You wrote that "A president is about a direction not the detail. Details belong to the legislators." The issue, of course, isn't simply that Romney's plan isn't detailed enough, although it can be comprehensively stated in one sentence. The issue is that the broad objectives Romney has proposed are incompatible with one another. Proposing A, B, and C when A, B, and C are mutually exclusive, then expecting Congress to work out the "details," is very poor leadership.
What? This is one of the craziest things I've ever seen on this board. I guess a yes man isn't about detail either, but more about rationalizing and making excuses for whatever their leader says and does.
They are not mutually exclusive. They are a set of principles that can be bent to shape the situation. But the ideology behind the tax reform is solid and needed. America's tax code is something that has needed work for a long time. Attacking me or the "other guy" is not an agenda. Grow up. You don't like that I use the name bobmarley on the board; get over it, and get over yourself. You have been on here since 2009 Young-T, I really don't care what you say; if you can't add anything to the discussion.
This is in line with my position. I think it is ridiculous that raising taxes on the "rich" includes people making $250,000. Why is someone making $4 million a year seen the same way as someone making $250,000? I have zero objection, in fact agree with, raising taxes on people making multiple million a year.
To be fair, he is right to a large extent. How many "big ideas" such as healthcare reform, tax code reform, entitlement reform, etc. were done the way a president laid it out in a campaign? That doesn't mean I think you should just write it off when a candidate says things that are impossible or bad math.
Al Gore on Bush's tax cuts in the 2000 debates: Under Governor Bush's tax cut proposal, he would spend more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent than all of the new spending that he proposes for education, health care, prescription drugs and national defense all combined. Now I think those are the wrong priorities. Now under my proposal, for every dollar that I propose in spending for things like education and health care, I will put another dollar into middle-class tax cuts. And for every dollar that I spend in those two categories, I'll put two dollars toward paying down the national debt. I think it's very important to keep the debt going down and completely eliminate it.
Was that last part addressed to me? I'm genuinely baffled by what that's about. I'm not sure I've ever read any of your posts before now. And the OP clearly refers to what I was talking about, namely a report by a non-partisan institute finding that Romney's policy proposals are indeed mutually exclusive.
Your post makes me even more angry at the Supreme Court for giving the election to Dubya in 2000. Dubya's policies created the ***** sandwich that Obama has been dealing with since he was elected.
Quiet down. That type of argument is only allowed when Obama decides to outsource all the writing of his signature pieces of legislation to Congress. Then we're allowed to mention that Congress actually writes the laws. By the way, how is a center jointly formed by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution considered non-partisan? I'm pretty sure if a study critiquing Obama's plans came from a "non-partisan" think tank co-sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, not a single liberal would believe a word they said.
The problem is that Romney is proposing policies that can't all coexist, and he's using them to justify each other. Americans would not support a tax cut for the wealthy if it were not both revenue-neutral and accompanied by tax cuts for the middle class. Unfortunately, those things can't all happen at once, but that hasn't stopped Romney from promising all of them. Leadership means making choices in the face of tradeoffs. It does not mean telling the public that they can have their cake and eat it too. We have no idea what Romney's plan for taxation is because he hasn't proposed one that is possible even in theory. In 2000 there was a budget surplus.
Yeah, if only Dubya hadn't repealed Glass-Steagall and deregulated the credit default swap market. Oh wait... that was Clinton. Contrary to what Obama keeps telling everyone, the financial crisis was not caused by Bush's tax cuts or wars, not matter how stupid they were.
I completely understand that congress has input and will change things. But they need a plan to start from. That requires details. Details is where the bargains are struck, and agreements reached. Furthermore something like going after Bin Laden, required details. Obama dealt with the details of that mission. He didn't just say get Bin Laden, you guys work on the details of how it's going to be done. The final result isn't just the details of a plan from the president, but the president having a detailed plan and idea is how the ball gets rolling. To pretend like a president doesn't need any details for ideas he has, is silly.
Although it would have been nice to have an extra few trillion dollars to spend on infrastructure, on keeping police, firefighters, and teachers from being laid off, and on middle-class tax cuts.
This was weak when Romney used it, not to mention hypocritical. When you use it, it looks like you're echoing his mush.
LOL! "I hope they will let me leave here alive." "There's actually no correlation between tax rates and economic growth." I can't believe they even let him on the air there. Must have been a bait and switch b/c the three propagandists in the video seem genuinely shocked.
If this were Obama's "plan", you wouldn't post this. I bet you $10,000. OK, it's a hypothetical, what's to bet? I just like to get in that wildly inappropriate remark from Romney sometimes.
This argument is such a loser when you actually think it through. You're right, Clinton compromised and allowed the deregulation wet dreamers to have their way. So it's his fault - therefore we should return the bad actors to power. Why do you even make it? It makes Republicans look terrible. Not just from a policy standpoint, but by the act of actually making it.
First, if you notice I mentioned I was talking to Yung T at the end. The problem is Romney is the only candidate really providing an actual plan and idea for a big national problem. I have read Obama's website. I have also read the 85 page Romney proposal that includes what specific things he wants to do. He also presents 5 acts that he will propose the first day of his candidacy and at least 5 other things he will also do the first day to get things rolling. I know he is a politician but some of the things he says I want to see him do them. Because I have watched four years of Obama's plans and I am not impressed. I voted for him and gave him a chance to show me something different. Now it's time to give someone else a shot to do something.
