I guess the operative word in your post is "liberal." I would change that to say "progressive."
Relying on Ezra Klein as a source means you not only have drunk the Kool-Aid, you have had so much that you might as well be Mr. Kool-Aid.
Who is Ezra Klein? Some excerpts from the Wiki entry on hisself -
Unbiased source not found.
Sure, got it, anyone who disagrees with your party on anything is obviously a flaming liberal. Lulz.It doesn't occur to you that this is a classic strawman? They have set up imputed rent income as a tax break - something NO conservative or non-progressive would ever do - and then knocked it down by suggesting that since Romney would not eliminate it, his plan is not feasible. My point - and I really don't think it's that difficult to follow - was that only the very hardest left would consider not taxing someone for the rent they don't pay on their own home to be a tax break. Why not imputed health income, where people who do not have expensive chronic illnesses are taxed for the money they don't spend treating those illnesses? Why not imputed sobriety income, where people who aren't not alcoholics are taxed for the money they don't spend on drink? Surely good health and sobriety are valuable assets.
This isn't an evaluation of Romney's plan, it's merely a furtherance of the Tax Policy Center's central theme, that the only workable alternative is always to tax more and spend more. Making up details and shooting them down should make that amply clear to all.
WTF difference would it make? None of them are on the table either. None of them would put any more dollars in column B, just as imputed rent income doesn't. The only difference is that nobody has proposed those others be taxed, whereas at one point someone did propose imputed rent as a potential tax. Others proposed it, TPC therefore included it in their analysis, TPC rejected it as a non-starter. There's nothing to see here, move along.Why not imputed health income, where people who do not have expensive chronic illnesses are taxed for the money they don't spend treating those illnesses? Why not imputed sobriety income, where people who aren't not alcoholics are taxed for the money they don't spend on drink? Surely good health and sobriety are valuable assets.
LOL....learn to read?
Ezra Klein wrote the article, he didn't provide the quote. That came from the TAx Policy center, who analyzed Romney's budget claims.
So epic fail on your part (once again)?
Once again, care to comment on the analysis of his budget being impossible? Try to use some facts this time please.
As a result, it is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that preserves current incentives for savings and investment and that does not result in a net tax cut for high income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers under the assumptions we have described above.
We do not score Governor Romney’s plan directly, as certain components of his plan are not specified in sufficient detail, nor do we make assumptions regarding what those components might be.
Bush was a big spender, Obama beats him at this hands down.
Bush added to the size of government, Obama has been on steroids.
The government can and has to be whittled down so that is sucks down much fewer resources.
I liked Romney's turnaround creds and that he took in a lot of Ryan's policy ideas even before choosing as his running mate. His priorities align much more closely to my own preferences than Bush's did.
That he chose a guy like Ryan, a fiscal hawk - THE point man for cutting government down to size - is why I am on board with Team Romney/Ryan now.
That's why Obama's budget increases have been the smallest of any modern president.
Oops.
What budget?
Do you mean his proposed budgets?
The Congress unanimously rejects Obama's budgets and then fails to pass their own. More accurately, Harry Reid and the Democrat controlled Senate do not pass budgets as required by law.
Last I heard it has been over 1,100 days since the Senate passed a budget.
The government continues to spend hand over fist and approximately 40% of what it spends is borrowed dollars, but budget not found.
Apparently the OP has yet to figure out how inanly foolish this little one man full court press has become. Stop posting..
Edit: It's.always pure comedic gold when u hold up your "I'm not retarded stop attacking me shield!" At least you have one fan...
You know that the rejection is a political charade, much like the entire Republican party.
But his deficits have increased at the lowest rate in modern history, something that belies your idiotic post about him spending so much money.
The money was spent by Bush and now people like you who bitch about pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan, rolling back the military, DHS and Medicare D and eliminating the Bush tax cuts are the ones who put him into the trap.
You are a fucking joke.
Haven't seen you post anything rational, much less worth reading, since I got back.
Read the study, did not find.
How about if you find "mathematically impossible" in the doc and point me to it.
Maybe I blinked and missed it.
But, there is a sentence that could conceivably be what Ezra "Journolista" Klein may have been basing his own article on.
My guess, having read the entire study, is that Klein did not and he is cherry picking phrases (wrongly quoted) not reflecting either the premise nor the very, very limited conclusions of the authors.
Like I said above, you might or might not want to accept their assumptions - I certainly wouldn't, they stray too far afield - but, even if you do, you have to qualify that by saying it applies only to a small part of Romney's plan and only under the conditions the authors stipulate - making this a worthless, pedantic exercise.
And as the authors say, and which the über partisan Klein fails to acknowledge,
It doesn't occur to you that this is a classic strawman? They have set up imputed rent income as a tax break - something NO conservative or non-progressive would ever do - and then knocked it down by suggesting that since Romney would not eliminate it, his plan is not feasible. My point - and I really don't think it's that difficult to follow - was that only the very hardest left would consider not taxing someone for the rent they don't pay on their own home to be a tax break. Why not imputed health income, where people who do not have expensive chronic illnesses are taxed for the money they don't spend treating those illnesses? Why not imputed sobriety income, where people who aren't not alcoholics are taxed for the money they don't spend on drink? Surely good health and sobriety are valuable assets.
This isn't an evaluation of Romney's plan, it's merely a furtherance of the Tax Policy Center's central theme, that the only workable alternative is always to tax more and spend more. Making up details and shooting them down should make that amply clear to all.