Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's like 08 all over again......
Unless you know what loopholes Romney plans on closing
That's the point of the analysis. Since he won't say, they approached his plan by giving him the benefit of the doubt: they started by assuming that "all available tax expenditures for higher-income households are completely eliminated" and only dipping into loopholes benefiting the middle class to close the deficits Romney opens up after the revenue that could be wrung out of the top had been exhausted. That's the most favorable analysis of Romney's suggestions that can be done. And it still raises the tax burden on the middle class.
There's no universe in which what he proposes is deficit neutral unless it raises the tax burden on the middle class.
It's like 08 all over again......
Hopefully, yes.
It's like 08 all over again......
Hopefully, yes.
Unless you know what loopholes Romney plans on closing
That's the point of the analysis. Since he won't say, they approached his plan by giving him the benefit of the doubt: they started by assuming that "all available tax expenditures for higher-income households are completely eliminated" and only dipping into loopholes benefiting the middle class to close the deficits Romney opens up after the revenue that could be wrung out of the top had been exhausted. That's the most favorable analysis of Romney's suggestions that can be done. And it still raises the tax burden on the middle class.
There's no universe in which what he proposes is deficit neutral unless it raises the tax burden on the middle class.
^^^ keyword bolded
It's like 08 all over again......
Hopefully, yes.
So it IS okay for Romney to act like 08 Obama with vague economic policies and plans that the doesn't have to follow though with?
Cool
That's the point of the analysis. Since he won't say, they approached his plan by giving him the benefit of the doubt: they started by assuming that "all available tax expenditures for higher-income households are completely eliminated" and only dipping into loopholes benefiting the middle class to close the deficits Romney opens up after the revenue that could be wrung out of the top had been exhausted. That's the most favorable analysis of Romney's suggestions that can be done. And it still raises the tax burden on the middle class.
There's no universe in which what he proposes is deficit neutral unless it raises the tax burden on the middle class.
^^^ keyword bolded
That's the assumption that Mitt would ultimately implement his plan in the way that minimizes the increased tax burden on the middle class.
Are you suggesting that's not a safe assumption? Mitt's going to raise the middle class's burden even more than the bare minimum he needs to in order to pay for his millionaires' tax cuts?
There might be a future for you on Mitt's PR team.
As I said , come back when you have facts not conjecture. If I want to play make believe, I'll go play with the kid with the My Little Pony avatar.
What say you?
As I said , come back when you have facts not conjecture. If I want to play make believe, I'll go play with the kid with the My Little Pony avatar.
Fact: there isn't enough revenue lost to "loopholes" for the wealthy to offset the wet sloppy kiss Mitt's rate changes offer them.
Thus making up that lost revenue requires taking it out of the middle class. Their tax burden goes up.
Not a hard argument to make, nor a hard one to understand. Something to the effect that Mitt Romney wants to raise your taxes while slashing them for millionaires will do fine. Hard-hitting, factual, and a concrete pocketbok issue. We'll see if they stick with the "Romney Hood" branding or find something even more fun.
As I said , come back when you have facts not conjecture. If I want to play make believe, I'll go play with the kid with the My Little Pony avatar.
Fact: there isn't enough revenue lost to "loopholes" for the wealthy to offset the wet sloppy kiss Mitt's rate changes offer them.
Thus making up that lost revenue requires taking it out of the middle class. Their tax burden goes up.
Not a hard argument to make, nor a hard one to understand. Something to the effect that Mitt Romney wants to raise your taxes while slashing them for millionaires will do fine. Hard-hitting, factual, and a concrete pocketbok issue. We'll see if they stick with the "Romney Hood" branding or find something even more fun.
Is the word "speculation" actually in your vocabulary or do you just use it selectively when it fits your Marxist ideology?
Fact: there isn't enough revenue lost to "loopholes" for the wealthy to offset the wet sloppy kiss Mitt's rate changes offer them.
Thus making up that lost revenue requires taking it out of the middle class. Their tax burden goes up.
Not a hard argument to make, nor a hard one to understand. Something to the effect that Mitt Romney wants to raise your taxes while slashing them for millionaires will do fine. Hard-hitting, factual, and a concrete pocketbok issue. We'll see if they stick with the "Romney Hood" branding or find something even more fun.
Is the word "speculation" actually in your vocabulary or do you just use it selectively when it fits your Marxist ideology?
Have you noticed that Democrats never seem to consider economic growth as a way to raise revenue?
I suspect there will be a few variations on the theme in the coming ad-valance.
A few early ads hint at some of the variations. Some, like this one, will point out how Romney personally benefits from screwing the middle class:
"Stretch" - Obama for America TV Ad - YouTube
Some might take the individual example approach:
The New Tax Calculator: President Obama's Plan vs. Mitt Romney's - YouTube
