Skip to comments.Does Romney's Tax Plan Accept the Premise of the Left's Class Warfare? (Rush has MR news)
Posted on 04/17/2012 6:07:06 PM PDT by STARWISE
"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."
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
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?
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.
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.
“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 dont know where you get the idea that theyre pimping socialist poss, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Very Breitbart-ish picture. He should do this more often.
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....
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.
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!
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.
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!”
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!