They are right here.
|
||||
|
I am Tom Freeland,
a lawyer in Oxford, Mississippi. The picture in the header is my law office.
I'm on Twitter as NMissC
Missing Posts: If you have a link to a post that's not here or are looking for posts from Summer of 2010, check this page. Search NMC
PagesCategoriesBlogRollLaw: NationalMississippi & Local: BlogsMississippi & Local: PressPolitics |
Get the details of the Romney tax plan.22 comments to Get the details of the Romney tax plan. |
Write NMCtips, tirades, or just say hello at nmisscommentor (@) gmail.com
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
|
||
|
Copyright © 2013 Tom Freeland - All Rights Reserved
Technorati Profile
bys 69 queries. 0.712 seconds. %d bloggers like this: |
||||
What a joke on the American people. Romney will not give any details of the loopholes he would cut. He wants to “work with congress” on that part. Yeah! That sounds easy enough. Maybe we should look at a few.
How about the mortgage-interest deduction? I’m sure that would not upset or interfere with a fragile real estate market. Surly nobody that just bought a home was planning on that deduction for very long. Even so, that would only be a small dent in a 20% across the board tax cut.
No deduction for state and local taxes? I’m sure that would not bother most people. Still it’s just small change relatively speaking.
No charitable deductions? Sounds good to me! I’m sure the congress will run with this one.
401(k) exemption and employer-sponsored health insurance? Sure! Let’s put it all on the chopping block.
The truth is, even if you did all of these, you still can’t reach the 20% cuts. Revenue neutral with Romney’s tax plan is pure fiction.
Or right here:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/10/wsj-romneys-tax-deduction-cap-good-economics-better-politics.html
Then I guess they won’t need to cut that much!
It’s pure fantasy. A r i t h m e t i c as President Clinton said.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/romney-challenged-on-six-studies-validating-tax-plan.php?ref=fpa
i don’t blame Romney. He has nothing to gain from setting forth details of his tax plan. Had Obama set forth a reasonable budget, deficit-reduction plan of his own, there would be pressure on Romney to explain details. As it is, the economy is in the tank and when that happens, any alternate seems plausible. So, purely from a campaign standpoint, I don’t blame him.
Cute ad by DNC.
Why would Romney subject himself to the demagoguery of the left when he is steadily climbing in the polls? (Back to 52-45 on Gallup this afternoon and it will be worse on election day) The public understands what’s happening now that the MSM no longer has a monopoly.
As the link I provided states, it’s political and fiscal genius to cap deductions rather than outlaw any specific deductions.
“Had Obama set forth a reasonable budget, deficit-reduction plan of his own”
Sometimes, HD, you just make me want to puke.
Exactly, Anderson. They had a deal and then the Democrats forced Obama to welch on the deal and ask for more and it blew the process up. In response, the Petulant One threw a fit.
The way they got as much worked out as they did is that Reid, Pelosi, and Bohner kept Obama out of the negotiations from that point forward. That’s when Mitch McConnell said that the number one goal was to get rid of this President. Because his word is no good. You can’t deal with someone whose word is no good.
From 2009 until Jan. 2011, Dems controlled DC. Yet, Obama submitted….nothing. To blame Reps for his failings then or after is ridiculous.
“…pass this so we can read it…”
NUFF SAID!
I guess FP didn’t read this part:
That night he called Boehner asking if some elements of the Gang’s plan might be used to produce more revenues — Obama worried that the revenues would still fall short of what Democrats wanted.
Right. Obama could not control his party after he had agreed to the deal.
MSM/Democrats claimed Bohner could not control “tea-party” faction of his party but in reality, Obama could not control his side. He made a deal that he could not deliver on. Bohner was going to take the bullet.
I would wager that the Democratic Party leadership despise Obama more than the Republican’s do. They are merely stuck with the hand they dealt themselves when they chose The Messiah over Hillary, who would have beaten McCain as well and probably been able to get things done. She would have forged a bi-partisan agreement on health care, just about for sure. She certainly would not have been stupidly arrogant enough to proclaim “We won” as a negotiating stance.
Has any president before Obama failed to pass/implement a budget for the nation four years in a row?
If you are a Republican, I guess it helps for you to create your own alternate reality to get by. Either that or just be full bat-shit crazy.
No. Never.
I said early in Obama’s presidency that he would be the best thing for the Conservative Movement since William F. Buckley Jr. and I think I was right. I didn’t realize that he was also going to be responsible for the complete outing of the liberal bias in the Main Stream Media. Anyone who isn’t aware of it now is not capable of objective thought.
“Obama-Biden 2012 – More Of The Same”
John, the answer to your question is “no”, I assume, or we would have heard O’s campaign justify his failing as not unprecedented. (or maybe the campaign has not had much reason to defend it, since the Republicans have done a terrible job of making it an issue) O’s lack of leadership or ability to coalesce anything on the Hill is singular in modern history as far as i know.
Does anybody else get the feeling that Pinky just recently learned the meaning of the word “petulant”? He uses it to describe the president with the over-certain repetition of a student who just passed his vocabulary re-test and is thus cleared to play ball this Friday.
Anybody who thinks this GOP would not have pursued precisely the same obstructionist tactics against a female president named Clinton is too far gone to take seriously — not that there was much chance of that happening anyway.
If I were president, I’d instruct the Centers for Disease Control to declare this growing addiction to the cocktail of MSM paranoia, gullibility, self-pity and self-congratulation a national mental health epidemic. It’s like a non-traumatic stress disorder that convinces its affluent victims that no matter how much they have, no matter how well off they are compared to the rest of humanity past, present and future, it is not enough: you must be aggrieved, or you are nothing. It’s the new existentialism, where human freedom bows to the tyranny of unfounded resentment. Its initial symptoms are historical amnesia, uncontrollable vomiting of talking points, and catatonia at the progression toward a more pluralistic society. The most vulnerable are white men who have recently passed the mid-life stage, but nobody is fully immune.
Now open the blogroom door so Pinky can lob some lame comeback — randomly capitalized, a la a deteriorating crackpot — as he ducks out of here.
You’re right, Hootie. The Republicans have not done a good job on attacking him for not leading on the Hill. He has been an such Epic Failure and there is just so much to take issue with that it’s hard to get around to all of it, though.
He was President when the intelligence community and the military killed Bin Laden and that’s about all he’s got. And he has ruined any benefit of that by continuously spiking the football on it. Has any President ever been less gracious?
For me, it has been the best of times and the worst of times. It became clear to me early on that he was going to be so bad that liberalism would be exposed in a way that it hasn’t before. It must be really difficult for those who voted for him to come to terms with his failure.
The plan is to cut a deduction and then cut the rate to keep the revenue up, then again, then again,… The deductions to be chosen in a bipartisan manner. The list is in IRS Publication 17, all of them. Now he has specified that there could be a threshold on mortgage deductions so regular folks keep it and if you’re in a $5 million house that isn’t paid for you’ll only be able to deduct a small part of the interest. The main point is ‘bipartisan’, not something to shove down everyone’s throat and figure out what’s in it later.
Great post, Tom Sills.
This debate is the nail in the coffin. I almost feel sorry for the President.
So, you think Romney is “dodging” because he doesn’t detail exactly how HE (and he ALONE) would revised the mre than 71,600 pages of the US Tax code? You think, apparently, that he (and he alone) intends to make all the decisions on what should be changed and how it should be changed without any input by our elected representatives then cram it down our throats the way Obama/Pelosi did with Obamacare. Just can’t grasp the concept of ACTUALLY working across the aisle, huh? And, how hypocritical to complain about Romney getting unfair benefit from our current tax code then whine because he wants to change it. And, for extra credit, you employ the obligatory Democrat scare tactic: tell middle class people that Romney is going to eliminate the deduction of real estate interest. Hmmmph. Not likely. Even less likely that he’ll agree to eliminating the deduction for charitablegiving. Never fear, though. There is still 71,599+ other pages to consider.
Spot on. But it is a waste of breadth to discuss these things with folks who vote based on believing hope and change that we all wish could be, but cannot be. We are broke.