Both Romney and his running-mate have repeatedly stated that their intent is to cut taxes 20% for everybody who pays federal income tax. The cost of such a cut over a ten-year period is approximately $5 trillion, yet Romney now denies having ever said anything about this tax cut.
Both Romney and Ryan say that these cuts would be deficit neutral because, at the same time, their plan would eliminate certain unspecified loopholes and write-offs currently in the tax code. The problem is, even if they eliminated every single write-off, including charitable donations and home mortgage interest, it still wouldn’t come close to covering the cost of the $5 trillion tax cut.
HOWEVER, they also say that they would increase revenue by “broadening the tax base”. The only way to interpret this is that they intend to tax low and middle income families who, until now, have no earned enough to qualify for paying federal income tax. Therefore, their stated intent is to cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans and raise taxes on the middle class. You can’t get around that.
By the way, cutting taxes does NOT stimulate economic growth. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Low taxes encourage profit-taking. Periods of higher tax rates show more re-investment. Business owners take less profit out of their companies if they know they’re going to pay higher taxes on that income. In any case, the last eleven years has provided ample proof that tax cuts boost nothing but the wealth of the top 1% of the population. 93% of all gains in the economy over the last two years have accrued to that small group of highly fortunate people.
Romney has also stated numerous times that he wants to increase defense spending by a $1 trillion over the next ten years and $2 trillion over the next 20 years. He would also add more than 100,000 more personnel to the armed forces. He has vowed to do this despite the fact that the Pentagon has said it doesn’t need the additional people or extra money. Romney just wants to be seen as a pro-military leader by his right-wing base. It is a completely disingenuous position.
All that said, I also have doubts about President Obama’s debating skills (although I don’t know what that has to do with being President of the United States). I wish he had been more energetic and assertive in the debate. I also wish that he called Romney on all of his lies and half-truths. That was a major mistake.
Obama’s life has been an open book to anybody who was interested in listening. Born in Hawaii. Raised by Christian white grandparents. Undergraduate degree from Columbia. Law degree from Harvard. First black to be president of the Harvard Law Review. Taught Constitutional law at University of Chicago. He was selected by the Annenberg Foundation to head up its Trust in Chicago which funds educational programs for children from low income families. William Ayers, the “domestic terrorist”, had been put on that same board by the Annenberg’s, a very conservative family which recently endorsed John McCain for President. Ayers subsequent support of Obama when he ran for state senator came because of what Obama had achieved while leading the Annenberg Foundation. That was Ayers only connection to Obama, and what Ayers did and has done outside of that Trust Board is wholly irrelevant to this election.
Here’s what we know about McCain: A mediocre student, he got into the Naval Academy because his grandfather and father were both Admirals. Then he promptly graduated 894th in his class of 899 midshipmen. After graduating he managed to crash or severely damage several aircraft which investigators found were caused by poor pilot judgment, which is a euphemism for show-boating and flying too low. Then he got shot down over Hanoi. When he was released 5 years later, he left his wife who had stood by him all through his captivity and had an affair with a rich heiress. After he divorced his wife and married the heiress, his new wife’s father gave him a cushy, high-paying job in public relations and helped get his political aspirations off the ground. After parlaying his involuntary POW status into becoming a senator, he promptly started to lobby for Charles Keating, a corrupt banker and reactionary who wanted to influence the government regulators of his savings and loan. If it hadn’t been for his mythological war hero status, McCain would have been thrown out of the senate or at least censured. Since that time, he has stood for a few causes like campaign finance reform, but has voted his party line on just about everything because he doesn’t have the brains to understand the bills he’s voting on. He did put forward an immigration reform plan, but subsequently walked away from it. He’s not a bright man. And his choice of Sarah Palin is further proof of that. If something happened to McCain during his term, we would have had a president who believes that mankind actually walked alongside living dinosaurs.”
I’m not sure why those who support John McCain are so devoted to this man. I suppose we all need heroes in our life, and maybe McCain fits that image for some people. But the reality is that he is an ill-tempered political bully who has waffled on the majority of the issues he has faced because he hasn’t really understood them. His performance in the third debate once again revealed that he is mean, disrespectful man who is incapable of admitting that someone else might be right. I thought that his exaggerated facial expressions while Obama was talking were contemptible. Not just because they were juvenile, but because they showed that this candidate for president has no self-control or grace in a pressure situation. Again, for me, intelligence and calmness trumps experience.