Romney's tax plan and the oft-cited "six studies" that support it have been getting hammered by liberal critics for weeks. But now they're taking a drubbing from an unexpected source: Fox's Chris Wallace.
Wallace tackled Romney advisor Ed Gillespie: "Ryan is saying, we don't want to get hemmed in. Let's leave it to negotiations with congress to get into the details. Here's my question. Why is it all right to tell voters about the candy - hey, everybody is going to get a 20% tax cut in their tax rates, but let's not tell them about the spinach, which is you're going to lose some deductions?"
Let's face it: Romney isn't going to be a great president. We all know this, we all can see it, regardless of whether or not all of us are willing to admit it. It's who he is running against...the one, sole-candidate that the current system allows as an alternative...not to mention one that we have already seen four years of, that makes a Romney/Ryan administration sound appealing. Think about it.
"you can't salve the problem by spending more while reducing your income." Thank you. Basic economics 101. Now tell you idol that, maybe he'll listen. Your beloved president 0bama has racked up over a Trillion Dollars each year he was in office.$1 Trillion + each year in spending, by the 0bama regime. Just think about it for a moment.
Here goes the spin. We cannot afford to continue confiscating the wealth of the productive just to give it to the unproductive. We have a $17T deficit. To pay this off will require every man and woman to do their share. If we pass this debt onto our children and grandchildren, it will be a horrible evil that we dumped on them. It is time that we stop this class warfare and demanding more of the wealthy and learn to roll up our sleeves and get to work.
Instead of feeling jealous of the wealthy, let's feel inspired. To assume that any tax cut measure is unpaid for is to assume that the government has a right to your money. THEY DO NOT! So therefore any tax cut is automatically paid for as it is your money to begin with. How about we cut useless programs that the federal government is involved in that are not in the Constitution? How about we count economic growth? If we let the people spend their money where they choose to in the free market then it will create a wider tax base instead of a taller tax rate.
It is time people. We are in the final stretch. Either we cast our vote for our future or we cast it for our demise. I say our future can be brighter if that is what we want. I want a future for my children and grandchildren. I hope you do as well.
@AceLuby I think I see where your going to go with this. The gov. is given the authority to tax us to pay our debts, however they are not given the authority to raise our debts without the citizens okay.
I would like to see every campaign promise critically examined. People who criticize this sort of questioning as liberal (or conservative) bias have already made up their minds and don't want to be confused with the facts.
@Neo_NtheMatrix And some of us know that many of those "productive" wealthy people (can you say Paris Hilton?) sit on their butts doing nothing but raking in the dough from their investments or trust funds while the "non-productive middle class" work every bit of overtime they can get to make ends meet while hoping not to get laid off because their jobs have been farmed out to China. The hardest working people in the US are also among the poorest: migrant workers. Care to do their job? Do you think that the CEOs of the food industry work harder or care whether they pay a living wage to the people who are making them rich, or whether those workers are in the country illegally? I don't need to hear lies about how exploitation is money earned fair and square either.
@Neo_NtheMatrix 'Confiscate' it? The constitution gives that power to the government at both the state and federal level. It's one thing to argue about the level of taxation, it's another to deny that the govt has that right at all.
@Neo_NtheMatrix It doesn't sound like he was criticizing the tax break itself. They are claiming it will be revenue neutral, but won't say what they intend to cut in order to do so. All he is saying is "tell us what you intend to cut so we can decide as a nation whether we feel that it is worth losing that program or if the cut will benefit everyone or just the wealthy". Most aren't voting for him so much as the guy not named Obama. At least give us some details. The fact that they won't tells most of us that it won't benefit the majority or that they don't have a freaking clue what they are doing. Either way it won't gain them voters.
@Cheenoguy I think that you are right about the idea that people aren't voting for Romney as much as they are voting against Obama. But one should take a lesson from the Mujahadeen that the US funded to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan - The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
Chris Wallace is a registered Democrat, I thought he was a Republican... he has also voted Republican no matter. His questions seemed fair, but ,then again the answers seemed credible to me. However, I doubt it will be easy few things are, and hopefully it can be done, but then again, we've been promised many things by the current administration that haven't been done. A whole lot of things haven't "added up".
Just because Wallace is registered as a Democrat doesn't mean his politics aren't to the right of center. I thought his questions seemed fair, too, but perhaps I lack your faith in the credibility of the answers. None of it adds up for me, neither left nor right.
@AceLuby sorry but I beg to differ. I guess it depends on who's study you put more credit in. I have a tendency to believe independent studies more so than government funded. the proponents say that this bill, if past make business boom in this country. in my opinion that is what we need.
@Fitz Yes, that's what I think of when I hear 'fair tax'. And how much would this consumption tax be that would be so great for American businesses? Secondly, how does a consumption tax not incentivize saving vs spending, effectively cutting demand to the lowest it can possibly be?
@Dan_Tien Should have done that in 2001 when we actually had a chance to do that, but instead theonewhocannotbenamed decided that the people should 'keep' their money and we shouldn't pay off our debt. Where were you guys then?
The headline doesn't match the article . If you listen to the footage it makes sense. Lower the rate close loop holes tax input stays the same. Its not a cut. Maybe G.E. and obama's cronies will have to pay taxes but I guess we just cant have that.
The Republicans assail President Obama for letting congress fill in the details of the Affordable Care Act but they are willing to accept from Romny/Ryan that congress will fill in the details of their tax plan?!
It wasn't a bipartisan group of congress. It was a few far left liberals with mouths watering at finally getting what they want, universal health care come heck or high water and no matter how much it cost. And, this was all done with no direction from the lead from behind president. He was busy voting present and golfing and basking in the glory of his unearned Nobel Peace Prize and planning his apology tour. Romney will WORK with a bipartisan group of congressmen, hammer out the details and come up with a fair proposal. I know, since we have never seen the like of something like this from President Obama, you are having trouble grasping the concept. It's been done before and can be done again.
I don't understand why people are so messed up about this. It's perfectly clear to me. Romney wants to cut taxes 20% across the board (something the Bowles-Simpson report wanted) and to keep it revenue neutral and not decrease the amount the high income earners pay, they will close loopholes and certain deductions. Now this is the part you all need to pay attention to:
What loopholes and which deductions to be determined by a BIPARTISAN group of congressmen. Got that?
Romney is not going to say we are going to close A, B and C in a definitive manner at this time since that may change when they BIPARTISAN group of congressmen sit down and work on just what to cut, reduce in size or leave in place. The bottom line is that Romney will not reduce the money coming into the treasury from the high earners (the simplified reporting and limited deductions for some will actually increase the income to the treasury) nor will he place a further burden on the middle class. Now come on folks, this isn't Rocket Science, all you have to do is listen to what is said and not interpret it into something it is not. The Obama administration is doing just that by citing a outlier study, since repudiated and walked back by those who did the study, that used assumptions and what ifs to get their conclusion that suited their agenda at that time. Since then too many reputable studies have come out and proved that Romney could do as he said. Romney just doesn't want to lay out a full plan until it has been hashed out by the BIPARTISAN group of congressmen. Got it?
No, its not quite that simple...They also want to "cut and eliminate" a bunch of stuff...Now....it gets interesting...So its like Wallace said---its one thing to just tell people the good part...But which of the programs that people depend on does he want to do away with? And why is he being a coward about telling the American "Voters" THOSE details...NOT as simple as you thing it is!