Romney's Middle-Class Tax Sale: How the Republican can win the debate he's now losing by default.

Wall Street Journal ^ | 10/03/2012

[SeekAndFind]

In this peculiar election year, President Obama is pulling off the small miracle—no, make that the kind of thing that happens in Lourdes—of winning the tax debate. This should be impossible, and Mitt Romney has to turn that around if he wants to win.

Despite a tax platform that is a Walter Mondale replay, polls show that Mr. Obama has sanded off the traditional GOP tax edge and the lead Mr. Romney held as recently as late summer. An ABC-Washington Post poll gives Mr. Obama a 49%-44% advantage on taxes, with Mr. Romney's credibility slipping from 48% in August, and Mr. Obama's surging from 43%. The same poll has 57% of registered voters saying Mr. Romney would do more to favor the wealthy than the middle class and merely 35% believing the opposite.

The main cause of this role reversal is that Mr. Obama has driven a relentless tax message—albeit a wildly deceptive one: That Mr. Romney is a sleeper agent who wants to raise taxes on middle-class families by $2,000 to finance tax cuts for him and his fellow tycoons. Mr. Obama invokes this putative secret plot at every rally, and so does every surrogate down to dogcatcher, plus his TV commercials.

As a factual matter, the claim is as bogus as any in years because Mr. Romney has proposed no such thing. The claim hangs on an August 1 report by the liberal Tax Policy Center that even its authors have since admitted was merely "stylized."

The outfit's gnomes concluded that Mr. Romney's actual reform proposal—cutting rates across the board by 20%, combined with closing loopholes at the higher end—was "mathematically impossible." They then imagined multiple details for a "Romney" tax plan that existed only in their own minds and that would raise taxes among the lower brackets

[DoughtyOne]

My come-back to his ‘tax the rich move’ would be to explain that if you took every penny from the rich, it wouldn’t cover one year of your spending. And then I’d ask him how any adult could consider themselves well informed, let alone presidential, if they didn’t know that. And then I’d add, “And this is only one of a number of glaring economic knowledge deficits you suffer from.”

The obvious retort would be met with...

Mr. President, you are one of the most divisive presidents we have ever had.

One moment it’s Hispanics against others. The next it’s women against others. Then it’s the poor against still others. Didn’t you say you were going to be the great uniter? This is just one more area where you have been a miserable failure.

Here you are now trying to portray wealthy people as some sort of social criminal. Here’s another fact you still can’t grasp, at this late date. Is it better to take all the money of the wealthy job creators, or is it better to let them keep “THEIR” money, reduce the government burden on their backs, and put between 20 and 30 million Americans back to work? By your own words, you have made it abundantly clear you don’t have the slightest clue to the answer to this question.

Why should anyone back your play at this point? You’re woefully unprepared to be President. You are a massive divider of groups of people, one from another. Your domestic policies are a travesty. Your foreign affairs policies are a travesty. I don’t mind grading on the curve, but for heaven’s sake, there has to be some limits on how bad you can govern, and yet still retain your job.

You’re an absolute failure on every level.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”My come-back to his ‘tax the rich move’ would be to explain that if you took every penny from the rich, it wouldn’t cover one year of your spending. And then I’d ask him how any adult could consider themselves well informed, let alone presidential, if they didn’t know that. “

Ok, I have suggested that one to them many times myself here.
So let me play the Obama part for fun, you play MR:

O :”Look, I am willing to cut spending by $$$$ trillion in return for asking the rich to pay their fair share, just as much as the same tax rates a hard working school teacher must pay, but my opponent has committed himself to not raising any taxes even if he got 10 to 1 in spending cuts. There is no way the American people are going to sacrifice their entitlements and earned benefits just so my opponent can deliver more tax cuts to the well off. NOt on my watch!”

Drones in audience cheer, “Obama cares for us. 4 more years”

I can see this coming D1.

[sickoflibs]

RE:”You’re an absolute failure on every level.”

HA-HA, I will cover (bet against) some-ones $500 bet that MR will say anything like that, no, in fact lets make it $1000. He wont so I feel a big payday coming up .

I heard this payday line before somewhere.

[DoughtyOne]

Ok, I have suggested that one to them many times myself here.

So let me play the Obama part for fun, you play MR:

O :”Look, I am willing to cut spending by $$$$ trillion in return for asking the rich to pay their fair share, just as much as the same tax rates a hard working school teacher must pay, but my opponent has committed himself to not raising any taxes even if he got 10 to 1 in spending cuts. There is no way the American people are going to sacrifice their entitlements and earned benefits just so my opponent can deliver more tax cuts to the well off. NOt on my watch!”

R:  Once again Mr. Obama, you show no grasp of elemental fiscal or economic concepts, and also you're back to breaking out a group of people for special interest.

A lot of people pay income taxes.  Most teachers are good people, but they're no better than the rest of the populace.  By only mentioning teachers, you place everyone else in a second class.  Why are you so prone to do that over and over and over again.  It's women this, Hispanics that, Blacks the other, and now teachers too.  You just can't help yourself can you.  Today you're back to trashing "rich people" because they supposedly aren't doing their fair share.  What you're actually saying is, "Rich people", unlike everyone else, don't have a right to the fruits of their creativity, ingenuity, and long hours worth of administrative duties.  Having never run a business, or make a payroll, or be responsible for making the decisions that would see your family supported or not, if the business were to fail, it's painfully obvious you just don't grasp this on any level.  You're addressing this like a nine year old child, completely devoid of any practical real world experience in this area, just shooting your mouth off with platitudes designed to make it seem like you're for the little guy, when all your really for is keeping the little guy unemployed and on a government program.  Why do you care so little for our fellow citizens?  Just when do you see yourself helping businesses hire people and get them back to work?

Do teachers put people to work?  No.  They help prepare our children for future employment and great inventiveness, but they don't employ people.  That's not to say they are not important, and I care about them more than you understand.  What you want to do, is subsidize those who don't work.  You don't want to subsidize the employers who put people to work.  You make a big deal about teachers, and forget completely the parents of the children they have in their classroom, who need to work so they can feed, house, and clothe them.  As long as you can take taxpayer money and give it to someone else, you think you've done your duty.  No, Mr. Obama, the goal is to put people back to work, not keep them on the Dole indefinitely. 

The goal is to get folks off the government breast, and back on the payroll of a private company.  Private companies create things or provide a service.  Those jobs are a net benefit to society.  Welfare is not.  Welfare never ends if you don't employ people.  And you Mr. Obama, are most interested in creating new taxes on corporations, so called "rich people", and small businesses.  And you still don't get it, that small businesses qualify as a rich person, because most of the people who own small businesses in our nation file individual tax returns, not corporate tax returns. 

As for you offering 10 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases, I can't help but laugh.  You've had four years to implement that plan, and your actions don't support the idea you have done so on any substantive level.  In conclusion, I'm willing to bet that people on welfare would rather be doing something productive for income, than sitting on their sofa waiting for a government check to arrive.  On November 6th, we'll see if I'm right. 

If folks think taking all the wealth from rich people, which won't even cover one years worth of your deficit spending, and then they're forever broke like a lot of other people, then this nation is done, and people can vote for you to finish the destruction of your first four years.  I think our populace is smart enough not to want to do that.
 
Drones in audience cheer, “Obama cares for us. 4 more years”

Thinking people at home look at each other and say, "Damn, Romney hit that one out of the ball park.  Is Obama going to be able to stand back up and continue?"

I can see this coming D1.

IMO, this is Romney's to lose.  If he doesn't come out jabbing and throwing the occasional big punch, it's over.

If he nails Obama on his record, Obama will look like the nine year old child he has been governing as.

Now, will he?  This is what I think you see coming, and you  may be right.  I hope not.

[DoughtyOne]

Well I didn’t predict he would say it. I said I would say it.

We both know the odds on Romney saying it. Reagan would.

None of these other ankle biters would. They’re too gentlemanly. Horse stuff!

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Look, I am willing to cut spending by $$$$ trillion in return for asking the rich to pay their fair share, just as much as the same tax rates a hard working school teacher must pay, but my opponent has committed himself to not raising any taxes even if he got 10 to 1 in spending cuts.

And to that softball, R could reply, "Who could believe any promise you make about spending cuts, after your promise to cut the deficit by 1/2 in 4 years, but you increased the debt to $16T?"

Can R hit a softball?

[DoughtyOne]

One can hope, but I’m not recommending holding your breath.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

One can hope, but I’m not recommending holding your breath.

A wise policy!

[sickoflibs]

Not bad, Thanks DDD, this is fun, playing the evil guy is always the blast :)

O :”Look, I am willing to cut spending by $$$$ trillion in return for asking the rich to pay their fair share, just as much as the same tax rates a hard working school teacher must pay, but my opponent has committed himself to not raising any taxes even if he got 10 to 1 in spending cuts.

R, “Who could believe any promise you make about spending cuts, after your promise to cut the deficit by 1/2 in 4 years, but you increased the debt to $16T?”

O :”It was my opponent who vowed to reject a 10 to 1 spending cut deal up front if you elect him POTUS. His promise had nothing to do with me being POTUS. I offered a huge spending cut deficit reduction deal to his House Rs but they all took HIS insane vow to protect the filthy rich at all costs and they all refused it at the go. That is why voters will re-elect me and put Speaker Pelosi back in charge so we can finish fixin America, even for that lower/middle income 47% he says he wont worry about. DA-DA“

[sickoflibs]

The moral is :”Know your enemy if you want to defeat him”

If you depend on certain R entertainment shows (like Hannity) to learn this you will hear some straw man arguments being trunced, exact same with the D shows. They turn R arguments into silly straw men to knock down, Sharpton is the worst. Those shows make you feel good short term, but may not prepare you for the battle.

Another TV show worthless trick is to debate someone who claims to be on the other side who really agrees with you. Like Dems debating Steele on MSNBC representing Rs. On FNC its that Democrat who hates Democrats.

So to REALLY beat him you must know him so that you know what they will attack you with. Better to learn that before the fight.

I should be doing the mock debate with Mitts. You reading this MR ??

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

O :”It was my opponent who vowed to reject a 10 to 1 spending cut deal up front if you elect him POTUS. His promise had nothing to do with me being POTUS. I offered a huge spending cut deficit reduction deal to his House Rs but they all took HIS insane vow to protect the filthy rich at all costs and they all refused it at the go. That is why voters will re-elect me and put Speaker Pelosi back in charge so we can finish fixin America, even for that lower/middle income 47% he says he wont worry about. DA-DA“

(Comment: I think there is a risk in throwing out too many targets in a debate statement. If you give your opponent a menu of subjects, he will pick the one he wants to respond to. Also, ordinary viewers might not remember long, complicated arguments, but they tend to remember short, pithy statements, as in Reagan-Carter. But my suggested zingers will not be anywhere near as good as those the experts compose.)

R: "You want to give control of the house back to Nancy Pelosi, who had absolute control of the House of Representatives during the first 2 years of your term, and increased spending dramatically during that period, to "help" you reduce the deficit? Again, not only did you fail to keep your promise to cut the deficit by 1/2 in 4 years, but you were very eager to sign the Stimulus and Obamacare bills, containing huge, wasteful projects such as Solyndra. You promise to save the hen house by making Pelosi the fox in charge."

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

The moral is :”Know your enemy if you want to defeat him” If you depend on certain R entertainment shows (like Hannity) to learn this you will hear some straw man arguments being trunced, exact same with the D shows. They turn R arguments into silly straw men to knock down, Sharpton is the worst. Those shows make you feel good short term, but may not prepare you for the battle.

You got that right! They say Portman is an irritatingly realistic Obama impersonator. Who knows.

[sickoflibs]

BTW :Its 10:00 PM EST here ~1 hour into the debate and I think Romney is doing much better than O in the debate. Really better. it’s standing out.

I think all that debate experience that Romney got this year is finally paying off.

Obama looks like the kid who skipped practice. He needs some work.

I loved the joke about O picking all the losers.

[sickoflibs]

I think Romney is doing good. Obama is on the defense.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

If SOL is praising R, it must have been a history making performance :)

But don’t forget that R may become the favorite for the second debate, which is not necessarily good in the “expectations game.”

Is it possible that Obama was sandbagging intentionally, like a poker player who wants to get caught betting on a weak hand so he can really clean up when he holds strong cards?

[BillyBoy]

>> Romney is doing much better than O in the debate. Really better. it’s standing out. Obama looks like the kid who skipped practice. He needs some work. I loved the joke about O picking all the losers. <<

Ironically, the only portion of the debate I watched tonight was two minutes of it where Obama had the upper-hand and was slapping Romney around with how Romneycare differed little from Obamacare at the state level. (I didn't bother watching the rest of the debate since I'm not an "undecided voter", I can't stand listening to O's lies for too long, and I'm in the middle of a vampire movie marathon in October for Halloween... tonight I watched "30 Days of Night")

However, I'm looking at all the post-debate analysis, and even Michael Moore and Bill Maher seem to think Obama stepped it in and Romney won, so it couldn't have been a good night for Hussein.

I wonder what Newt Gingrich's fan club thinks now, since they kept pushing the mainstream media's kool-aid throughout the primary that " we HAVE TO nominate Newt because Obama is such an awesome and charismatic speaker that any Republican not named 'Newt Gingrich' will get killed in a debate with him"

The thing is, I missed tonight's debate but I've been watching the teleprompter-in-chief debate for the last 12 years, ever since the Bobby Rush-Barack Obama Dem primary in my congressional district, back in 2000. All his opponents have held their own in a debate with him. He can deliver written speeches very well but "off-the-cuff", Obama is not nearly as impressive. I can't believe some freepers bought into the "Obama is a masterful debater" BS. Either that or they were simply underestimating all the other GOP candidate's speaking ability. All of them were decent debaters except Perry.

[Revolting cat!]

Romney, as you probably saw, did almost as you suggested. Didn’t hit many big punches in my opinion, didn’t ridicule as he should have the obvious demagogic cliches that were so predictable, and didn’t educate enough. Didn’t mention the class warfare, as he should have, didn’t name the manipulation as he should have, didn’t explain enough.

[sickoflibs]

RE :If SOL is praising R, it must have been a history making performance :)”

And I beat those MSNBC whiners. But they were the icing on the cake.

RE :”But don’t forget that R may become the favorite for the second debate, which is not necessarily good in the “expectations game.”
Is it possible that Obama was sandbagging intentionally, like a poker player who wants to get caught betting on a weak hand so he can really clean up when he holds strong cards”

Possible? I had the exact same thoughts as you post above.
One of us is thinking like the other :)

If you listened to the MSNBC whiners they are saying they wanted Obama to take the SAME aggressive stance as I did when I played the mock Obama debater here today. They brought up the same points I used in my Obama debate simulation.

Yes, I think O played it a bit weak on purpose. He will come on much stronger in the following debates.

But, Romney put on a masterful performance, many on the Dem channel admitted it in similar terms. After the shock they been doing a 'Romney lied and Obama let him get away with it' whine-fest..smells like LOSERS :)

[sickoflibs]

RE:”Ironically, the only portion of the debate I watched tonight was two minutes of it where Obama had the upper-hand and was slapping Romney around with how Romneycare differed little from Obamacare at the state level”

In that exchange I thought MR made a great delivery of ‘the states are the right places, not the Fed government, to try these things’ line . (and I believe that, not sure Mittens really does)

I am not saying I like or trust Romney or even that he has great arguments, but he sounded like he did tonight, and that is all that counts in a debate.

[Gilbo_3]

If SOL is praising R, it must have been a history making performance :)

admittedly i have never been able to stand looking at bambams face, and his voice grates my nerves as well...

i also wonder if he doesnt posess some kind of evil-spirit type hypnotic ability that can even reach thru photos and video.../tinfoil...maybe ???

anywho, i always thought that the bam sounded like a bumbling, stuttering idiot, even on the totus, much less downright embarassing when ad libbing...

as far as bambam being a 'master debater'??? maybe when reggie love is in town...IOW, a warm body in the room should clean house on him in a *debate*...and mitts had a lil practice lately, and used car salesmen are usually pretty good bull$h!tter$ too...

so, yeeeeaaaah, R *won* a debate, and moves closer to godhood...i guess i have to like him now ???