Soren wrote:this whole plan of just blatantly lying and calling foul when someone points it out is like kindergarden level stuff. Good thing nothing important is riding on this.

JUburton wrote:

Soren wrote:this whole plan of just blatantly lying and calling foul when someone points it out is like kindergarden level stuff. Good thing nothing important is riding on this.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney ... -ar,29845/

Romney said he looks for guidance to President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned that he would lower tax rates and would work with Congress to find deductions and exemptions – and then did so. Romney said he, too, will work with federal lawmakers to bring down tax rates but still bring in the revenue the country needs.

In response, James Kvaal, the Obama re-election campaign’s policy director, said in a telephone interview that “independent scorekeepers have put (Romney’s tax plan) at a cost of $5 trillion” over the next decade. “He said that he will offset that cost … but he hasn’t put on table a single step he would take to help offset that cost,” Kvaal said.

That claim about the $5 trillion cost is “not true,” FactCheck.org found, “Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.”

...

If we continue the current policies that we have under the president, and his plan to increase taxes,” Romney said, “it’s hard to imagine that’s going to add jobs. I don’t know anyone who thinks that increasing taxes anywhere will promote job growth.”

The Obama campaign has said that studies of Romney’s plan by economists have found that his proposals to close tax loopholes wouldn’t cover the $5 trillion in tax cuts he wants or $2 trillion in extra military spending.

“The president during the last couple of weeks has been saying, ‘Well, you’re going to lower taxes by $5 trillion.’ Well, that’s just not accurate, and his deputy campaign manager actually admitted that was not accurate.”

td11 wrote:http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/10/09/mitt-romney-on-his-tax-cut-plan-the-math-works/article

Romney said he looks for guidance to President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned that he would lower tax rates and would work with Congress to find deductions and exemptions – and then did so. Romney said he, too, will work with federal lawmakers to bring down tax rates but still bring in the revenue the country needs.

In response, James Kvaal, the Obama re-election campaign’s policy director, said in a telephone interview that “independent scorekeepers have put (Romney’s tax plan) at a cost of $5 trillion” over the next decade. “He said that he will offset that cost … but he hasn’t put on table a single step he would take to help offset that cost,” Kvaal said.

That claim about the $5 trillion cost is “not true,” FactCheck.org found, “Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.”

...

If we continue the current policies that we have under the president, and his plan to increase taxes,” Romney said, “it’s hard to imagine that’s going to add jobs. I don’t know anyone who thinks that increasing taxes anywhere will promote job growth.”

The Obama campaign has said that studies of Romney’s plan by economists have found that his proposals to close tax loopholes wouldn’t cover the $5 trillion in tax cuts he wants or $2 trillion in extra military spending.

“The president during the last couple of weeks has been saying, ‘Well, you’re going to lower taxes by $5 trillion.’ Well, that’s just not accurate, and his deputy campaign manager actually admitted that was not accurate.”

amazing fact-checking. maybe it's just me, but this stuff is more maddening than anything the president did (or didn't do) during the debate.

td11 wrote:http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/10/09/mitt-romney-on-his-tax-cut-plan-the-math-works/article

Romney said he looks for guidance to President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned that he would lower tax rates and would work with Congress to find deductions and exemptions – and then did so. Romney said he, too, will work with federal lawmakers to bring down tax rates but still bring in the revenue the country needs.

In response, James Kvaal, the Obama re-election campaign’s policy director, said in a telephone interview that “independent scorekeepers have put (Romney’s tax plan) at a cost of $5 trillion” over the next decade. “He said that he will offset that cost … but he hasn’t put on table a single step he would take to help offset that cost,” Kvaal said.

That claim about the $5 trillion cost is “not true,” FactCheck.org found, “Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.”

...

If we continue the current policies that we have under the president, and his plan to increase taxes,” Romney said, “it’s hard to imagine that’s going to add jobs. I don’t know anyone who thinks that increasing taxes anywhere will promote job growth.”

The Obama campaign has said that studies of Romney’s plan by economists have found that his proposals to close tax loopholes wouldn’t cover the $5 trillion in tax cuts he wants or $2 trillion in extra military spending.

“The president during the last couple of weeks has been saying, ‘Well, you’re going to lower taxes by $5 trillion.’ Well, that’s just not accurate, and his deputy campaign manager actually admitted that was not accurate.”

amazing fact-checking. maybe it's just me, but this stuff is more maddening than anything the president did (or didn't do) during the debate.

Bucky wrote:yes, because items 1-4 results in a tax increase for a large portion of americans, which he promises isn't the case.

The GOP presidential nominee told the Des Moines Register yesterday that he doesn't intend to pursue legislation to restrict abortion if he is elected president. "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda," Romney told the Register's editorial board.

Warszawa wrote:

The GOP presidential nominee told the Des Moines Register yesterday that he doesn't intend to pursue legislation to restrict abortion if he is elected president. "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda," Romney told the Register's editorial board.

If I didn't know any better I would think that this race is a democratic primary

Bucky wrote:yes, because items 1-4 results in a tax increase for a large portion of americans, which he promises isn't the case.

td11 wrote:ok thanks mitt romney