General Discussion

porphyrian

(18,530 posts) Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:25 AM Sep 2012

They can't name a single tax loophole.

Is anyone watching this shill on MSNBC right now? She's agressively repeating that the vague direction the GOP wants to go is an answer to the specific question to name a loophole. What an assbag.

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

They can't name a single tax loophole. (Original Post) porphyrian Sep 2012 OP

It's Schwarzenegger all over. Schwarzenegger promised a balanced budget, no new taxes, JDPriestly Sep 2012 #1

It's painful. They must look at it like someone in construction that I know.... porphyrian Sep 2012 #3

Doesn't name a loophole because they don't want to give up any of them. snappyturtle Sep 2012 #2

Right, if they name one, we may close it before the election. n/t porphyrian Sep 2012 #4

Naming loopholes means creating tax losers jsmirman Sep 2012 #5

their tactic? keep talking...talk over the host. never shut up. spanone Sep 2012 #6

"Can I just finish...?" porphyrian Sep 2012 #7

Uh Chris, can I finish?............CAN I FINISH??? sadbear Sep 2012 #8

if i were ms jansing i would have shut her down. what gall & bullshit. spanone Sep 2012 #9

Not true. The GOP has worked diligently to destroy the EIC and CTC. HopeHoops Sep 2012 #10

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

1. It's Schwarzenegger all over. Schwarzenegger promised a balanced budget, no new taxes,

Reply to porphyrian (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:28 AM

Sep 2012

and now California is having to raise taxes just to pay the debts Schwarzenegger amassed.

Typical Republicans. Promising the moon and delivering fishing worms.

porphyrian

(18,530 posts)

3. It's painful. They must look at it like someone in construction that I know....

Reply to JDPriestly (Reply #1)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:33 AM

Sep 2012

...used to look at hell jobs: "It looks great from my rear view mirror."

snappyturtle

(14,656 posts)

2. Doesn't name a loophole because they don't want to give up any of them.

Reply to porphyrian (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:31 AM

Sep 2012

Republic Party=never met a loophole they didn't like.

porphyrian

(18,530 posts)

4. Right, if they name one, we may close it before the election. n/t

Reply to snappyturtle (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:33 AM

Sep 2012

jsmirman

(4,507 posts)

5. Naming loopholes means creating tax losers

Reply to snappyturtle (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:37 AM

Sep 2012

this is the point I made to the Bloomberg reporter in explaining why no loopholes named and a vague promise to close some of them (but not others) deserves no credit in assessing the finances of their "plan."

When you close one loophole, but not another, you create tax losers (lost your loophole that fits your business) and tax winners (still have your loophole).

First off, they're full of shit, so that's why they have a non-plan "plan," but second off, they lack the courage to take a position that goes against any of their big dollar donors.

It's pathetic.