Latest Breaking News

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)

25. Right. It was never intended to be revenue neutral

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:15 PM

Oct 2012

It was intended to be the "Two Santas" strategy once again.

When I get discouraged at how inept out MSM is, I then think back on all the times that Republicans have gotten away with the "Two Santa" thing. This time is different. The netroots are really pushing back and forcing the MSM to do their jobs at least a little.

And we should understand that today's media talking head doesn't have any time or staff for analysis. All they can do is repeat what they have seen or heard elsewhere. That is the real contribution everybody on the progressive side has made. The information is getting out there. A MSM talking head doesn't have to go far to find the truth and very well done analysis.

THAT is the factor that has changed this cycle. So everybody who has been putting together the analysis, tracking the illicit election rigging activities, putting together graphics and cartoons -- you are making a difference. Truth is a force bigger than all that money.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Romney�s deduction cap would touch sensitive tax breaks [View all] Texas Lawyer Oct 2012 OP

Keep on talking, Wrongney . . . fleur-de-lisa Oct 2012 #1

I hope Jim Lehrer holds Mitt's feet to the fire tonight and makes him explain himself renate Oct 2012 #2

The deduction cap may also negatively impact donations to the arts and charities no_hypocrisy Oct 2012 #3

but, but, but these agencies are supposed to do the work of helping the poor central scrutinizer Oct 2012 #7

The right has been at war... awoke_in_2003 Oct 2012 #10

Change 'may' to 'will' and you have something jmowreader Oct 2012 #40

This is not a legitimate proposal ... it's a contrivance bucolic_frolic Oct 2012 #4

How about we just extend the Bush Tax cuts for the lower 95% Cosmocat Oct 2012 #18

That's not how it works jmowreader Oct 2012 #41

I am TRYING to help my somewhat sane republican friends Cosmocat Oct 2012 #44

Is it just itemized deductions? I'm not sure that what he said. BlueStreak Oct 2012 #5

This is what he said: muriel_volestrangler Oct 2012 #14

It couldn't possibly be revenue neutral because BlueStreak Oct 2012 #15

BINGO Cosmocat Oct 2012 #21

Right. It was never intended to be revenue neutral BlueStreak Oct 2012 #25

You also forgot his corporate tax cut jmowreader Oct 2012 #42

There are more than two choices BlueStreak Oct 2012 #45

We could and should do all these things... jmowreader Oct 2012 #46

The GNCGFH Act of 2013. I like it. BlueStreak Oct 2012 #47

You need an annual income of roughly $150,000 to afford a $500,000 mortgage. Lasher Oct 2012 #6

$17,000 cap includes medical deductions, etc. emulatorloo Oct 2012 #8

Few People Get To Take Medical Deductions DallasNE Oct 2012 #13

Yup. For me the "etc." includes a couple of big deductible items: state income tax & property tax progree Oct 2012 #19

^Listen to Progree, he's smart...eom Kolesar Oct 2012 #22

Great post. N/t emulatorloo Oct 2012 #39

Your numbers are completely WRONG CreekDog Oct 2012 #9

Bay Area home buyers could still deduct *most* of their interest Kolesar Oct 2012 #16

look, if you are gung ho in defending the romney tax plan CreekDog Oct 2012 #26

That was stupid on your part Kolesar Oct 2012 #27

as proud as your are smug CreekDog Oct 2012 #31

I also find it laughable that you think someone can't get a mortgage more than 19% of gross income CreekDog Oct 2012 #11

Your ignorance doesn't make me wrong. Lasher Oct 2012 #32

I provided the numbers that show you are wrong CreekDog Oct 2012 #33

Ended up getting a cheaper place, did you? Lasher Oct 2012 #34

I didn't have a liar's loan, my income ratios were fine, my credit ratings well over 800... CreekDog Oct 2012 #35

OK let's take a closer look. Lasher Oct 2012 #36

you're saying my taxes should go up by 4000 so that the wealthy can have that money? CreekDog Oct 2012 #37

Looks like you're not laughing anymore. Lasher Oct 2012 #38

The Concept Makes No Sense DallasNE Oct 2012 #12

It is all WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. Why should America be talking about this now? BlueStreak Oct 2012 #17

Isn't it crazy that Romney can beat up the President for "wealth redistribution" one day and then Texas Lawyer Oct 2012 #28

The deduction cap came out of Romney's dunce cap. Vapors. nt. OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #20

The laws regarding capital gains taxes on the sale of a house already harm people in the JDPriestly Oct 2012 #23

This would target Romney's prime profit harvesting zone. Turbineguy Oct 2012 #24

Yes. NutmegYankee Oct 2012 #43

And don't forget Ryan's "Broaden the base" OldHippieChick Oct 2012 #29

We need to broaden the base to lighten the load on the overburdened millionaires and billionaires Texas Lawyer Oct 2012 #30