|
|
On October 05 2012 01:13 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 01:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 17:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 04 2012 15:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 14:37 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2012 14:31 th3j35t3r wrote:
Romney has had the same platform since the start of his campaign, try proving me otherwise. All the people complaining probably only get their news from the Huffington post. I live in Southern NH, and as a Democrat I thought Mitt Romney did an excellent job as Governor. He was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and created the blueprint for the ACA in Massachusetts. He was quite liberal. But then he sold out his ideals to run for President. He is now pro-life, doesn't support the assault weapons ban he supported as Governor, and now says that the ACA, when even the advisers to Romney when he created his healthcare plan claim what he did in Mass is essentially the same as the ACA, is bad. So yes, his platform is same at the start of his campaign, but almost completely the opposite of what he did as Governor...So who are we electing? What are his plans? What is his tax plan?Please, tell me. Because no one, not even you, knows. Because he won't share them. So feel free to vote for the unknown. His tax plan is to cut rates and pay for them by eliminating deductions / exemptions. Exactly how much rates will be cut by and exactly which deductions / exemptions will pay for that is unknown as it will be battled over. Specifying which deduction / exemption you want to get rid of realistically opens you up to attacks from special interest groups. He has stated that his goal is a 20% cut in rates and that he puts a priority on keeping deductions / exemptions that encourage savings and investment. He has also stated that he wants the overall tax burden on the rich to not fall and that the overall plan should be revenue neutral. That's about as much detail as you can expect. The fact that he wants to cut taxes by 20% for everyone, but not cut taxes on the rich is a contradiction. He continues to repeat that he will make his plan revenue neutral, but still doesn't specify how. And it's been shown that meeting these goals are impossible. The "6 studies" he cites in support of his tax plans have been debunked. Yet you say he isn't vague? What part of "I will cut taxes and make it revenue neutral, but I will not tell you how" is not vague? If it's not vague, then what are the specifics? And it's not just that. He's going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with what? Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with what? He's going to reduce the deficit by cutting spending on what? He's already said that he's going to increase defense spending, wants to waste $700 in Medicare savings that was part of Obamacare, and deliver a large tax cut, so what will Romney cut to reduce the deficit? Not vague? Are you joking? There are ZERO specifics. What will Romney do? What will he cut? I have no fucking idea. No joking, candidates generally are short on details. Romney being short on details is nothing new. Obama didn't have a fully fleshed out Obamacare plan prior to taking office. Not fully fleshed out plan >> no plan
Lower rates paid for with fewer deductions / exemptions. Sounds like a not fully fleshed out plan to me.
|
On October 05 2012 01:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 01:13 rogzardo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 17:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 04 2012 15:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 14:37 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2012 14:31 th3j35t3r wrote:
Romney has had the same platform since the start of his campaign, try proving me otherwise. All the people complaining probably only get their news from the Huffington post. I live in Southern NH, and as a Democrat I thought Mitt Romney did an excellent job as Governor. He was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and created the blueprint for the ACA in Massachusetts. He was quite liberal. But then he sold out his ideals to run for President. He is now pro-life, doesn't support the assault weapons ban he supported as Governor, and now says that the ACA, when even the advisers to Romney when he created his healthcare plan claim what he did in Mass is essentially the same as the ACA, is bad. So yes, his platform is same at the start of his campaign, but almost completely the opposite of what he did as Governor...So who are we electing? What are his plans? What is his tax plan?Please, tell me. Because no one, not even you, knows. Because he won't share them. So feel free to vote for the unknown. His tax plan is to cut rates and pay for them by eliminating deductions / exemptions. Exactly how much rates will be cut by and exactly which deductions / exemptions will pay for that is unknown as it will be battled over. Specifying which deduction / exemption you want to get rid of realistically opens you up to attacks from special interest groups. He has stated that his goal is a 20% cut in rates and that he puts a priority on keeping deductions / exemptions that encourage savings and investment. He has also stated that he wants the overall tax burden on the rich to not fall and that the overall plan should be revenue neutral. That's about as much detail as you can expect. The fact that he wants to cut taxes by 20% for everyone, but not cut taxes on the rich is a contradiction. He continues to repeat that he will make his plan revenue neutral, but still doesn't specify how. And it's been shown that meeting these goals are impossible. The "6 studies" he cites in support of his tax plans have been debunked. Yet you say he isn't vague? What part of "I will cut taxes and make it revenue neutral, but I will not tell you how" is not vague? If it's not vague, then what are the specifics? And it's not just that. He's going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with what? Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with what? He's going to reduce the deficit by cutting spending on what? He's already said that he's going to increase defense spending, wants to waste $700 in Medicare savings that was part of Obamacare, and deliver a large tax cut, so what will Romney cut to reduce the deficit? Not vague? Are you joking? There are ZERO specifics. What will Romney do? What will he cut? I have no fucking idea. No joking, candidates generally are short on details. Romney being short on details is nothing new. Obama didn't have a fully fleshed out Obamacare plan prior to taking office. Not fully fleshed out plan >> no plan Lower rates paid for with fewer deductions / exemptions. Sounds like a not fully fleshed out plan to me.
If he had said anything about what the "fewer deductions" are going to be, then it would be the beginnings of a plan. As is it's a talking point. All he said last night was negative-that the eliminated deductions wouldn't increase payments by businesses (big or small), middle class americans, or rich americans...which is coincidentally everyone who was watching.
It's not even summing up to describe what he said as "lower taxes while lowering deductions." I don't see that as a plan, but that's just me.
|
On October 04 2012 23:48 Lord Zeya wrote:
If Romney knows that he can win the election by saying things that people want to hear, why does he say such ridiculous things such as the 47% comment, which, while it was supposed to be at a private meeting, doesn't change the fact that the internet will find ANYTHING you say or do. He's really not good at sounding good. Even public statements he's made just show off his incompetence at seeming like a normal person- "some of my best friends own nascar teams-" really, Romney?
The narrative that half of the country contributes nothing and rides the backs of hard-working "real" Americans is very popular among conservatives. Telling that story strengthens his credibility among conservatives, even though it might offend moderates (we'll disregard liberals since he's not getting their votes either way.)
Even many of the people who are in "the 47%" probably think he's talking about some other group of people, not people who really are working hard or are in a totally unique special situation like themselves.
|
On October 05 2012 01:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 01:13 rogzardo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 17:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 04 2012 15:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 14:37 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2012 14:31 th3j35t3r wrote:
Romney has had the same platform since the start of his campaign, try proving me otherwise. All the people complaining probably only get their news from the Huffington post. I live in Southern NH, and as a Democrat I thought Mitt Romney did an excellent job as Governor. He was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and created the blueprint for the ACA in Massachusetts. He was quite liberal. But then he sold out his ideals to run for President. He is now pro-life, doesn't support the assault weapons ban he supported as Governor, and now says that the ACA, when even the advisers to Romney when he created his healthcare plan claim what he did in Mass is essentially the same as the ACA, is bad. So yes, his platform is same at the start of his campaign, but almost completely the opposite of what he did as Governor...So who are we electing? What are his plans? What is his tax plan?Please, tell me. Because no one, not even you, knows. Because he won't share them. So feel free to vote for the unknown. His tax plan is to cut rates and pay for them by eliminating deductions / exemptions. Exactly how much rates will be cut by and exactly which deductions / exemptions will pay for that is unknown as it will be battled over. Specifying which deduction / exemption you want to get rid of realistically opens you up to attacks from special interest groups. He has stated that his goal is a 20% cut in rates and that he puts a priority on keeping deductions / exemptions that encourage savings and investment. He has also stated that he wants the overall tax burden on the rich to not fall and that the overall plan should be revenue neutral. That's about as much detail as you can expect. The fact that he wants to cut taxes by 20% for everyone, but not cut taxes on the rich is a contradiction. He continues to repeat that he will make his plan revenue neutral, but still doesn't specify how. And it's been shown that meeting these goals are impossible. The "6 studies" he cites in support of his tax plans have been debunked. Yet you say he isn't vague? What part of "I will cut taxes and make it revenue neutral, but I will not tell you how" is not vague? If it's not vague, then what are the specifics? And it's not just that. He's going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with what? Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with what? He's going to reduce the deficit by cutting spending on what? He's already said that he's going to increase defense spending, wants to waste $700 in Medicare savings that was part of Obamacare, and deliver a large tax cut, so what will Romney cut to reduce the deficit? Not vague? Are you joking? There are ZERO specifics. What will Romney do? What will he cut? I have no fucking idea. No joking, candidates generally are short on details. Romney being short on details is nothing new. Obama didn't have a fully fleshed out Obamacare plan prior to taking office. Not fully fleshed out plan >> no plan Lower rates paid for with fewer deductions / exemptions. Sounds like a not fully fleshed out plan to me.
Romney gives literally zero specifics.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3658
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/30/romneys-budget-would-require-a-40-cut-to-everything-but-medicare-social-security-and-defense/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/02/this-is-how-you-do-the-math-on-the-romney-ryan-tax-plan/
Seriously. All he does is promise tax cuts, increased military spending, and then says it will all be paid for by vague promises of fewer deductions/exemptions. It's not a plan, it's a soundbyte.
|
Funny seeing all these pro-Obama people bash Romney for lying.
Romney is a liar and so is Obama, they are nothing but politicians trying to get elected.
You people need to wake up and realize Hopey McChangey has never been the warm, fuzzy friend you thought he'd be. He's a slime ball politician from Chicago, just like Romney is a slimeball politican from a career political family.
|
On October 05 2012 01:32 Zaqwert wrote:
Funny seeing all these pro-Obama people bash Romney for lying.
Romney is a liar and so is Obama, they are nothing but politicians trying to get elected.
You people need to wake up and realize Hopey McChangey has never been the warm, fuzzy friend you thought he'd be. He's a slime ball politician from Chicago, just like Romney is a slimeball politican from a career political family.
Oh gee thanks for the enlightenment, Mr. "Regurgitate Internet Ron Paul Quotes". I'm sure you've just taught everyone oh so much.
|
I'm really amused at the post mortem comments from some of the liberals in this thread, particularly all these remarks about how Romney lied his ass off. These comments are as delusional as the pre-debate comments about how Obama is a superior debater to Romney.
|
On October 05 2012 01:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 01:13 rogzardo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 17:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 04 2012 15:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 14:37 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2012 14:31 th3j35t3r wrote:
Romney has had the same platform since the start of his campaign, try proving me otherwise. All the people complaining probably only get their news from the Huffington post. I live in Southern NH, and as a Democrat I thought Mitt Romney did an excellent job as Governor. He was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and created the blueprint for the ACA in Massachusetts. He was quite liberal. But then he sold out his ideals to run for President. He is now pro-life, doesn't support the assault weapons ban he supported as Governor, and now says that the ACA, when even the advisers to Romney when he created his healthcare plan claim what he did in Mass is essentially the same as the ACA, is bad. So yes, his platform is same at the start of his campaign, but almost completely the opposite of what he did as Governor...So who are we electing? What are his plans? What is his tax plan?Please, tell me. Because no one, not even you, knows. Because he won't share them. So feel free to vote for the unknown. His tax plan is to cut rates and pay for them by eliminating deductions / exemptions. Exactly how much rates will be cut by and exactly which deductions / exemptions will pay for that is unknown as it will be battled over. Specifying which deduction / exemption you want to get rid of realistically opens you up to attacks from special interest groups. He has stated that his goal is a 20% cut in rates and that he puts a priority on keeping deductions / exemptions that encourage savings and investment. He has also stated that he wants the overall tax burden on the rich to not fall and that the overall plan should be revenue neutral. That's about as much detail as you can expect. The fact that he wants to cut taxes by 20% for everyone, but not cut taxes on the rich is a contradiction. He continues to repeat that he will make his plan revenue neutral, but still doesn't specify how. And it's been shown that meeting these goals are impossible. The "6 studies" he cites in support of his tax plans have been debunked. Yet you say he isn't vague? What part of "I will cut taxes and make it revenue neutral, but I will not tell you how" is not vague? If it's not vague, then what are the specifics? And it's not just that. He's going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with what? Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with what? He's going to reduce the deficit by cutting spending on what? He's already said that he's going to increase defense spending, wants to waste $700 in Medicare savings that was part of Obamacare, and deliver a large tax cut, so what will Romney cut to reduce the deficit? Not vague? Are you joking? There are ZERO specifics. What will Romney do? What will he cut? I have no fucking idea. No joking, candidates generally are short on details. Romney being short on details is nothing new. Obama didn't have a fully fleshed out Obamacare plan prior to taking office. Not fully fleshed out plan >> no plan Lower rates paid for with fewer deductions / exemptions. Sounds like a not fully fleshed out plan to me.
The only plan that has been released he completely dismissed in the debates. Obama brought it up and Romney was like "Oh no. We're not doing that."
It's amazing how Romney talks like this. Completely dismissive of something he's been running on for a while now. You have absolutely no idea what he's going to do in office, because he keeps dismissing his own policies.
|
For everyone else in the world outside america Obama has been a let down.
European governments still prefer Obama over Romney though, if they would have the choise.
Maybe the expectations where to high, first black president and given the noble peace price.
Somehow manny people had big hopes that things would change in the whole world for the better.
This has not happend, Obama is not the great leader and inspirator the world was hoping for and is just as conservative as anny other usa president.
He continued basicly the same usa foreign policy wich bush had.
He can get 4 more years but that will be 4 dull wasted years,
Struggling with the gop congress to get annything done in america, and not having the leadership and vision to realy change the world outside america for the better either.
Maybe its best to give romney a change, as i dont see obama becoming a great world leader in the next 4 years either.
|
On October 05 2012 01:32 Zaqwert wrote:
Funny seeing all these pro-Obama people bash Romney for lying.
Romney is a liar and so is Obama, they are nothing but politicians trying to get elected.
You people need to wake up and realize Hopey McChangey has never been the warm, fuzzy friend you thought he'd be. He's a slime ball politician from Chicago, just like Romney is a slimeball politican from a career political family.
So we shouldn't point out lies? I'm happy to discuss Obama's "lies".
Most fact checkers (such as the factcheck.org article I linked earlier) says that Obama calling Romney's plan a $5T tax cut is a lie, because he would find loopholes to close, therefore making it revenue neutral. So it's a "$0" tax plan that will somehow boost the economy without costing anything. But these fact checkers, in the very next paragraph admit that it's impossible to find enough loopholes to close that would make his plan revenue neutral. But the plan DOES contain $5T of gross tax cuts. On net, it might be less if Romney closed some loopholes, but he refuses to name a single one that he would close.
So essentially, the fact checkers are saying Obama lied because we can't hold Romney to what he's said about his tax plans, because there's a unspecified, mathematically impossible magic asterisks that will magically fix everything.
And Romney is saying you can't criticize my plan because I have no plan.
|
On October 05 2012 01:45 xDaunt wrote:
I'm really amused at the post mortem comments from some of the liberals in this thread, particularly all these remarks about how Romney lied his ass off. These comments are as delusional as the pre-debate comments about how Obama is a superior debater to Romney.
What i so amusing about pointing out lies? I would think that this is rather serious and should be taken seriously.
|
On October 05 2012 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 01:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:13 rogzardo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 17:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 04 2012 15:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 14:37 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2012 14:31 th3j35t3r wrote:
Romney has had the same platform since the start of his campaign, try proving me otherwise. All the people complaining probably only get their news from the Huffington post. I live in Southern NH, and as a Democrat I thought Mitt Romney did an excellent job as Governor. He was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and created the blueprint for the ACA in Massachusetts. He was quite liberal. But then he sold out his ideals to run for President. He is now pro-life, doesn't support the assault weapons ban he supported as Governor, and now says that the ACA, when even the advisers to Romney when he created his healthcare plan claim what he did in Mass is essentially the same as the ACA, is bad. So yes, his platform is same at the start of his campaign, but almost completely the opposite of what he did as Governor...So who are we electing? What are his plans? What is his tax plan?Please, tell me. Because no one, not even you, knows. Because he won't share them. So feel free to vote for the unknown. His tax plan is to cut rates and pay for them by eliminating deductions / exemptions. Exactly how much rates will be cut by and exactly which deductions / exemptions will pay for that is unknown as it will be battled over. Specifying which deduction / exemption you want to get rid of realistically opens you up to attacks from special interest groups. He has stated that his goal is a 20% cut in rates and that he puts a priority on keeping deductions / exemptions that encourage savings and investment. He has also stated that he wants the overall tax burden on the rich to not fall and that the overall plan should be revenue neutral. That's about as much detail as you can expect. The fact that he wants to cut taxes by 20% for everyone, but not cut taxes on the rich is a contradiction. He continues to repeat that he will make his plan revenue neutral, but still doesn't specify how. And it's been shown that meeting these goals are impossible. The "6 studies" he cites in support of his tax plans have been debunked. Yet you say he isn't vague? What part of "I will cut taxes and make it revenue neutral, but I will not tell you how" is not vague? If it's not vague, then what are the specifics? And it's not just that. He's going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with what? Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with what? He's going to reduce the deficit by cutting spending on what? He's already said that he's going to increase defense spending, wants to waste $700 in Medicare savings that was part of Obamacare, and deliver a large tax cut, so what will Romney cut to reduce the deficit? Not vague? Are you joking? There are ZERO specifics. What will Romney do? What will he cut? I have no fucking idea. No joking, candidates generally are short on details. Romney being short on details is nothing new. Obama didn't have a fully fleshed out Obamacare plan prior to taking office. Not fully fleshed out plan >> no plan Lower rates paid for with fewer deductions / exemptions. Sounds like a not fully fleshed out plan to me. The only plan that has been released he completely dismissed in the debates. Obama brought it up and Romney was like "Oh no. We're not doing that." It's amazing how Romney talks like this. Completely dismissive of something he's been running on for a while now. You have absolutely no idea what he's going to do in office, because he keeps dismissing his own policies. I'm still trying to get my head around how he managed to get a free ride on claiming that he's NOT going to cut taxes on the rich, when his plan (on his own website) calls for a 20% marginal tax cut on EVERYONE.
|
On October 05 2012 01:50 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 01:32 Zaqwert wrote:
Funny seeing all these pro-Obama people bash Romney for lying.
Romney is a liar and so is Obama, they are nothing but politicians trying to get elected.
You people need to wake up and realize Hopey McChangey has never been the warm, fuzzy friend you thought he'd be. He's a slime ball politician from Chicago, just like Romney is a slimeball politican from a career political family. So we shouldn't point out lies? I'm happy to discuss Obama's "lies". Most fact checkers (such as the factcheck.org article I linked earlier) says that Obama calling Romney's plan a $5T tax cut is a lie, because he would find loopholes to close, therefore making it revenue neutral. So it's a "$0" tax plan that will somehow boost the economy without costing anything. But these fact checkers, in the very next paragraph admit that it's impossible to find enough loopholes to close that would make his plan revenue neutral. But the plan DOES contain $5T of gross tax cuts. On net, it might be less if Romney closed some loopholes, but he refuses to name a single one that he would close. So essentially, the fact checkers are saying Obama lied because we can't hold Romney to what he's said about his tax plans, because there's a unspecified, mathematically impossible magic asterisks that will magically fix everything. And Romney is saying you can't criticize my plan because I have no plan.
That's funny you mention factcheck.org because the first thing I saw was "Romney and Obama swap exaggerations and false claims in their first meeting." They are both liars. The false claim Obama made Romney shut him down on it repeatedly, the $5 trillion tax cut comment specifically.
|
Listening to the radio was funny today. "Did you watch MSNBC post-debate? It was like someone had just shot their dog."
|
On October 04 2012 22:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 20:51 DoubleReed wrote:
From what I saw Romney won the debate by acting more liberal than Obama and just straight up lying about everything he has said up to this point. I suppose that's one way to do it. Anyone have a time machine so they can travel back to the primary season and leak this debate onto the internet? Preferably during the time when Herman Cain was ahead so we could have some chuckles.
i got you.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-5-2011/indecision-2012---the-sh-t-s-gettin--real
|
On October 05 2012 01:56 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 05 2012 01:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:13 rogzardo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 17:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 04 2012 15:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 14:37 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2012 14:31 th3j35t3r wrote:
Romney has had the same platform since the start of his campaign, try proving me otherwise. All the people complaining probably only get their news from the Huffington post. I live in Southern NH, and as a Democrat I thought Mitt Romney did an excellent job as Governor. He was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and created the blueprint for the ACA in Massachusetts. He was quite liberal. But then he sold out his ideals to run for President. He is now pro-life, doesn't support the assault weapons ban he supported as Governor, and now says that the ACA, when even the advisers to Romney when he created his healthcare plan claim what he did in Mass is essentially the same as the ACA, is bad. So yes, his platform is same at the start of his campaign, but almost completely the opposite of what he did as Governor...So who are we electing? What are his plans? What is his tax plan?Please, tell me. Because no one, not even you, knows. Because he won't share them. So feel free to vote for the unknown. His tax plan is to cut rates and pay for them by eliminating deductions / exemptions. Exactly how much rates will be cut by and exactly which deductions / exemptions will pay for that is unknown as it will be battled over. Specifying which deduction / exemption you want to get rid of realistically opens you up to attacks from special interest groups. He has stated that his goal is a 20% cut in rates and that he puts a priority on keeping deductions / exemptions that encourage savings and investment. He has also stated that he wants the overall tax burden on the rich to not fall and that the overall plan should be revenue neutral. That's about as much detail as you can expect. The fact that he wants to cut taxes by 20% for everyone, but not cut taxes on the rich is a contradiction. He continues to repeat that he will make his plan revenue neutral, but still doesn't specify how. And it's been shown that meeting these goals are impossible. The "6 studies" he cites in support of his tax plans have been debunked. Yet you say he isn't vague? What part of "I will cut taxes and make it revenue neutral, but I will not tell you how" is not vague? If it's not vague, then what are the specifics? And it's not just that. He's going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with what? Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with what? He's going to reduce the deficit by cutting spending on what? He's already said that he's going to increase defense spending, wants to waste $700 in Medicare savings that was part of Obamacare, and deliver a large tax cut, so what will Romney cut to reduce the deficit? Not vague? Are you joking? There are ZERO specifics. What will Romney do? What will he cut? I have no fucking idea. No joking, candidates generally are short on details. Romney being short on details is nothing new. Obama didn't have a fully fleshed out Obamacare plan prior to taking office. Not fully fleshed out plan >> no plan Lower rates paid for with fewer deductions / exemptions. Sounds like a not fully fleshed out plan to me. The only plan that has been released he completely dismissed in the debates. Obama brought it up and Romney was like "Oh no. We're not doing that." It's amazing how Romney talks like this. Completely dismissive of something he's been running on for a while now. You have absolutely no idea what he's going to do in office, because he keeps dismissing his own policies. I'm still trying to get my head around how he managed to get a free ride on claiming that he's NOT going to cut taxes on the rich, when his plan (on his own website) calls for a 20% marginal tax cut on EVERYONE.
Paid for by reducing deductions / exemptions.
|
I find it funny that people acutally expected Romney to stay so far to the right for the general election. Of course he moved to the center, and he will stay there when he gets into office. The hardcore right in America is just plain stupid and should be rightly ignored once their zeal has been tapped in the primaries. I don't see why Romney won't legislate from the White House the same way he legislated from Mass. Of course the Repbulican congress will have the most say in how he operates.
|
Blue Truth, Red Truth
Relevant story from the Time website about fact checking and the proclivity of both left and right to believe their "facts", even when presented with correcting information.
|
On October 05 2012 02:01 Smat wrote:
I find it funny that people acutally expected Romney to stay so far to the right for the general election. Of course he moved to the center, and he will stay there when he gets into office. The hardcore right in America is just plain stupid and should be rightly ignored once their zeal has been tapped in the primaries. I don't see why Romney won't legislate from the White House the same way he legislated from Mass. Of course the Repbulican congress will have the most say in how he operates.
I just think it makes the Romney/Ryan ticket really awkward. An Ayn Rand enthusiast is exactly that type of crazy right you're talking about. They don't even agree. It just makes it weird how Ryan's only purpose was clearly to energize the right, but they don't actually agree on anything besides "cut taxes", which is pretty much standard across every single Republican to ever exist.
|
On October 05 2012 02:01 Smat wrote:
I find it funny that people acutally expected Romney to stay so far to the right for the general election. Of course he moved to the center, and he will stay there when he gets into office. The hardcore right in America is just plain stupid and should be rightly ignored once their zeal has been tapped in the primaries. I don't see why Romney won't legislate from the White House the same way he legislated from Mass. Of course the Repbulican congress will have the most say in how he operates.
The thing is, if he actually campaigned that way he would win the election easily. I consider myself fiscally conservative but socially liberal, and hate that I can never vote Republican, even if I think their economic/role of government ideas make sense, because their social policies on things like abortion and gay marriage are so batshit crazy. If a Republican candidate can convince me he won't attempt to repeal basic women's rights we've had for decades or continue a pointless war on homosexuals being able to marry, I'd probably vote for him. But with a Republican congress and a Republican party pressuring him to stick to the party line, I don't see it happening.
Think about it, if he put himself squarely in the middle of the two parties (after securing the nomination of course), he would be endearing himself to a lot of people on the fence who are worried about the economy while Republicans would still be forced to vote for him because the alternative is Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
