Page 2 of 2 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. Havakasha is offline
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    10-29-2012, 01:00 AM #11

    Obama's deficit plan closer to what CEOs favor

    What's surprising is that the CEOs' commitment to a balanced bipartisan plan puts them much closer to Obama's deficit reduction plan than to Mitt Romney's.
    That's because it also dovetails with the outlines of the Grand Bargain negotiated by Obama and House Speaker John Boehner in the summer of 2011, only to have negotiations fall apart.
    The human cost of austerity in Greece How Sandy could impact the vote Fact check: Tackling the deficit Tackling U.S.'s runaway debt
    Mitt Romney has repeatedly and specifically said that he will not consider any plan that raises any increased tax revenue to pay down the deficit and the debt. During the Republican primaries, he famously joined with his competitors in raising his hand to say that he would reject even a 10-to-1 deal splitting spending cuts with tax revenue increases. The Bowles-Simpson plan was based on an even less generous 3-to-1 split (though of course, still weighted decidedly in favor of spending cuts).
    This is not an academic difference. It goes to the heart of what kind of deficit reduction can be realistically achieved as a matter of both politics and math. A plan that does not include any new revenues is not practical in terms of achieving the larger goal. "When you talk about a $16 trillion debt, I don't see how you can avoid addressing both sides" -- both spending cuts and revenue increases -- said AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, sensibly. An imbalanced and ideologically pure solution without any revenue increases would be DOA with Democrats in the Senate.

    Keep on reading.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 10-29-2012 at 02:03 AM.

  2. Havakasha is offline
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    10-29-2012, 02:02 AM #12
    Mr. Romney’s tax plan still doesn’t add up

    By Editorial Board, Published: October 28

    IN A LETTER published on this page last week, Pierce Scranton, economic policy director for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, took issue with an editorial describing the “implausibility” of Mr. Romney’s tax plan. In the debates and other recent comments, Mr. Romney has taken to suggesting that one way to make his $5 trillion tax cut revenue-neutral would be to “pick a number” — say $25,000 — and let taxpayers take that much, and no more, in deductions. The Tax Policy Center, analyzing that proposal, found that it would close only $1.3 trillion of Mr. Romney’s newly dug revenue hole. And no matter how many times the Romney campaign insists that independent studies “have demonstrated the Romney plan works,” that simply isn’t true — not with the parameters (revenue neutrality and no tax increases for those making less than $200,000) that Mr. Romney has set, and not unless you assume economic growth far greater than that predicted by Mr. Romney’s own advisers.

    Keep on reading.

  3. Havakasha is offline
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    10-30-2012, 04:14 PM #13

    Mitt Romney Refuses To Talk About FEMA After Hurricane Sandy Event
    The Huffington Post | By Sabrina Siddiqui
    Posted: 10/30/2012 1:17 pm EDT Updated: 10/30/2012 2:26 pm EDT

    Mitt Romney refused to answer reporters' questions about how he would handle the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), after a Tuesday "storm relief" event in Ohio for Hurricane Sandy.

    From the Romney pool report:
    TV pool asked Romney at least five times whether he would eliminate FEMA as president/what he would do with FEMA. He ignored the qs but they are audible on cam. The music stopped at points and the qs would have been audible to him.
    A follow-up report noted the specific questions Romney ignored, as he was collecting hurricane supplies following his event:

    "Gov are you going to eliminate FEMA?" a print pooler shouted, receiving no response.
    Wires reporters asked more questions about FEMA that were ignored.

    Romney kept coming over near pool to pick up more water. He ignored these questions:

    "Gov are you going to see some storm damage?"

    "Gov has [New Jersey Gov.] Chris Christie invited you to come survey storm damage?"

    "Gov you've been asked 14 times, why are you refusing to answer the question?"

  4. Havakasha is offline
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    10-30-2012, 04:31 PM #14

    Romnesia: With 11 days to go, Mitt Romney changes position on subsidies for renewable energy in Iowa
    byJed LewisonFollow

    Remember how Mitt Romney hurt himself in Iowa by coming out against subsidies for wind power? Well, now that it's 11 days before the election and he desperately needs to win Iowa, he's apparently having a change of heart, because today he said he would support subsidies for renewables:

    Mitt Romney says he's the change candidate ... and to prove it, he changes his positions.
    We're going to support nuclear and renewables, but we'll phase out subsidies once an industry is on its feet.
    Now this might not actually be a flip-flop, because Romney doesn't specifically say that he supports wind energy tax breaks. Instead, he goes with a vague pledge to support "renewables." But make no mistake: He wants Iowans to at least think he supports wind energy tax breaks.
    The only question here is whether Romney is making a crass eleventh hour political flip-flop ... or if he simply wants people to think he's flip-flopped. Maybe we could get an answer if he actually took questions from the media, but that's not happening anytime soon. Actually, it probably doesn't even matter, because if there's one thing we should know by now about Mitt Romney, the only thing that you can truly believe about him is that he'll say whatever he thinks he needs to say in order to get what he wants to get.

  5. Havakasha is offline
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    10-31-2012, 01:04 AM #15
    Four More Pinocchios for Romney from the Fact Checkers:

    Here’s what Romney said last Thursday in Ohio: “I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China. I will fight for every good job in America, I’m going to fight to make sure trade is fair.”
    This was completely wrong. Bloomberg News had reported that Fiat, the majority owner of Chrysler, was planning to once again start building Jeeps in China, after production had been on hold since 2009.
    The article made clear that Chrysler was was “adding Jeep production sites rather than shifting output from North America to China,” but some blogs, such as the Washington Examiner’s Washington Secrets, misinterpreted the article and reported: “Jeep, the rugged brand President Obama once said symbolized American freedom, is considering giving up on the United States and shifting production to China.”
    After Romney made his comments, Chrysler issued a statement firmly denying that any North American production was being moved to China:
    “Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China. It’s simply reviewing the opportunities to return Jeep output to China for the world’s largest auto market. U.S. Jeep assembly lines will continue to stay in operation. A careful and unbiased reading of the Bloomberg take would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments.” – WaPo

Page 2 of 2 12