Mitt Romney

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Mitt Romney

Postby Chilidog » Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:20 pm

Mitt on science[/break1]sciencedebate.org/debate12/]http://www.sciencedebate.org/debate12/

Unfortunately, President Obama has repeatedly manipulated technical data to support a regulatory agenda guided by politics rather than science. For example, his “Utility MACT” rule is purportedly aimed at reducing mercury pollution, yet the EPA estimates that the rule will cost $10 billion to reduce mercury pollution by only $6 million (with an “m”).

What?

I will pursue a North American Energy Partnership so that America can benefit from the resources of its neighbors.

Apparently he intends to steal Canada's oil.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 6002
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Mitt Romney

Postby RTH10260 » Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Mitt on science[/break1]sciencedebate.org/debate12/]http://www.sciencedebate.org/debate12/

Unfortunately, President Obama has repeatedly manipulated technical data to support a regulatory agenda guided by politics rather than science. For example, his “Utility MACT” rule is purportedly aimed at reducing mercury pollution, yet the EPA estimates that the rule will cost $10 billion to [highlight]reduce mercury pollution by only $6 million[/highlight](with an “m”).

I see the pure breed of a capitalist thinking only in terms of $$$ ond being oblivious of how much damage these "only $6mio" make to the environment. Maybe time to tell him how many 10s of $billions he needs to use to clean up the mess. But then again, Cayman Islands are still an idylic place to use up the retirement funds.

Jocelyn9596
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 5:50 am

Mitt Romney

Postby Jocelyn9596 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:39 am

Mitt Romney's taxes is not something the RNC wants to be talked about at all, if possible. The last thing they want is some silly story about Anonymous hacking his tax returns. While I seriously doubt anyone has his tax returns (other than McCain or someone who won't use it), this is the last thing they want back in the papers.Adding a serious federal felony (extortion) to the whole prank, virtually guaranteeing an investigation, is also the last thing they want. Compare to Karl Rove's BS. It's not illegal to bug your own office (depending on what you do with it).

McCain is the only person that we're aware of who has seen Romney's tax returns and yet he never called Harry Reid a liar! :o

Adrianinflorida
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:07 pm
Location: South Detroit

Mitt Romney

Postby Adrianinflorida » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:34 am

Mitt on science

I will pursue a North American Energy Partnership so that America can benefit from the resources of its neighbors.

Apparently he intends to steal Canada's oil.

Maybe Mitt will tell us that the Canadians have WMDs (Anne Murray and Bryan Adams) and threatened George Romney's life because of the crappy Pacer and Gremlin. Then a regime change in Canada will be necessary

hitch
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:52 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby hitch » Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:08 am

I didn't get to see what was played at the Dem convention from the 1994 Romney-Kennedy debates, so I went and watched the whole debate (gotta love the internet).I always knew that Romney did a major flip on abortion, but was surprised at what how firmly pro-choice he was and [highlight=#ffff00]why[/highlight]. In the debate he makes an excellent argument (at 2.26 in the clip) both for being pro-choice and not forcing one's beliefs on another. Abortion has been legal for so long, it's hard to remember how woman were frequently permanently damaged or died from botched abortions. Romney apparently has first hand experience of losing a close relative to a botched abortion.The guy was 47 at this point. I realize that people change their beliefs all the time, but given what he says here plus his age at the time, I don't see how anyone can see his switch as anything other than sickeningly opportunistic.[BBvideo 425,350:3gpaozv2]http://www.veoh.com/watch/v37061681ntmNetSf[/BBvideo]

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Mitt Romney

Postby Chilidog » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:08 am

Backtracking a bit, I stumbled across this on another board

My guess is that Romney has finally figured it out how to get the left to "BACK-OFF!" the taxes issue, thus the remark in Michigan."Although some on the right were disappointed that Romney did not pursue this, he was wise not to.  This was not the right time.  The right time is during a debate.  At least one moderator will find Romney's bait irresistible, and I am guessing it will be CNN's Candy Crowley."   

LOL

User avatar
optimusprime
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:06 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby optimusprime » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:10 am

From Admiral Fitzfundfilcher's site:[imgwidth=640]http://thejaghunter.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/airborne-chair.jpg?w=1260&h=1233[/imgwidth]What is going on here?

One heck of a photoshop. The message withstanding, the version of the Blackhawk is not in service at this time, nor is the uniforms the soldiers are wearing. PLUS, the chair is way too big with respect to the photo and trust me, as an Air Assault qualified Commissioned Officer, because of its characteristics, WOULD HAVE NEVER been attached to the underside of the airframe in such a dangerous fashion...Oh, and the downwash from the propellor blades would make soldiers sitting and reading in such a position without their safety harnesses very, very unsafe. Again, the message withstanding, if they are going to photoshop a message, do it right!

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15717
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby TollandRCR » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:14 am

One heck of a photoshop. The message withstanding, the version of the Blackhawk is not in service at this time, nor is the uniforms the soldiers are wearing. PLUS, the chair is way too big with respect to the photo and trust me, as an Air Assault qualified Commissioned Officer, because of its characteristics, WOULD HAVE NEVER been attached to the underside of the airframe in such a dangerous fashion...Oh, and the downwash from the propellor blades would make soldiers sitting and reading in such a position without their safety harnesses very, very unsafe. Again, the message withstanding, if they are going to photoshop a message, do it right!

A definitive answer. Expect to see this "photo" elsewhere as proof of military opposition to the President. If Orly finds it, she will want the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all those soldiers in the photo. "Drake" will announce this as confirmation that the military is in rebellion.

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4329
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Mitt Romney

Postby Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:19 am

[/break1]ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ODD_EASTWOOD_CHAIR_TRAIL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-04-23-53-48]http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 4-23-53-48

These days, wherever you see Clint Eastwood, an empty chair is sure to follow. Even if you're on a hike.A life-sized cutout of a cowboy Eastwood has stood on a trail overlooking a Southern California freeway for months, but on Tuesday a pair of chairs were next to him, one also a cardboard cutout, the other an actual wooden chair.


User avatar
AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby AnitaMaria » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:04 am

I didn't get to see what was played at the Dem convention from the 1994 Romney-Kennedy debates, so I went and watched the whole debate (gotta love the internet).I always knew that Romney did a major flip on abortion, but was surprised at what how firmly pro-choice he was and [highlight=#ffff00]why[/highlight]. In the debate he makes an excellent argument (at 2.26 in the clip) both for being pro-choice and not forcing one's beliefs on another. Abortion has been legal for so long, it's hard to remember how woman were frequently permanently damaged or died from botched abortions. Romney apparently has first hand experience of losing a close relative to a botched abortion.The guy was 47 at this point. I realize that people change their beliefs all the time, but given what he says here plus his age at the time, I don't see how anyone can see his switch as anything other than sickeningly opportunistic. [snip video]

Here is what he said in 2002 when he ran for governor. He said he "will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." But note that his opponent seems skeptical about his commitment to the pro-choice position. A lot of people were, including me. Our skepticism was well-founded.

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 10615
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby kate520 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:29 am

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ODD_EASTWOOD_CHAIR_TRAIL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-04-23-53-48

These days, wherever you see Clint Eastwood, an empty chair is sure to follow. Even if you're on a hike.A life-sized cutout of a cowboy Eastwood has stood on a trail overlooking a Southern California freeway for months, but on Tuesday a pair of chairs were next to him, one also a cardboard cutout, the other an actual wooden chair.

That's near my house! There are 5 cowboys off of the 2 fwy. One is Eastwick, one is john Wayne. We haven't identified the others yet. Sprout sees them from the bus every day in his way to schoolI'll have to go check out this latest addition.

hitch
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:52 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby hitch » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:23 pm

Here is what he said in 2002 when he ran for governor. He said he "will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." But note that his opponent seems skeptical about his commitment to the pro-choice position. A lot of people were, including me. [highlight=#ffff00]Our skepticism was well-founded.[/highlight][video removed]

What have I missed? I've found nothing indicating that Romney as governor ever did anything contrary to supporting a woman's right to chosoe. Even McCain's opposition research seems to indicate that when the rubber hit the road his actions as Governor supported a woman's right to choose.

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 4546
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Mitt Romney

Postby Sugar Magnolia » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:38 pm

Here is what he said in 2002 when he ran for governor. He said he "will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." But note that his opponent seems skeptical about his commitment to the pro-choice position. A lot of people were, including me. [highlight=#ffff00]Our skepticism was well-founded.[/highlight][video removed]

What have I missed? I've found nothing indicating that Romney as governor ever did anything contrary to supporting a woman's right to chosoe. Even McCain's opposition research seems to indicate that when the rubber hit the road his actions as Governor supported a woman's right to choose.

I think they're referring to his commitment long-term, as evidenced by his current position.

User avatar
AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby AnitaMaria » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:50 pm

Thanks Sugar. That's exactly what I meant. It's interesting that right-wingers are skeptical of Romney's conservatism now because when he was running for governor, liberals were expressing the same skepticism about his commitment to the moderate positions he was espousing then.

hitch
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:52 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby hitch » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:01 pm

I just stumbled across this clip with Lenore Romney talking about how George Romney was on welfare for the first few years of his life (apparently when the family returned from Mexico). She talks about it at ~58 s mark. It's interesting to see how she tried to downplay their wealth, "we only owned our house 4 years", that might have been true but it certainly wasn't their first house.The Mormom church also notes that the US Government and the city of El Paso helped out:

The colonists arrived in El Paso with no assurance of where they would stay or what would become of them. But, Brother Turley said, "almost immediately,[highlight=#ffff00]assistance from a variety of sources[/highlight], including the Church, t[highlight=#ffff00]he U.S. government, and the City of El Paso[/highlight], became available to the refugees. In particular, charitable acts of service by the citizens and municipal government of El Paso greatly blessed the newly arrived Latter-day Saints. On Aug. 1, 1912, the Deseret News of Salt Lake City reported, 'To the credit of the El Pasoans and others active in the relief work, it must be said that everything possible is being done for the refugees.' "The displaced colonists were encamped temporarily in makeshift quarters at a former lumber yard. Later, [highlight=#ffff00]the U.S. government offered to transport the refugees to any section of the country at no cost[/highlight], Brother Turley said. Thus, before winter, they were "scattered like wheat from the Rio Grande on the south to Canada on the north," one observer said.

[/break1]ldschurchnews.com/articles/62602/Finding-refuge-in-El-Paso.html]http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/6 ... -Paso.html

hitch
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:52 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby hitch » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:33 pm

Thanks Sugar. That's exactly what I meant. It's interesting that right-wingers are skeptical of Romney's conservatism now because when he was running for governor, liberals were expressing the same skepticism about his commitment to the moderate positions he was espousing then.

Ok, but I really still don't get it. As far I can see the RW have every reason to be skeptical, his actions as Governor demonstrated a commitment to maintaining a woman's right to choose. Liberals had no such record to point to.I get that the Democrats who were running against him tried to paint him as anti-choice, it was in their interest to do so. I get that once he moved onto the national stage to run for President he changed his position. But other than saying -- see he's changed -- is there anything he did while in office that did not support a woman's right to chose?How in the world could any Republican running for the nomination not claim to be pro-life? Every Republican since Ronald Reagan has "turned" "pro-life" when running at the national level, if they weren't already. You simply cannot win the Republican nomination unless you are. You can't even get the veep position unless you claim to be. GWH Bush did a 180 and became "pro-life" when getting the nod from Reagan. He didn't just say he would support Reagan position, he said he had a conversion and was now "pro-life". The "pro-life" platform has, IMO, shored up the Republican party losing racist Southern strategy -- replacing the lost votes as most of the country has evolved. I think without a strictly pro-life platform, they wouldn't have managed their presidential wins. Hell Reagan really just squeaked in in 1980 in terms of the popular vote.So to me, pointing to Romney's conversion when seeking the Republican presidential nomination does not provide support he was not pro-choice earlier. It just supports that it's a litmus test for the Republican nomination.

User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 3145
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby MsDaisy » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:11 pm

Ok, but I really still don't get it. How in the world could any Republican running for the nomination not claim to be pro-life?

Well if he is "pro-choice" (and I agree more with Kennedy on multiple choice) then he certainly ought to have the balls to just come out and say so, fuck the party platform, and fuck the politics. This comes down to how the people in this country see him, and they would have more respect for him (even some republicans IMO) if he just canned the wishy washy flip flopping shit and made his true position clear (what ever it is). There are such things as pro choice republicans, I know some personally. Obama came out in support of marriage equality even though he knew it would stir controversy, and what happened? Many people who were on the fence with the issue rallied around and jumped right in behind him. This is the problem with conservatives. NO BALLS. [-(

hitch
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:52 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby hitch » Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:16 pm

Ok, but I really still don't get it. How in the world could any Republican running for the nomination not claim to be pro-life?

Well if he is "pro-choice" (and I agree more with Kennedy on multiple choice) then he certainly ought to have the balls to just come out and say so, fuck the party platform, and fuck the politics. This comes down to how the people in this country see him, and they would have more respect for him (even some republicans IMO) if he just canned the wishy washy flip flopping shit and made his true position clear (what ever it is). There are such things as pro choice republicans, I know some personally. Obama came out in support of marriage equality even though he knew it would stir controversy, and what happened? Many people who were on the fence with the issue rallied around and jumped right in behind him. This is the problem with conservatives. NO BALLS. [-(

When Romney did make his position abundantly clear apparently a lot of people didn't believe him, even [highlight=#ffff00]when his actions matched his words[/highlight]. It's not like all Democrats started out pro-choice (Kennedy) or pro-civil rights (Johnson), yet they went on and did great things.Sorry, but I am becoming convinced that this really is about not liking Romney.As for Obama supporting gay marriage, there is no similarity. The solid base of the Democratic party is not anti-gay marriage. Being against it has not been a litmus test for the Democratic presidential nomination. Further there was absolutely NO risk that Obama, as a sitting president, would lose the 2012 nomination over his stance. Did I think he was principled -- maybe? But I definitely believe 1) he knows how to read the polls and is riding the tide and 2) if he thought it would cost him the nomination or election he wouldn't have done it. A more apt comparison would be if Obama came out and said he was "pro-life" when he was first running for the Dem nomination. The base of the Democratic party is pro-choice. There was no way he would have gotten the nomination. I there is a person in this nation who believes that a Democrat candidate could get the presidential nomination if they ran as "pro-life". In fact, slowly the Democratic party has become just as intolerant of "pro-life" as the Repub are of "pro-choice". As adamantly pro-choice as I am, I actually have a problem with this. I think this has cost us the house because some would rather put up an unelectable pro-choice candidate in a pro-life district and lose the frigging seat than have a impure "pro-life" democrat in the seat. Me, I would rather have a "pro-life" Democrat and control the house or senate. I know that if the Republican's control I am in far worse shape than if a Democrats control with some "pro-life" dems sitting in seats.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 9247
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Mitt Romney

Postby esseff44 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:39 pm

There were a number of pro-life Democrats in the Blue Dog caucus. Some of the lost to Tea Party candidates. There are a number who consider themselves anti-abortion but pro-choice. It's not that different that a number of Democrats who are against capital punishment but still get elected because they vow to respect the law as it is rather that how they think it should be.I disagree about Obama's shift on gay marriage. I made that same shift a long time ago. It took seeing people I cared about being denied their pursuit of happiness for no good reason that I could think of. A lot of people came to the same conclusions at different times. It was a risk for Obama....not for the Dem. nomination but for the tough fight he's up against now. It is very risky in swing states where the same-sex amendments or initiatives are on the November ballot because it might bring out the backlash to the movement.I feel I know where Obama stands both in his personal beliefs and how he will adhere to the laws and the promises he made. With Romney, no one is sure of anything except that he wants to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest.

User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 3145
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby MsDaisy » Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:51 pm

When Romney did make his position abundantly clear apparently a lot of people didn't believe him, even [highlight=#ffff00]when his actions matched his words[/highlight]. It's not like all Democrats started out pro-choice (Kennedy) or pro-civil rights (Johnson), yet they went on and did great things.

The problem with people believing Romney when he “attempts” to make his position clear on abortion is that he keeps flip-flopping what he says so how can anyone believe him regardless of his actions. His positions on abortion have regressed, not progressed.





From PolitiFact:


[/break1]politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/22/american-bridge-21st-century/pac-ad-sketches-romney-abortion-flip-flopper/]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... p-flopper/





For one, in a debate later in the 1994 race against Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, Romney said, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country." And, [highlight=#ffff80]"I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, it should be sustained and supported. And I sustain and support that law and support the right of a woman to make that choice."[/highlight]


For another, in his 2002 campaign for governor, Romney said during a debate, [highlight=#ffff80]"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard."[/highlight]

Then he flips backwards





It’s well-documented that Romney’s past and present positions on abortion differ from each other. In a June 18, 2011, op-ed in the conservative National Review Romney laid out his views:


[highlight=#ffff80]"I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine.[/highlight] Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench. I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. [highlight=#ffff80]And as president, I will support efforts to prohibit federal funding for any organization like Planned Parenthood, which primarily performs abortions or offers abortion-related services."[/highlight]

Supporting over turning R v W and prohibiting federal funding to PP proves he does not support a woman’s right to choose. He clearly says that he now supports abortion only in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. That is a direct contradiction to what he said before. He's just pandering, he will say what ever works for the moment. He's a coward with no balls to say whatever he really thinks.





The biggest thing that irks me about this whole thing are the numbers of hypocritical republican women who claim to be pro-life that have had abortions when the need arose and thankful they had the choice at the time. And yes, I know a few of those too. And how many of these hardcore pro-life crusty old repubs have had to take cute young pregnant staffers to have one I wonder?





Being pro-choice is just that, you can choose to do what you need to do and to follow your own conscience. “Most” pro-lifers are IMO just a bunch of holier-than-thou hypocrites. No one is going to force them to abort a pregnancy if they don’t want to, but they sure as hell want to stop anyone else from having one.





Sorry hitch, not ranting at you :hug: but this shit just pisses me off.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 30889
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby realist » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:41 pm

From [link]Patheos,http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/29/mitt-romney-tells-533-lies-in-30-weeks-steve-benen-documents-them/[/link]





Mitt Romney tells 533 lies in 30 weeks, Steve Benen documents them


August 29, 2012 By Fred Clark






[...]





Which is to say that Mitt Romney lies. A lot. He lies more than any other national candidate for office in my lifetime. And I was born before the Nixon administration.





This is documented. Proven. Validated, verified, demonstrated, catalogued and quantified. Mitt Romney lies.





Here are 30 — 30! — of Benen’s weekly “chronicling” posts. These are all backed up and sourced. These are not assertions, interpretations or allegations. These are facts, actual instances.





[...]





One of the weirder aspects of this for me is watching this unfold in the politically conservative culture of my evangelical world. The most partisan evangelical conservatives are also those most likely to rant against “relativism” and to trumpet their status as defenders of “absolute truth.” Those same folks will dismiss this post — and all 30 of Benen’s posts above — as mere partisan attacks without ever bothering to examine the 533 factual instances of Mitt’s mendacity, chronicled.

much more at the link

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 10615
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby kate520 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:56 pm

So that's where Fred Clark went. Thanks, realist.

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8406
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby verbalobe » Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:48 pm

I got another robocall advertisement. These are 15-second spots, very slick narration, music background.





Paraphrase from memory:





What would a Romney presidency be like? Day One: Romney announces deficit reductions, ending the Obama big-spending era...





Day Two: Romney calls out the Chinese on trade practices, making them play by the same rules....





Day Three: Romney rolls back business-strangling regulations...

Snark: Looks like the Democrats better start learning how to be obstructionist. They haven't had 4 years of practice.





Interesting the items lies they're picking to spotlight in Virginia.

richRocket
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:56 am

Mitt Romney

Postby richRocket » Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:10 pm

we must suport Romney, he wants to unify America to achieve a common goal, which is providing tax breaks to the rich, he wants to repeal Obamacare so that the parents of that little girl with the heart defect will stop asking for freebies and do the right thing and pray for health. so let's all take off our band-aids and get on that bandwagon.

User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 3145
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Mitt Romney

Postby MsDaisy » Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:34 pm

From TP





“Even Fox News Is Fed Up With Romney Failing To Provide Details Of His Tax Plan”


[/break1]org/economy/2012/09/07/812951/fox-news-romney-plan/]http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/0 ... mney-plan/





The Romney campaign has so far refused to clarify which tax deductions and loopholes it would eliminate in order to make its huge proposed tax cut for the rich revenue neutral. Despite repeated requests, the campaign and candidate have refused to budge, content to say that the tax plan “can’t be scored” due to its lack of detail.


And even Fox News has apparently had it with the campaign’s consistent dodging of this question, as Fox’s Gregg Jarrett repeatedly asked Romney policy director Lanhee Chen about it during an interview on Friday:







Snip


According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, even assuming that Romney eliminates all deductions and exemptions for high-income individuals, he would still have to raise middle-class taxes in order to pay for his tax plan. Romney, of course, is not going to completely eliminate all tax preferences enjoyed by the wealthy, so his plan will either raise middle-class taxes or bust the budget. And even Fox News, it seems, wants Romney to divulge the details sooner rather than later.

I so hope the majority of the people in this country are not stupid enough to elect this man. He keeps looking more and more like nothing but a con man with a plan, but just "trust me" and I'll tell ya all about it later! It's probably the same line he used on his Bain victims. Even Fox is getting tired of it, and that's pretty bad.


Return to “Presidential Election”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests