RE: Las Vegas Review-Journal Endorses Romney
October 10, 2012 at 6:27 am
(This post was last modified: October 10, 2012 at 7:05 am by Tino.)
[/size]
I'm not going to listen to this whole video since it was obviously put together without objectivity, but I will just address the first point as an example of why it is misleading and doesn't support your argument.
The video contrasts these two statements, which you claim supports your assertion that he is lying. Here are the two statements:
1. "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans."
2. "We're going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20%, including the top 1%"
Romney explained this clearly in the debate. In statement 1 he is referring to the total taxes paid. In statement 2 he is referring to the tax rate. So the question is how can he lower the tax rate without also lowering the total taxes paid? Again, he addressed this in the debate. He is eliminating tax deductions and loopholes that disproportionately benefit higher-income people, such as (again, example given in the debate), the amount of income that can be offset by mortgage interest deductions. This makes a lot of sense since it's a good idea to encourage people to own a home, but we don't need to also incentivize them to buy a 2nd or 3rd vacation home.
If you evaluate candidates by just listening to the other side, you'll just be duped by their rhetoric.
TRUTH, bitches.
(October 9, 2012 at 12:57 pm)Jaysyn Wrote:(October 8, 2012 at 4:11 pm)Tino Wrote: Two unsupported assertions.Oh by all means, let me help.
I'm not going to listen to this whole video since it was obviously put together without objectivity, but I will just address the first point as an example of why it is misleading and doesn't support your argument.
The video contrasts these two statements, which you claim supports your assertion that he is lying. Here are the two statements:
1. "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans."
2. "We're going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20%, including the top 1%"
Romney explained this clearly in the debate. In statement 1 he is referring to the total taxes paid. In statement 2 he is referring to the tax rate. So the question is how can he lower the tax rate without also lowering the total taxes paid? Again, he addressed this in the debate. He is eliminating tax deductions and loopholes that disproportionately benefit higher-income people, such as (again, example given in the debate), the amount of income that can be offset by mortgage interest deductions. This makes a lot of sense since it's a good idea to encourage people to own a home, but we don't need to also incentivize them to buy a 2nd or 3rd vacation home.
If you evaluate candidates by just listening to the other side, you'll just be duped by their rhetoric.
TRUTH, bitches.