My femi-nazi is [B]outside right now mowing the lawn[/B] while I watch the kids and record an instructional video for trying to teach my coworkers how to use a large transfer website. The lawn better not interfere with my roast beef sandwich for lunch! :P[/QUOTE]
My femi-nazi is outside right now mowing the lawn while I watch the kids and record an instructional video for trying to teach my coworkers how to use a large transfer website. The lawn better not interfere with my roast beef sandwich for lunch! :P[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=OCCH;4434135]Maybe I didn't hear the whole quote, but it sure sounded like she was knocking Ann Romney because she was too RICH to relate to working women, not for being a stay-at-home mom.
It just seems every day the real truth becomes more and more irrelevant . . .:([/QUOTE]
Actually, it sounded more to me like she was saying "what does Ann Romney know about the economy, she's never held a job" - which is a superficially fair point that has nothing to do with stay at home moms "not working". Of course, you don't actually need to be in the work force to have a grasp of economics . . .
[QUOTE=chiefst2000;4435120]Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Ryan's plan includes specific details on entitlement reform and budget cuts. The tax code adjustments are a guideline. The ways and means committee would be designated to run through specific loopholes and deductions to get to a revenue neutral position. That is how the budgeting process always works. Your answer here is cynical and untrue.[/QUOTE]
Cynical. What is untrue is that any of the sacred cows will be touched by Republicans or Democrats. The fact that they were sepecific on cuts something that panders to their party but not on deductions something that doesn't pander to their cause is very telling.
Ryan is the guy who sabatoged Simpson Bowles on the Republican side. Cynical doesn't even begin to describe it. Ryan's budget deserves the scorn it will get.
[QUOTE]While the Simpson-Bowles proposal continues to intrigue some people, support proved nonexistent when it was finally brought up for a vote on March 28. The entire Simpson-Bowles plan, including huge budget cuts, received only 38 votes in the House of Representatives. The New York Times reported that it was opposed by both conservative and liberal groups for various reasons.
Even if the tax side of Simpson-Bowles had been considered separately, I doubt it would have done any better. Talk is cheap when it comes to eliminating tax expenditures, but when it comes to actually naming specific preferences that would be eliminated, few are willing to step up to the plate.
Politicians hide behind grandiose plans for wiping the slate clean because they know that support for every specific tax expenditure is very high. In practice, saying that one would eliminate all tax expenditures is meaningless, nothing more than a gesture that avoids confrontation with the constituencies supporting tax expenditures.
Perhaps the worst offender, in this regard, is Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, who promises a sharp reduction in tax rates while still balancing the budget. He says that his tax cuts, which would reduce revenues by $10 trillion over the next decade over current law, according to the Tax Policy Center, would be paid for with base-broadening and loophole-closing.
But Mr. Ryan steadfastly refuses to name a single loophole that he would eliminate; he ordered the Congressional Budget Office to assume that federal revenues would rise to 19 percent of gross domestic product from 15.5 percent by 2030 under his plan.
Mr. Ryan’s political calculation is simple. He knows that taking away the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance would greatly increase its cost and probably cause most businesses to drop coverage; repealing the mortgage-interest deduction would raise the cost of housing for homeowners and would very likely cause a further drop in home prices; abolishing the charitable-contributions deduction would decimate churches, universities, museums and every other tax-exempt organization; and rescinding the deduction for state and local taxes would vastly raise the tax burden in most states.
Mr. Ryan knows perfectly well that the most popular tax expenditures will never be repealed but pretends that they all will in order to make his phony-baloney numbers add up. The fact is that the vast bulk of tax expenditures, in dollar terms, are immensely popular and deeply imbedded in the economy and society.
A recent study by the Congressional Research Service concluded that it would be extraordinarily difficult to get rid of 90 percent of tax expenditures, leaving at most perhaps $100 billion to $150 billion of revenue that could realistically be realized to finance rate reductions.
Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 04-16-2012 at 09:26 AM.
[QUOTE=chiefst2000;4434406]Yes it's crazy. How could people take a statement that she's not qualified to comment of the economy because "she never worked a day in her life" and look at it as liberal feminist contempt for stay at home moms. Right wingers are looney that way.
By the way this is nothing like when Liberals took Rick Santorum's statement that he personally due to his religious beliefs is against contraception, and construed it to the public as Republicans want to ban conception. That's totally different and not looney at all.[/QUOTE]
Well What work experience did Barack Hussein Obama have. Yet so many dopes believed in Hope and Change. Ann Romney is not running for President. You are Mr President. How about you run on your record. Are you better off than you were three years ago. If you are vote for barack. If not vote for Romney.
Last edited by Raider9175; 04-18-2012 at 04:44 PM.