So he says a lot like he is pro-life, he will repeal obama care, and he will balance the budget and give tax cuts? And thats about as far as his plan will ever go? How do people say ya he’s my guy when he says nothing about any of the issues and has no actual plan. He is totally going ya ill take care of that, o well how that’s for me to know and you to find out.
I guess you forgot about 2008, where Obama’s big plan was “hope and change”.
The fact is that all this talk about “Romney not being specific” is simple fluff. No person running from president is specific in how they’re going to accomplish, for example, tax goals simply because it would be almost impossible to actually campaign on a specific tax plan and actually implement that tax plan if you’re elected. It would be political suicide to do so, which is why no candidate does so.
He’s going to cut personal tax rates by 20%. He’s going to end the payroll tax cut. He’s wants to limit tax expenditures - apparently the current plan is to put a cap on itemized deductions. He wants to re-eliminate the estate tax, and end corporate taxation of overseas profits (and reduce corporate tax rates, IIRC).
That’s just the tax policy, and off the top of my head, but it’s pretty specific. The only part that’s clearly vague (and, IMO, bullshit) is that it will reduce the deficit. That’s just supply-side wishful thinking.
That’s just not true. At least on domestic policy Obama’s biggest new initiative was health-care reform, and the plan currently passed and signed differs very little from his plan (mainly in the individual mandate).
In fact, 2008 Obama had significantly more in the way of specific plans than 2012 Obama, much to his current detriment IMO.
The only thing I can figure out is that he’s going to raise the tax on those below middle class. If you aren’t going to raise taxes on the rich, and cut them for the middle class, but remain revenue neutral, then there is only one solution.
In 2016 I am going to run on the platform of giving everyone a pony. How will I pay for it? By cutting taxes.
You nuts? Ponies eat more than kids! Hay will cost more than weed! Emergency rooms will be filled with Dads with shovel-related injuries and cardiac infarctions!
Romney is actually more specific about his plans than Obama is. there’s a reason many liberal writers are urging Obama to set out a 2nd term vision. That would be because he hasn’t.
We know. This is, in fact, the bipartisan solution to the ageing of the US population.
Which plans? Would you like to provide a link? One that can’t be matched up with an equal and opposite opinion of Romney’s?
I’m still trying to figure out how six studies backed the Romney budget plan when Ryan couldn’t give any specifics about what the offsetting deductions were that would be eliminated.
Romney said that you could limit deductions to say, $20,000 and that would allow major rate reductions.
Then why didn’t Paul Ryan answer the question of whether the home mortgage interest deduction would still be available for people with incomes less than $100,000? His response was basically, “That is up for negotiation.” How is it that the promise to cut rates is very specific - 20% - but the promise to eliminate deductions to offset the tax cuts is without any specifics whatsoever?
Contrast that to Obama’s plan. Wealthy people pay a little more, extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone else. There is zero ambiguity there, and it is fully explained in one sentence.
And what about foreign policy? There’s the criticism that Obama’s foreign policy isn’t rah-rah American enough, but what would Romney do differently in Afghanistan and on Iran? “We will be stronger than Obama” is about as specific as their foreign policy gets. Let’s not forget Ryan’s intellectual gem on when Romney would use force overseas: “When it is in America’s interest to do so.” Wow, professor, ease up on the minutiae and technical lingo.
Yeah, Romney has roughly three times as many plans as Obama. But to be fair, when you make three contradictory plans on any given topic, that’s pretty easy.
Apparently part of their foreign policy plan is to go back in time.
Q: What would you do differently from the Obama adminstration in Syria?
Ryan: Well we wouldn’t have relied on the UN–
Q: But what would you do differently now?
Ryan: Well we wouldn’t have given Russia veto power.
For fuck’s sake, you keep saying what you wouldn’t do, but what the Sam Hill would you DO?
He’s wrong, of course, unless you don’t care about reduced revenue or higher taxes on those making ~$100k with a mortgage, but it is a specific plan - no doubt about it.
He also plans to appoint SCOTUS justices that will overturn Roe v Wade. He plans on reversing EPA regulations on coal-fired power plants. He says he’ll leave DADT alone but he will start defending DOMA and would support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He plans on increasing defense spending dramatically and will support an Israeli attack on Iran (whether with US military force or not is somewhat unclear).
ETA: Just out of curiosity, as someone right around what I listed up there for 2011 I had ~$30k in deductions. So yeah, my taxes will go up under this plan. Thanks Mitt!
Is “specific” suddenly a synonym of “multitudes?” Don’t worry about your own tax bill. Mitt’s specific plan just changed again so that you may be able to maintain up to $50,000 of deductions and have your tax rates cut by 20%.
Just remember, this is all supposed to be revenue-neutral. Riiiiiiiiight.
I guess I cut politicians some slack when it comes to the exact numbers - the policy is plenty specific:
- Cut rates
- Cap deductions
That’s it. You can move around the numbers, but that’s the policy. Pretty clearly the result will be a big tax cut for the rich, so I obviously object when Romney tries to claim that it will also be revenue neutral and not raise taxes on anyone making under $200k. That part is bullshit.
But just because your plan doesn’t have the result you claim doesn’t mean it isn’t specific.
Let’s compare - Obama in 2008 had a specific plan for health-care reform. He also made claims about what it would do re: costs and the number of uninsured. If those claims turn out to not be true, does that make the plan unspecific? Nah, it just makes it a bad plan (I happen to think it’s good, btw).
So I’d say Romney has a relatively well-specified bad tax plan.
He also has relatively well-specific bad plans on bank regulations (repeal Dodd-Frank), environmental regulations (end EPA regulation of coal and carbon in general), women’s health (appoint justices like Scalia), and a whole host of other issues.
Ok, here’s my specific plan for America: grow the economy. How? By lowering unemployment and increasing growth. If you ask what my plan means for research and development tax credits, I won’t answer you. If you ask what my plan means for extending benefits for unemployed workers, I’ll say that will have to be negotiated. If you ask about what trade initiatives I will undertake, I’ll say that everything is on the table.
Would you call my plan “specific?”
No one said it had to be a live pony.
So the entirety of Romney’s big plan is “Believe in America”? Or are you too dense to understand what a campaign slogan is?