Skip to main content

The new OFA ad on Mitt Romney's tax plan, featuring former president Bill Clinton

The Romney-Ryan tax plan is either impossible to implement or unimaginably cruel and disastrous, depending on which assumptions you believe.

Mitt Romney promises to reduce tax rates across the board by 20%, which amounts to a $5 trillion tax cut. Neither Romney nor Paul Ryan have provided specifics as to just how they would pay for this massive tax cut, despite being pressed on the question during the debates. Independent analysts conclude that the only way to make the Romney-Ryan plan work is to slash deductions on the middle class to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Both Romney and Ryan deny this, but claim instead that they'll provide specifics as to how they'd avoid an economic massacre on the middle class after the election.

Pundits and analysts, however, aren't waiting. They're demanding real answers from Romney and Ryan, especially as the evidence mounts that the Romney-Ryan plan just don't add up. Again, either Romney and Ryan will pay for their massive tax cuts for the rich on the backs of the middle class (as non-partisan and independent studies conclude) or they're knowingly peddling a fictional, nonsensical fantasy plan. In either case, they don't deserve anyone's vote.  

On to the punditry...

Joe Garofoli at The San Francisco Chronicle doesn't think we'll hear details from Romney during tonight's debate:

it is unlikely voters will hear more details during Tuesday's second presidential debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama. In fact, they're not likely to hear any details from the GOP until after election day. [...] Nor are they apt to even mention immigration, housing or the environment, some of the many issues that haven't surfaced in the first two debates. [...]

As former Romney adviser and longtime GOP consultant Mike Murphy said on NBC's "Meet the Press" this month when asked why Romney wouldn't explain what loopholes he would close to pay for his tax cut: "Why? Because you'll attack him for doing it. You attack him for not giving you a little target ... and then you attack him when you get the target."

Does that argument sound familiar? Remember, that's the canard Romney used when he refused to disclose his full tax returns. He just had to keep his financials a secret because if he released them he would be attacked by the opposition. And some people thought Biden's smiling was insulting? Romney won't open his mouth on his personal taxes or his real plan for our taxes. That's truly insulting.

The New York Times editorial board:

To the annoyance of the Romney campaign, members of Washington’s reality-based community have a habit of popping up to point out the many deceptions in the campaign’s blue-sky promises of low taxes and instant growth. [...]

Even Fox News isn’t buying it. Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to the Romney campaign, said on Fox News Sunday that Mr. Romney would work out those details later with Congress. As the program’s moderator, Chris Wallace, pointed out, that’s like offering voters the candy of a 20 percent tax cut without mentioning the spinach they will have to eat. [...]

It is increasingly clear that the Romney tax “plan” is not really a plan at all but is instead simply a rhapsody based on old Republican themes that something can be had for nothing. For middle-class taxpayers without the benefit of expensive accountants, the bill always comes due a few years later.

Bloomberg's editors point out that we need details to avoid another Bush-like catastrophe:
The desire for specificity is hardly unreasonable. Running in 2000, George W. Bush insisted that his proposed tax cut would be a boon to the middle class. Experts demurred, arguing that the top 1 percent of income earners would reap a windfall. Like Romney, Bush declined to show his math. In the end, his 2001 tax cut delivered almost half of its benefits to the top 1 percent and initiated Bush’s march toward a trillion-dollar deficit.
Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post concludes that Romney's is lying when he says his plan will create 12 million jobs. He gives the claim four pinncochios:
This is a case of bait-and-switch. Romney, in his convention speech, spoke of his plan to create “12 million new jobs,” which the campaign’s White Paper describes as a four-year goal. But the candidate’s personal accounting for this figure in this campaign ad is based on different figures and long-range timelines stretching as long as a decade — which in two cases are based on studies that did not even evaluate Romney’s economic plan.
Ted Frier at Salon:
No one disagrees that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy, just as no one contests that throwing gasoline on a campfire will cause it to temporarily burn hotter.  The more important question is whether such stimuli are sustainable - whether putting more wood on a fire or blowing on its embers might be a better way to keep it going than fueling it with "liquidity," just as whether it really makes sense (if ones goal is more jobs and economic growth in this country) to give finite tax dollars to wealthy investors who might plant it overseas as Mitt Romney has done with his Bain Capital investments in China.

If the problem with our economy is not inadequate demand, as Democrats say, but rather that the rich do not have enough money in their hands, as Republicans contend, then what were we to make of the record $2 trillion in free cash currently sitting idle with America's banks and corporations - a large portion of which I would submit is being sequestered so as to deliberately suppress the economy to Obama's disadvantage in order that America's plutocracy can get the compliant Romney puppet regime these oligarchs so obviously desire. [...]There is a reason Paul Ryan did not bring up Ronald Reagan's name in his debate with the Vice President last seek.  It's because when Reagan jumped into the deep end of the supply-side pool he immediately found himself underwater as deficits began to rise - eventually increasing from $700 billion when Reagan came into office in 1980 to $3 trillion when he left.

History shows that right after passing the largest tax cut in American history, Reagan raised taxes eleven times throughout his term, including the largest corporate tax increase in history, which Joshua Green said would be "utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today."

Bruce Bartlett, who served as a policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, also doesn't think Romney's plan makes any sense:
[T]he idea that tax reform will jump-start an economy suffering from the after-effects of a cyclical downturn is nonsense. [...] Mr. Romney’s plan is not likely to be enacted in anywhere near the form he has proposed, if only because Congress is far more polarized today than it was in 1986, and the major political parties are much farther apart on the goals of tax reform. Consequently, there is little reason to think we will see tax reform any time soon, and even if Mr. Romney’s plan is enacted as proposed the growth effect will be small to nonexistent.
So here's the question voters should ask themselves as they watch the debate tonight: if Mitt Romney's economic plan is so great, why doesn't he want anyone to know the details about it?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  MSM are GOPers' lackey (13+ / 0-)

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:50:21 AM PDT

  •  The Romney Plan is elegant in it's simplicity.... (8+ / 0-)

    trust me.

  •  The "You''ll attack him" argument... (10+ / 0-)

    ...is an admission that His Plan Has No Merit.

    When someone hears that argument, the response should be : "The plan is a bunch of bullcrap, and you just admitted it."

    Everybody got to elevate from the norm....

    by Icicle68 on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:53:41 AM PDT

  •  Romney's narrow vision of America (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wintergreen8694, missquested

    More tax cuts for the rich worked so well over the lasat decade! There is no question that this election offers two competing visions for America. The president did a good job in communicating that to the American people in his speech. You cannot argue that Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and the Republican Party truly believe this country is in decline and must be made a smaller and weaker country to appease the Tea Party radicals that want to destroy our government. Mitt thinks that success can only, translate to wealth, from fortunes to the number of cars or homes you own, that if you haven't gotten rich by now than something is wrong with you and you don;t deserve a shot at the American Dream. This is a message paid for by the rich secret donors and corporate money men backing Romney's campaign, and the president did well in pointing that out to voters.  -  progressive

  •  What makes me saddest about this (13+ / 0-)

    Is that the people who are committed to vote for Romney really don't care to hear this.

    Either they've convinced themselves that their demographic is going to be the big winner in the scheme, or their vote is ideological; in either case they will hear no logic, sense, or math.

    Honestly, I can't see any common ground I share with these people. Elections are bad this way. They point out the huge gulfs between me and Them, and the thousand social courtesies we use every day to build false land between us just fall away, and I see them across an ideological gorge I don't ever want to cross.

    What really gets me is that Obama is a good Centrist President. I can't fathom what the bulk of these people have against him. Racists, ideological freaks, that I comprehend. But the rest of these people? Are they just really that... stupid?

    Lover, fighter, dreamer

    by kate mckinnon on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:59:07 AM PDT

    •  They should ask the people of Massachusetts a (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stude Dude, SueDe

      few pointed questions.

    •  Alot of it has to do with race. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Involuntary Exile, thomask

      I have many friends who hate Obama and are voting for Romney despite the fact that they're in unions, or truckers or basically in jobs that will be either gone of whittled to nothing if Romney actually took office.  Or in many cases they're immigrants or children of immigrants, some even who came here illegally.  

      Nobody dares speak of it but I know these people and it's painfully clear to me and many others that the only reason they hate Obama is because he's black.  Were he Barry O'Hara instead of Barack Obama, well they'd all be singing a different tune.  The sad part is them trying to find ways to rationalize their hatred for him.  They'll bring something up and when I point out how wrong they are or how if Romney gets elected they'll be fucked it doesn't matter.  

      The worst is when seemingly intelligent people try to justify their beliefs by citing right wing ideologues.  For example when talking about the economy they cite some jackass from the Hoover Institute because Obama has 'wrecked our economy so we should try something else'.  After pointing out the obvious that any 'economist' from an institute named after the worst president in our economic history should automatically be discounted I then point to how all the policies they are advocating have been tried with disastrous results.  I then cite other economists only to be shot down because they're 'partisan' because as we all know facts have a liberal bias.  Meanwhile the economists at the AEI aren't partisan but 'independent'.  

      It's mind numbing to face this amount of stupidity and sometimes when confronted with it, I just call they out for being fucking stupid and tell them to turn off FoxNews because it's making them fucking stupid.  Suffice to say a few of my old friends stopped talking to me.  No big loss IMO.   I keep telling myself that in 2016 after Obama is retired and Hillary Clinton runs, or whoever wins the Dem nomination, that the scales in front of their eyes will fall and racism will no long be an issue.  It will no longer cloud their judgement and they will more clearly see who has their best interests at heart.  It's clearly not the GOP and while the Dems may suck at times they're better than the GOP by and large 99% of the time.   Frankly I hope it is Hillary because I'd love to see the GOP use  gender based politics in the hopes of winning.  At that point they will truly be relegated to the dustbin of history as a predominantly southern, bigoted, white, old, male and rich party.  

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:51:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you overestimate (0+ / 0-)

        how willing a lot of those people would be to vote for a woman.  I am reminded of Rosie Perez's great ad about "Sure.... it would be easier for Mitt if he were Latino..."

        0% of US Presidents have been women. And when they put up Palin, I think we all know that the assumption was that if somehow she ended up as President, we'd all just kill ourselves.

        Lover, fighter, dreamer

        by kate mckinnon on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 07:30:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ask a mechanic for a detailed (12+ / 0-)

    estimate up front. Otherwise you can get screwed when you get the bill. If it is reasonable for contractors, mechanics, and all kinds of indutries why can't we expect a detailed estimate from a presidential candidate?

    The Spice must Flow!

    by Texdude50 on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:59:14 AM PDT

    •  If you don't get specific details (7+ / 0-)

      from a contractor hired to remodel your kitchen - both for the cost of the job and exactly what's to be done - as well as retain the right to sue the britches off him if he demolishes everything and doesn't put it back together, you're just asking for trouble and heartache.  Romney and Ryan are big, big trouble.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:15:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  re-Bloomberg's editors (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SueDe, skohayes, TKO333

    Considering Romney's go to Economist was Bush's go to Economist History is already repeating itself.

    The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say stupid things, the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee a paycheck to say stupid things.

    by JML9999 on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:01:19 AM PDT

  •  Explaining why the math doesn't work (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb mare

    can be very simple, as Bill Clinton eloquently shows. So simple, in fact, that I've little doubt Cool B.O. will eviscerate R-Money on this very topic tonight.

    2012 GOP Platform: "I've Got Mine, Jack."

    by Yankee Patriot on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:04:09 AM PDT

  •  He will sell it with empathy toward middle class (5+ / 0-)

    He will sell this with dripping empathy to help those who are hurting in America.  He will come across as America's friend.

    Obama must talk about Bain and what he did in Mass. and expose him as a cold hearted Oligarch who couldn't care less for the middle class.

    Go after his character.  Don't let him look like America's friend.

  •  It will be interesting tonight (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes, tb mare, wintergreen8694

    to see Romney double-talk his way through answers to questions posed by regular Americans tonight.  Knowing he has to answer to the 47% must be quite distressing for him.  Too bad the questioners won't be allowed to follow up.

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

    by SueDe on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:07:13 AM PDT

    •  Also, he is extremely uncomfortable (0+ / 0-)

      with ordinary Americans who are not hugely wealthy.

      For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

      by Anne Elk on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:18:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That would be an awesome question by Pres. Obama (3+ / 0-)

    So here's the question voters should ask themselves as they watch the debate tonight: if Mitt Romney's economic plan is so great, why doesn't he want anyone to know the details about it?

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:07:13 AM PDT

    •  He sort of did in the last debate (5+ / 0-)

      It was Obama's only half way decent moment, when he sarcastically made a reference to Romney's plan being too good for details. What Obama needs to do is look at the camera and tell the American people that the reason he was so lame was that he was literally dumbfounded by the magnitude of Romney's bullshit. That even though he came into the debate knowing Romney was a callous, greedy liar, that it was still a shock to see just how far he would go in reinventing himself in front of all those viewers. Romney knows something that Obama doesn't - most people don't pay attention to politics until, like, right now. And so he re-invented himself, right there, and blew Obama off the stage with the suddenness of it all.

      •  That really failed. All people heard was "good". (0+ / 0-)

        For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

        by Anne Elk on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:19:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The specifics are here. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes, wintergreen8694, Amber6541

    The specifics that Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan aren't difficult to find.  If you just listen to what they have said in smaller circles.

    1)  Protect the wealthy, and their capitol gains.
         maintain all protection, loopholes, tax credits, offshore
         accounts, and extend the bush tax cuts permanently.
    2)  Raise funds through higher taxes through employed
         people who earn between $25,000 and $250,000
         these taxes will come out of your paycheck, through
         a backdoor policy, to deflect "raising your income tax"
    3)  Raise the age for people to collect SSC to 68 (Knowing
         a large portion of people won't live to 68, the savings
         are built into reducing the debt.
    4)  Cut 60% of social services.  
    5)  Reduce funding for the remaining 40% of all social
         services across the board to avoid any favoritism.

         These are my best guesses based on past talking points from both Romney and Ryan.  If there are corrections or new changes to what they have promoted, I would like to here it directly from either one of them.  

    " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

    by EarTo44 on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:08:03 AM PDT

    •  Add: close down pesky government regulators (6+ / 0-)

      like the EPA, the SEC, the Department of Education, the new Consumer Financial protection bureau. "Smaller government" is code for "laissez-faire." Push the whole regulation thing down to the states, where ALEC can make sure it's ineffective or nonexistent.

      Also eliminate all Federal aid to states and local governments, whether for schools, sewer treatment plants, emergency planning, or whatever. Block-grant a few things like Medicaid, and then reduce the block-grant to zero within a few years.

      •  Push everything down to the states (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SueDe, bdop4, wintergreen8694, Amber6541

        in the form of "block grants" and then don't require the states to specifically use that money for what it was provided for (Medicaid, for example), and states will then use the money to cover budget shortfalls, and screw over the middle class, the elderly and the poor.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:46:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Don't forget the Pentagon budget increase (10+ / 0-)

    Like Reagan, Romney proposes to cut taxes while at the same time basically doubling Pentagon spending with a very very steep curve upward, way beyond anything the Pentagon has requested.

    So any offsetting changes to deductions need to not only offset the rate cut, but also offset the military spending increase.

    It's the Reagan-Bush formula on steroids: Double down on tax cuts, and double up on military spending -- and somehow that will magically eliminate the deficit. Right.

    I hope someone asks Romney about this at tonight's debate.

    •  Yeah, that's crazy (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wintergreen8694, Amber6541, TKO333

      Romney wants to build 35 new ships for the Navy, a YEAR. Plus 3 new nuclear subs.
      I think he's expecting a naval war with China or something.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:48:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lies are revenue-neutral (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skohayes

        By simply not doing what you said you'd do, you save a lot of money. I note that nobody has talked about the yearly cost of staffing and running those ships.

        For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

        by Anne Elk on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:21:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Why hasn't the press noticed Ryan's admission? (6+ / 0-)

    When Biden proposed letting the Bush tax cuts expire on high income tax payers, Ryan said there aren't enough of them to matter:

    RYAN: Look, if you taxed every person and successful business making over $250,000 at 100 percent, it would only run the government for 98 days. If everybody who paid income taxes last year, including successful small businesses, doubled their income taxes this year, we'd still have a $300 billion deficit. You see? There aren't enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending.

    But when Biden called Ryan out on the fact that Romney's tax plan could not be revenue neutral without making the middle class pay more, Ryan said this:

    RYAN: what we're saying is, deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed

    http://abcnews.go.com/...

    That's right: Ryan said you can pay for a $5 trillion tax cut merely by cutting out SOME deductions, and ONLY on high incomes.

    At the same time he admits that if you took ALL their income, it would only run the government for 98 days.

    Federal spending in FY2012 was $3.5 trillion. 98 days represents 27% or about $940 billion.

    Therefore, Ryan claimed that a fraction of $940 billion would pay for $5 trillion in tax cuts.

    As Biden and the Tax Policy Center said; it's mathematically impossible.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...(Business+on+The+Huffington+Post)

  •  A reminder that the Bush tax cuts were passed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bdop4

    ..with reconciliation.

    In 2001 the senate vote was 58-33 in favor.

    In 2003 the senate vote was a narrow 51-49 in favor.

  •  Prediction: The Romney Campaign will be walking (3+ / 0-)

    back a lot tomorrow.

  •  Seriously? (5+ / 0-)

    First, Romney/Ryan said that they didn't want to provide specifics about their tax plan to the public because their opponents would use the information against them. Then they said that they couldn't provide specifics to the public because unlike every other tax plan in the history of tax plans, theirs can't be scored under traditional Congressional Budget-scoring rules. Then they said that they can't provide specifics to the public because they simply don't have the time to explain their plan. Now they are claiming that it wouldn't be prudent for them to provide specifics to the public because it would inhibit them from working in a bipartisan way with congress.

    And we are supposed to take these people seriously?

    •  No one ever went broke by... (0+ / 0-)

      You know the old line. It is pretty amazing that Romney can gain the support of so many.

      For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

      by Anne Elk on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:23:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This and the Morgan Freeman "Forward" ad (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb mare, TKO333

       are the two best presidential spots I've ever seen - and I remember LBJ's "Daisies"!  President Clinton is most assuredly delivering his revenge on Republicans "served cold" - as ice.
        Beautiful job, Big Dog!

  •  Theory of Two Santas (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bdop4, TKO333

    Thom Hartmann always talks about it.  

    When Repubs are out of office they constantly talk about two things - lowering taxes and soaring deficits.  They promise the people a Christmas present in the form of lower taxes and magical growth along with jobs blah blah blah if they can just cut taxes for the rich.  Of course they blame the deficits on the Dems.    

    When the Repubs are in office, they lower taxes for the rich while spending like a drunken Lindsay Lohan or sailor with a credit card.  The people benefit from the pork and see things getting done but the deficits soar.  While they're in office deficits don't matter as a former Dickhead VP once infamously said.

    In both cases they keep promising things but they're as unrealistic as Santa Claus is.  The ultimate goal of course is to redistribute the wealth upward while drowning the govt in massive amounts of debt.  That way when the Dems take office, they will be forced to make hard decisions while cleaning up the steaming piles of shit left behind by the GOP.  That means instead of expanding the social safety net as the Dems did from 1932-1980, they will have to cut the social safety net.   This will in turn make the Dems unpopular which will result in the GOP regaining and retaining power after which the GOP will once again redistribute the wealth upward for 'our own good'.  

    It's no coincidence that after the fuckers destroyed our economy they set about blaming Obama and the Dems for the deficit they created.  It's also no coincidence that Rmoney is pushing the 20% tax cut while failing to disclose which loopholes he will close to pay for the cuts.  It's all fantasy.  Voodoo economics.  All BULLSHIT.  It's also no coincidence that Rmoney plans on slashing the safety net 'to save us from the impending fiscal cliff' while planning on spending 2 trillion on military.  The military is the mother of all pork.  The two Santas.  Promise presents when out of office and when in office while at the same time behind the scenes enabling the well off and powerful to become more well off.  

    Basically it's the same fucking playbook that's been used for 30+ years since some third rate piece of shit actor got elected and push some voodoo economic tax policy  called the Laffer Curve which he got from some moron.  

    This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

    by DisNoir36 on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:33:02 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for includng publication (0+ / 0-)

    Some of your fellow APA writers disdain that practice, preferring that we hover over the link to find out where it was written. Well, phooey on them!

    See the losers in the best bars, meet the winners in the dives -Neil Young

    by danoland on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 07:34:04 AM PDT

  •  I'm starting to see a pattern here... (0+ / 0-)

    But THIS is something I've thought for a long time, and it's a wonder the media is so willing to ignore it:

    what were we to make of the record $2 trillion in free cash currently sitting idle with America's banks and corporations - a large portion of which I would submit is being sequestered so as to deliberately suppress the economy to Obama's disadvantage in order that America's plutocracy can get the compliant Romney puppet regime these oligarchs so obviously desire
    That's why Mitt Romney confidently spouted on the 47% tape that he didn't have to do anything to improve the economy...that there would be a sudden swell of positive growth after he's elected.  It will also happen after Obama's elected, as companies decide they can't wait to add bandwidth (i.e. hire people) any longer.

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 07:53:55 AM PDT

  •  Bloomberg: We've Been Down This Road Before (0+ / 0-)
    "Running in 2000, George W. Bush insisted that..."
    To a certain extent Bush was abetted by a media completely reluctant to call out his plan for what it was.  Instead, they hid behind he-said/she-said which -- when you think about the results -- has to rate as borderline collusion.
  •  The answer is obvious.... (0+ / 0-)

    Because if voters knew the DETAILS, they would not vote for him.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site