part of the President (Romney's has his own set of problems) is that the problems of our nation cannot be tackled without some type of sacrifice by the middle-class.

The CBO indicates that the President's plan doesn't adequately address entitlement reforms

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/16/news/economy/obama-budget/in...

And, I don't think it is all he is offering, but I do think that is all he is campaigning on. Also, I haven't found what economic growth the President is assuming for his projections to hold true.


For the two ideological extremes:

This is a nice pdf on why taxing the wealthy alone can't fix the problem (not directed solely at the President, but the ideological Democrats who balk at entitlement reforms [e.g., Pelosi et al.])

http://issuu.com/thirdway/docs/third_way_report_-_necessary_...

For parity, here is the same group that shows the the GOPs approach to spending cuts won't get the job done either:


http://issuu.com/thirdway/docs/third_way_report_-_death_by_a...
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm absolutely for rolling back the bush tax cuts.

These will raise my taxes by about $150 per month.

Doesn't bother me a bit.

I'm hoping that while obama was putting the republicans on the spot with his 98% tax cut.. that the reality will be that the bush tax cuts will be completely rolled bac.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm actually curious if the Bush tax cuts will be rolled back. They are part of the "Fiscal Cliff" on January 3rd, which many economists say that both and likely either the cuts or taxes will cause another recession.

Whomever is President likely won't see an improvement, and most likely will see a worsening, in the economy.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
And, I don't think it is all he is offering


So, you admit you misrepresented the President's position? Why did you do that?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
And, I don't think it is all he is offering


So, you admit you misrepresented the President's position? Why did you do that?


I was representing what we hear day in and day out (that is why I put both parts in quotes), not the actual, full position. I apologize for that -- we can address the substance of the entire position if you would like.

Most people often represent Romney's position as only lowering taxes for the wealthy, but that isn't true either is it?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
I was representing what we hear day in and day out


Well, let's test the veracity of that.

Now, I won't pretend the path I'm offering is quick or easy....

And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades....

The path we offer may be harder, but it leads to a better place, and I'm asking you to choose that future....


Yeah, that sounds exactly like, "Taxing the rich will solve all of our problems." shake

Quote:
Most people often represent Romney's position as only lowering taxes for the wealthy, but that isn't true either is it?


I reject the premise of the question. No one thinks Romney's position is only lowering taxes for the wealthy. He also wants to hike defense spending, gut investment in the future, and do away with big chunks of our social safety net. Everyone knows that, his supporters and detractors alike.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
I was representing what we hear day in and day out


Well, let's test the veracity of that.

Now, I won't pretend the path I'm offering is quick or easy....

And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades....

The path we offer may be harder, but it leads to a better place, and I'm asking you to choose that future....


Yeah, that sounds exactly like, "Taxing the rich will solve all of our problems." shake


I am beginning to question your ability to objectively see messaging -- both good and bad -- from both sides. Everything in red text is what the President says right before he launches into his populist arguments about the rich "paying their fair share". I was referring to specific sacrifices where he says something along the lines of "These are hard problems, it is going to cost the average family $X/year to fix them". Obviously, he doesn't say this because it will lose him votes. He doesn't (neither candidate does, so I am not picking on the President) make the costs of what he is proposing either explicit or salient to the average voter.

I assume that you have read all of the President's positions. What is that harder path going to look like? How many more years is it going to take? How does it require sacrifice from middle-class Americans?

Quote:

I reject the premise of the question. No one thinks Romney's position is only lowering taxes for the wealthy. He also wants to hike defense spending, gut investment in the future, and do away with big chunks of our social safety net. Everyone knows that, his supporters and detractors alike.


That sounds like something someone would read on MSNBC. It would be like if I brought out Fox News to criticize the President. If we are to take the President at his word, are we not going to take Romney at his?
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For starters, not everyone is as well informed as you are David.
For some, it may only be that one or two of the points has gotten across to them.
For others, they may not even have a clue beyond sound bites what either candidates (and their parties) are really planning to do.

(edit added below)
I have to admit, that I have a increasingly hard time trusting Romney and Ryan. Today I finally decided to give up and just drink the damn koolaid until the election.

I think it was Romney closing down that profitable plant and laying off all those people the way he did coming so close to a similar rich guy doing the same at my soon to be ex company (and looking like this guy will be doing the same "harvesting" at our company that Romney did at Bain.)*

Obama 2012. right or wrong, he's got my vote.

* the company was fine and highly profitable until this rich dillweed decided to make it more profitable by laying of an enormous amount of people all over the country. Their vision truly seems to be what I've been predicting for the last few years... less than half the number of human workers left when they are done in five or six years. If they fail (which looks possible lately), then the company gets sold and over 90% of the employees get laid off- but they walk away rich.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
Everything in red text is what the President says right before he launches into his populist arguments about the rich "paying their fair share".


Wealthy people, like me or Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, aren't paying a reasonable share of taxes in the current system. That's pretty obvious and Obama talks about it a lot because it's the single biggest difference between himself and the Republicans. It's not "populist", if anything it's more of an issue of corruption. Wealthy people have bought themselves low tax rates. They have made low taxes on the rich the single most important issue to one of America's two political parties. The voters can either accept that or not. It's a crucial decision and it deserves all of the attention it's getting.

Quote:
I was referring to specific sacrifices where he says something along the lines of "These are hard problems, it is going to cost the average family $X/year to fix them". Obviously, he doesn't say this because it will lose him votes.


No, he doesn't say that because he doesn't think it's true. Neither do I.

Quote:
I assume that you have read all of the President's positions. What is that harder path going to look like? How many more years is it going to take? How does it require sacrifice from middle-class Americans?


How could anyone know that? We don't even know what the unemployment rate is going to be next year. We don't know if Iran is going to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. We don't know if climate change is going to accelerate. We don't know if Republicans are going to compromise. We don't know if the Chinese economy is going to thrive or collapse. There are a million things that we don't know about the future that make it impossible to make accurate predictions.

It's easy to give individual examples, though. For example, presumably Obama would like to continue the payroll tax cut, he thinks it helps the economy and employment. Yet he's not proposing to continue it past the end of the year because he thinks we can't afford it. That's an example of something that affects virtually every working American.

Quote:
Quote:
I reject the premise of the question. No one thinks Romney's position is only lowering taxes for the wealthy. He also wants to hike defense spending, gut investment in the future, and do away with big chunks of our social safety net. Everyone knows that, his supporters and detractors alike.


That sounds like something someone would read on MSNBC. It would be like if I brought out Fox News to criticize the President. If we are to take the President at his word, are we not going to take Romney at his?


Yes, honestly, I thought this was a pretty direct and straightforward description of what Romney actually says. What's the difference, in your view, between what I wrote and what you think Romney's positions are? His strongest supporters want him to cut taxes on the wealthy and hike defense spending and reduce government spending on investment and the social safety net. I think most of them would read my list and be delighted with it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think for people making over about $60k, we could and should eliminate the payroll tax cut. I think people below that pretty much spend it to get by and avoid debt but for those of us above that line, it's just gravy except for spendthrifts.

There are other cuts (which are presented as extreme but are really quite moderate and only take us back about 6 years) which we should also take. Just holding the deficit from growing would start shrinking it relative to GDP. But I think we do need to shrink it- and shrink it now. It's a huge risk if interest rates go up. It weakens us as a nation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
I think for people making over about $60k, we could and should eliminate the payroll tax cut. I think people below that pretty much spend it to get by and avoid debt but for those of us above that line, it's just gravy except for spendthrifts.


Well, you've got to pay for it somehow. There are lots of things that I think we should do if we had enough money but we have to trim the list because we don't. The payroll tax cut amounts to just borrowing money to fund our promises to future retirees, which isn't really "funding", it's kicking the problem down the road. Social Security should collect enough to pay for the promises it makes. This is the President's position, too (unlike many on the left), but getting to a deal to achieve this, seems like it should be easy, but it's easier said than done.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
I think for people making over about $60k, we could and should eliminate the payroll tax cut. I think people below that pretty much spend it to get by and avoid debt but for those of us above that line, it's just gravy except for spendthrifts.


Well, you've got to pay for it somehow. There are lots of things that I think we should do if we had enough money but we have to trim the list because we don't. The payroll tax cut amounts to just borrowing money to fund our promises to future retirees, which isn't really "funding", it's kicking the problem down the road. Social Security should collect enough to pay for the promises it makes. This is the President's position, too (unlike many on the left), but getting to a deal to achieve this, seems like it should be easy, but it's easier said than done.


I agree. And I'm for eliminating the payroll tax cut. However, if we ARE going to keep it a while longer, the cutoff line should be lower.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
I agree. And I'm for eliminating the payroll tax cut. However, if we ARE going to keep it a while longer, the cutoff line should be lower.


We aren't going to keep the payroll tax cut past the end of the year. Neither Obama nor Romney nor the Congressional leadership favors it.

I never thought it was a particularly good idea in the first place. But it's the kind of compromise that ends up getting made, in politics. As compromises go it's not the worst ever.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm in favor of eliminating the payroll tax cuts on incomes above a certain level. I'm not sure about what that level would be. Probably tie it to a multiple of the poverty level, say 3x poverty for single, 6x for family. I just made that up, don't math me on that.

I'm also in favor of eliminating the bush tax cuts for everyone.

I would also eliminate all those tax loop holes that Romney loves so much.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Speaking of which...

Payroll Tax Cut Is Unlikely to Survive Into Next Year
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:

Wealthy people, like me or Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, aren't paying a reasonable share of taxes in the current system. That's pretty obvious and Obama talks about it a lot because it's the single biggest difference between himself and the Republicans. It's not "populist", if anything it's more of an issue of corruption. Wealthy people have bought themselves low tax rates. They have made low taxes on the rich the single most important issue to one of America's two political parties. The voters can either accept that or not. It's a crucial decision and it deserves all of the attention it's getting.


I think as soon as you say "That's pretty obvious" you are now moving into more of a partisan slant. There are numerous arguments and perspectives that people have provided that the wealthy people are paying a "reasonable" share. I happen to think that the taxes should go up, but it is hard to deny the way the President frames it -- to rally supporters -- is done in a populist manner (regardless of whether it is a populist issue or not).

Quote:

Quote:
I was referring to specific sacrifices where he says something along the lines of "These are hard problems, it is going to cost the average family $X/year to fix them". Obviously, he doesn't say this because it will lose him votes.


No, he doesn't say that because he doesn't think it's true. Neither do I.

It's easy to give individual examples, though. For example, presumably Obama would like to continue the payroll tax cut, he thinks it helps the economy and employment. Yet he's not proposing to continue it past the end of the year because he thinks we can't afford it. That's an example of something that affects virtually every working American.


Perhaps I am misreading this, but these two statements seem contradictory. When does he talk about, in his stump speeches, about eliminating the payroll tax and it costing the average middle-class american about $80/month. Where does he tell people that their taxes are getting ready to go up $1000/year? He doesn't. Why? Because that would be a foolish thing to say, whether it is true or not.

His stump speech is filled with half-truths (as I imagine that Romney's is as well -- I have only read Obama's).

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
I think as soon as you say "That's pretty obvious" you are now moving into more of a partisan slant. There are numerous arguments and perspectives that people have provided that the wealthy people are paying a "reasonable" share. I happen to think that the taxes should go up, but it is hard to deny the way the President frames it -- to rally supporters -- is done in a populist manner (regardless of whether it is a populist issue or not).

One way to frame it and point the finger at Romney, would be to use the example of private equity. The 15% capital gains tax is supposedly low so as to mitigate the risk inherent in risking capital in the market. But Romney and others in the private equity industry get others to risk the money when they buy the companies, they don't risk any money themselves. After selling off parts of the company, having the company take on debt, inflating profits, and having the companies issue special dividends and taking a cut of those dividends, they only have to pay the capital gains tax rate on those. Why should those rich guys get the special rate when they didn't risk any of their money? This is not partisan.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
I think as soon as you say "That's pretty obvious" you are now moving into more of a partisan slant. There are numerous arguments and perspectives that people have provided that the wealthy people are paying a "reasonable" share. I happen to think that the taxes should go up, but it is hard to deny the way the President frames it -- to rally supporters -- is done in a populist manner (regardless of whether it is a populist issue or not).

One way to frame it and point the finger at Romney, would be to use the example of private equity. The 15% capital gains tax is supposedly low so as to mitigate the risk inherent in risking capital in the market. But Romney and others in the private equity industry get others to risk the money when they by the companies, they don't risk any money themselves. After selling off parts of the company, having the company take on debt, inflating profits, and having the companies issue special dividends and taking a cut of those dividends, they only have to pay the capital gains tax rate on those. Why should those rich guys get the special rate when they didn't risk any of their money? This is not partisan.


I don't disagree wit this either, but this is a specific argument and it doesn't necessarily generalize to the wealthy not paying their fair share in the economy as a whole.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
I don't disagree wit this either, but this is a specific argument and it doesn't necessarily generalize to the wealthy not paying their fair share in the economy as a whole.

It's an example. How many examples need to be shown before it can be said that the wealthy don't pay their fair share?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
I think as soon as you say "That's pretty obvious" you are now moving into more of a partisan slant.


Yes, of course. It's obvious to me that a system where I pay 7% on $5M+ income doesn't make any sense. But it's just my opinion, I'm not presenting it as anything more than that. By definition, any opinion about the "fair share" of tax burden is just an opinion.

Quote:
I happen to think that the taxes should go up, but it is hard to deny the way the President frames it -- to rally supporters -- is done in a populist manner (regardless of whether it is a populist issue or not).


pop·u·list n. 1. A supporter of the rights and power of the people.

Well, sure. What would you expect? If you're running on the policy platform that too much of the tax burden has been shifted to poor and middle class people because of the undue political influence of the wealthy (Barack Obama's actual position), then of course you're going to talk about how your policy is in the interest of the people and theirs isn't. What else would you do?

Quote:
Perhaps I am misreading this, but these two statements seem contradictory. When does he talk about, in his stump speeches, about eliminating the payroll tax and it costing the average middle-class american about $80/month. Where does he tell people that their taxes are getting ready to go up $1000/year? He doesn't. Why? Because that would be a foolish thing to say, whether it is true or not.


Yes, I think it's true that the President doesn't make his opponents' arguments for them. We have another party to make those arguments, it's not his job to make their case as well as his own. I fail to see how this is a criticism. I think it's just rationalization of your intense grudge against him. I really don't understand why you hate him so much, especially since his actual policies seem much, much closer to your own policy preferences. In hundreds of Obama attacks from you I don't think I've read a single substantive point on which you prefer Romney's position. Yet you just seem furious about things that if he were anyone else would be completely unremarkable.

Quote:
His stump speech is filled with half-truths.


Name one. Would you care to wager $10,000 on that? whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:

Yes, I think it's true that the President doesn't make his opponents' arguments for them. We have another party to make those arguments, it's not his job to make their case as well as his own. I fail to see how this is a criticism. I think it's just rationalization of your intense grudge against him. I really don't understand why you hate him so much, especially since his actual policies seem much, much closer to your own policy preferences. In hundreds of Obama attacks from you I don't think I've read a single substantive point on which you prefer Romney's position. Yet you just seem furious about things that if he were anyone else would be completely unremarkable.


It's not "their case". It is part of his case, part and parcel. He wants to solve problem "X", and to do that it is going to cost people $1,000/month. This would be like giving Romney a pass on his reducing the tax rates but no additional costs will be accrued by the middle-class -- oh yeah, it will also be revenue neutral. As a citizen, I would like to hear the good and bad of the plan -- not have to dig around through the website of the White House to find the specifics.

I don't "hate him so much". I have a set of issues that I find distasteful in American politics, and the President engages in them just as everyone else does. I don't give him or any other candidate a pass on it. I also think that it is much more honest if he were would be open about what is going to be expected of the American people to drag us out of this fiscal quagmire. I want to see a President that rallies us around a common cause, explains the nature of that sacrifice, and then moves us forward to address it. The type of campaigning the two candidates engage in is just "feed us another tidbit of good news" and nothing about honest answers.


It could even be argued that the entire "deficit reduction" plan is a lie as the CBO shows that after an initial decrease that is scheduled to rise forever.

In another thread, you indicated that not everyone can be as informed. So many people rely on a variety of outlets to get their information. As the the type of outlet changes and the level of detail that can be given decreases, then it becomes necessary for an unvarnished version of the truth to be given. As it is, it is like the details are hidden under lock-and-key for only the extremely engaged to find, and what is given to the masses is a completely one-sided versions that don't address some of the fundamental ways in which things will have to change for all Americans.

Quote:

Quote:
His stump speech is filled with half-truths.


Name one. Would you care to wager $10,000 on that? whistle


From the Center for Public Integrity
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/09/26/10984/fact-check-o...

Quote:

Obama correctly states that manufacturing jobs have increased by more than half a million since hitting bottom, but he fails to mention that the number regained is less than half the total lost since he took office.

He claims that “renewable” energy production has doubled on his watch,
which isn’t true (only wind and solar have doubled).

He claims he’d increase the tax rate on high-income earners to no more than they paid under Bill Clinton, when the truth is they’d pay more because of new taxes imposed to pay for the Affordable Care Act.

He says “independent analysis” validates that his plan would cut $4 trillion from the deficit. But that total is inflated by $1 trillion in “savings” from winding down wars that he has promised to end anyway.
He accuses Romney of proposing to raise taxes by $2,000 on middle-income taxpayers, when Romney has stated clearly that he wouldn’t do any such thing.

He attacks Romney’s plan for Medicare as a “voucher” system that would leave seniors “at the mercy of insurance companies,” when the fact is, it’s structured the same as the system Obama’s health care law sets up for subsidizing private insurance for persons under age 65.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
I happen to think that the taxes should go up, but it is hard to deny the way the President frames it -- to rally supporters -- is done in a populist manner (regardless of whether it is a populist issue or not).


You sound a lot like Leon Cooperman and Anthony Scaramucci. Do you think so too? Is that a positive or a negative comparison, in your view?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/08/121008fa_fact_...

I can sort of understand why Cooperman's ego makes him think that he (someone who became tremendously wealthy while creating exactly nothing of value to anyone) is underappreciated by the people who want to raise his tax rates to be comparable to the middle class. It's more confusing to me why you share these views.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.