Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does Romney's Tax Plan Accept the Premise of the Left's Class Warfare? (Rush has MR news)
RushLimbaugh.com ^ | 4-17-12 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 04/17/2012 6:07:06 PM PDT by STARWISE

Excerpt:

"Now on Sunday night Romney was here in Palm Beach for a big fundraiser. Word has leaked out about some of the things that he said to the donors.

These are things that he's not said publicly in terms of specifics on policy, and one of the things that he talked about was a tax plan.

He wants to lower rates but eliminate some deductions for the rich.

And I have to tell you, folks, I'm not comfortable with the Republican nominee talking about special plans for "the rich," special plans for "Hispanics."

That was part of it, too. He was saying we're gonna have to do some special outreach for Hispanics, special outreach for women. No, we don't. Not as conservatives. We don't have to have special policies for this group and that group or special whatever.

One of the tax ideas was to eliminate... Now, get this: Eliminate the mortgage deductibility on second homes. Now, that's populism. We're talking an amount of money that's no different than the Buffett Rule. It's a shame.

His capital gains idea is also a little curious, because it, too, is targeting "the rich," anybody making over $200,000 jointly and introduces progressivity into the tax which seems fair or what have you.

These are not the things that a Republican, much less a conservative nominee, needs to be talking about or saying. This is Rockefeller Republicanism. This is identity politics. It's the kind of stuff that the left talks about."

rest @link

(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: elections; flipflopper; liar; liberal; limbaugh; noromney; progressive; rino; romney; romneylies; romneytruthfile; rush; rushlive; rushtranscript; statist; taxesrushlimbaugh; weasel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
To: presently no screen name
No Romney, ever and I’m sick of hearing that not voting for Romney is the same as voting for Obama.

Was my statement.............. by quoting only this part of my statement:

voting for Romney is the same as voting for Obama.

You make it appear something that it wasn't at all. Was it intentional?

41 posted on 04/17/2012 8:19:49 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Haggai 1, V6.. and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes. (My plight))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Romney was on Kudlow. Romney basically said he was open for taxing the rich more as long as overall taxes go down. So he is moving back to the left as predicted.

It is obvious what he will do. He will give the dems higher taxes on the rich (since he is rich) in exchange for some sort of tax reform. Who knows what that would look like. The fix is in.


42 posted on 04/17/2012 8:22:19 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Purrcival

Ditto that. Attacks on Rush are from people who don’t “listen”. He has been steadfastly neutral and I have heard him both praise and excoriate all candidates based on what came out of their mouths this election cycle.
He has hammered Romney more then anybody because Romney is...Romney. His leftist brain constantly gets in the way of his pandering to the right.

Rush has said though that if Romney is the nominee he is a “anyone but Barry guy” and will vote to defeat him. Which means he will vote Romney. Me thinks he was praying hard that Newt would win.

I just sent Newt more money.


43 posted on 04/17/2012 9:04:37 PM PDT by liberty or death
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Purrcival

“I listen to both Rush and Hannity regularly, and they have gone out of their way to be neutral. Both have refused to endorse anyone. I don’t know where you get the idea that they’re pimping socialist pos’s, because they are NOT!!”

Fair enough. My frustration is that they refuse to examine Romney’s record. They refuse to call him out on his liberal socialist views.

Maybe pimping is too harsh, but they are definitely complicit in the whitewashing and glossing of his record. That reeks of hypocrisy and it really bothers me due to the fact that I have been a Rush fan for so long. I would prefer him and Hannity to take principled stands...much like Jim Robinson has....and call these guys out when they stray. We’re just getting a bunch of cheerleading in my mind.


44 posted on 04/17/2012 9:10:32 PM PDT by vmivol00 (I won't be reconstructed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl

Ridiculous. It’s more meddling in a stupid code. It also plays the left wing game of pitting class against class.

If a tax deduction for home mortgage interest is a good idea then it’s a good idea. Deciding who qualifies based on income proves the idea is stupid. It violates equality.


45 posted on 04/17/2012 9:17:57 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Democrats are dangerous and evil. Republicans are just useless and useful idiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vmivol00

Rush does his share. Maybe he just isn’t as overt as you’d like. I’ve heard him talk about Romney negatively based on some speech or proposal, etc.

Hannity just concentrates on Obama. Not that I don’t mind.


46 posted on 04/17/2012 9:22:28 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Democrats are dangerous and evil. Republicans are just useless and useful idiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: arderkrag
2. A nonvote is simply not a vote. It does not "equal" another vote for Obama. Only voting FOR Obama does that.

You logic is very flawed. Let's say 100 people vote for Bozo and 100 vote for the Republican. That makes it even, however if one of the Republican voters decides at the last minute not to vote then the vote stands at 100 For B and 99 for the Republican, that gives Bozo a one vote lead. Therefore not voting does equal voting for the opposition.

It seems rather childish to have to explain this to someone who should be fairly intelligent and at least educated to the point where such simple math would be obvious. To sum up, every Republican voter who stays home and throws a hissy fit is giving a vote to Bozo, simple as that.

47 posted on 04/18/2012 12:05:12 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: calex59
You logic is very flawed. Let's say 100 people vote for Bozo and 100 vote for the Republican. That makes it even, however if one of the Republican voters decides at the last minute not to vote then the vote stands at 100 For B and 99 for the Republican, that gives Bozo a one vote lead. Therefore not voting does equal voting for the opposition.

No, it doesn't. It simply equals not voting. Conflating it into more than that is overcomplicating the matter.
48 posted on 04/18/2012 1:14:06 AM PDT by arderkrag ("WAAHH WAAAHHH SCOTUS" is no excuse to vote for Romney. LOOKING FOR ROLEPLAYERS. Check Profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl
If Romney’s plan is revenue neutral, that is, he lowers taxes as much as the increased revenue ...

The President does neither or any other "solution". He can propose whatever he wishes but he cannot do anything to change or enforce such changes without the Congress. Just as Obama about his "budget" which failed to even get a single "yes" vote in his Dem Senate. The Presidential race outcome will affect down ballot choices. We must elect a Republican majority in the Senate and keep the House for any positive changes to happen. That is our goal!

49 posted on 04/18/2012 2:43:38 AM PDT by TexasRedeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
My generation of our family, having been here since 1635, has several new branches married to Latinos/Latinas. Some living outside of the country. Our children are the next generation of Latinos/Hispanics. They have been brought up being taught the pure evil of socialism that caused their mother or grandparents to flee their former homeland.

When you have a candidate catering to a specific Latino interest, we see it as a socialist "divide and conquer" tactic. This new generation - there is no defined line where Latino ends and American patriot begins.

They are the same.

50 posted on 04/18/2012 5:43:06 AM PDT by Caipirabob (I say we take off and Newt the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Artcore; Purrcival

After Newt won SC, Rush announced how surprised he was that Speaker Gingrich had been so opposed to Ronald Reagan years ago.

Rush said he didn’t remember it, but there it was on tape. Rush tried to have it both ways, saying he remembered Newt as pro-Reagan, but well whatta ya know, there he is on tape speaking against Reagan.

In what was later shown to be a fraudulent representation of Gingrich’s words.

The effect of this, I’m convinced, was to send a chill over the flames of Newt’s SC victory. And this is only one example of Rush’s subtle backing of Romney that has gone on since the 2008 primaries.


51 posted on 04/18/2012 6:20:22 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Why do you seek the living among the dead? (Luke 24:5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
Without Rush backing him Romney wouldn’t have won as many primaries, in my opinion.

Rush didn't back Romney. In fact, while, listening to him throughout the primaries it became apparent he was not comfortable with Romney at all.

He may give support to him in the general (as many ABO's will) but he certainly did not help him win the primaries.

52 posted on 04/18/2012 7:48:59 AM PDT by CharacterCounts (A vote for the lesser of two evils only insures the triumph of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Very Breitbart-ish picture. He should do this more often.


53 posted on 04/18/2012 8:01:38 AM PDT by Excellence (9/11 was an act of faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
Gingrich will be on my ballot, if I have to write him in.

Absolutely right. Perhaps we need to organize conservatives via FreeRepublic and send in a picture of a ballot with Newt's name on it, and "NO ROMNEY" stamped across it. Send it in to the RNC, Representative and Senator; letting them know that enough is enough.

At least with Obama, I know to carry lube....

54 posted on 04/18/2012 9:57:54 AM PDT by voicereason (Dems, Pubbies...too often a one-sided coin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

The resistance I gather must be pretty small. Romney will be the nominee.

More effort is needed to change the “establishment” and less into focused smearing of just one person. At this point nobody cares what the truth about Romney is.

Get control of the process of choosing the nominee then it won’t matter who get’s nominated.


55 posted on 04/18/2012 11:46:52 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: arderkrag; Kickass Conservative
Splittin' hairs here, but while a 3rd party or non-vote may not technically be a vote for Obama, what it boils down to is it's one less vote Obama needs to win.

Still might not be enough of a reason to get me to vote for Romney, though.

My hope is than these "non-voters" don't just sit out the entire election, but at least vote down-ticket to strengthen the Republican majority in the House & hopefully take over the Senate, as well.

In that case, whether we are stuck with Obama (or even Mitt, for that matter), the amount of damage inflicted upon the Country by the Executive Branch could be minimized. Of course, that assumes the Republican majority comes with a spine!

56 posted on 04/18/2012 12:20:53 PM PDT by mellow velo (Oxymorons: jumbo shrimp, rap music, liberal think-tank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

I’m pretty sure that Romeneys announcement on his tax plan reflect his understanding that Obama’s class warfare program has taken some casualties and is addressing that so as to actually win an election here. I don’t believe he is motivated by the premisis but by the tea leaves and desire to actually beat Obama and not just carp about him.


57 posted on 04/18/2012 12:31:02 PM PDT by scannell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mellow velo

I don’t consider it splitting hairs at all. That particular myth - that voting third party or abstaining is “voting for the other guy” is one of the most insidious ones around, right up there with “You have to cater to the middle!”


58 posted on 04/18/2012 1:12:29 PM PDT by arderkrag ("WAAHH WAAAHHH SCOTUS" is no excuse to vote for Romney. LOOKING FOR ROLEPLAYERS. Check Profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

All of it still matters to the ones of us who haven’t even had their primary yet!

I’m tired of people just acting like the whole thing is over! It’s NOT FOR ME!


59 posted on 04/18/2012 2:54:28 PM PDT by LUV W (This space reserved for heroes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: arderkrag
My uncle, in the 80’s, lost the Mayoral vote in our town by 1 vote. My two sisters didn't vote because they went to a concert and thought he'd win anyway. So not voting can make a big difference.
60 posted on 04/18/2012 11:24:26 PM PDT by MacMattico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson