Romney's plan raises taxes on 955 of American workers, cuts taxes for Mitt and Meg.
"This paper examines the tradeoffs among three competing goals that are inherent in a revenue-neutral income tax reform—maintaining tax revenues, ensuring a progressive tax system, and lowering marginal tax rates—drawing on the example of the tax policies advanced in presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s tax plan. Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers."
Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community, on Aug 2, 2012 at 1:59 pm
I'm sorry, Stevie, Ms. Whitman has just as much right to donate what she chooses and can afford to the political cause of her choice as you or I do. Simply because she can afford to do more than I can, doesn't give me cause to automatically question her motivations; to do so is rude and petty. And, yes, I would say the same thing about anyone who contributes to the re-election campaign of our President.
Posted by debate club, a resident of another community, on Aug 2, 2012 at 2:21 pm
I'm sorry whorupeople-ie, Mr Taffee never questioned Meg's right under current law to donate a hundred grand (more than most Americans make) to a typical superpac. Under current law she may (or has already) donate anonymously to the secret superpacs, the 503c4 pacs.
That said, I must commend your excellent use of a straw man argument to deflect. Kudos from your old debate club teacher. Very big of you to use the straw man about legal donation and then say either side can use it.
Just curious, do you think Ms Whitman will bother to vote for Mr Romney? She has a history of not being real big on voting, despite her heavy handed donations.
Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community, on Aug 3, 2012 at 8:02 am
Personally I have no way of knowing her motivation for making the donation, although I seriously doubt it was to try to buy a VP selection(likely costs a lot more than $100K, plus she does have a day job now). However, whatever those motivations, they are her own and her right. Debate Club-never took debate in school, didn't know there was a term for pointing out its ok for both sides to exercise socially and legally acceptable options. Thanks for the lesson.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Aug 3, 2012 at 9:18 am
Funny, when then candidate Senator Obama outspent Senator McCain by more than 2 to 1 ratio - $750 million to $350 million - I don't recall any complaints about all the money in politics.
And when the current Obama for President campaign proudly said they would raise $1 billion and outspend the Republican candidate, I don't recall any complaints about all the money in politics.
And when the largest single contributors to political campaigns are the public employee unions, AFSCME and SEIU - each giving about $100 million - I don't hear any complaints about all the money in politics. (By the way, the Citizens United case affirmed the constitutionality of political contributions for unions, too... but most people never mention that for some reason.)
But when a local individual contributes $100,000, she must surely be expecting some payoff.
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Aug 3, 2012 at 9:57 am
Super PAC giving dominated by only a few - Washington Post
"Just 47 people account for more than half (57.1 percent) of the $230 million raised by super PACs from individual donors"
"Just over 1,000 donors giving $10,000 or more were responsible for 94 percent of the money raised."
And that doesn't even count the anonymous giving to the 503c4 "pacs" that are considered "social welfare" non-profits, like Karl Roves GPS - Rove has both a c3 and an anonymous c4. Blowhards like Adelson can make a public show with the c3; those who prefer privacy use the c4.
No transparency. Romney raises money in other countries, recently in London with Barclays Bank (think LIBOR). Koch brothers will donate $400 million this cycle. Obama hopes to raise a billion. Unions will cough up a hundred million.
But hey folks, that's free speech, and we each get an absentee ballot - one each - yay!
Keep defending it, Pogo.
I liked the Pogo 1.0 version, the thoughtful one from a few years ago, a lot better.
Posted by Joe, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Aug 3, 2012 at 10:59 am
I am not in any way whatsoever defending Obama and his decision to go back on his commitment to run his campaign on public funding. That was repugnant, and it lines up with his subsequent kowtowing to Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.
I will vote for Obama because I don't want to vote for Romney, but a pox on both their houses.
Money should not be thought of as speech.
Corporations should not be thought of as people.
We the people will amend the Constitution on these two points.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Aug 3, 2012 at 1:13 pm
My point is that people seem to aghast with $100k from Meg Whitman while ignoring hundreds of millions from corporations and unions. People are always okay with money... as long as THEY are the recipients. When your side is outgunned, you start crying about the unfairness of it all. Boo freakin' hoo.
And there is no transparency on SuperPACs from either side. Thank you, McCain-Feingold, that heralded legislation that everyone celebrated. I know, that was flawed. I'm sure we're just one more law away from perfection.
The largest individual contributor to campaigns four years ago was George Soros. I don't remember hearing a whole lotta complaining back then.
Posted by Hmmm, a resident of another community, on Aug 4, 2012 at 1:03 pm
POGO - I understand & respect your point. Given that she's a local & politician, I think her donation is newsworthy, which is why she's the subject of the article & Soros isn't- hence these comments. I speculate on what we don't know for sure but is likely, such as other donations that are anon. I can't stand her, as a person or as a politician. But she's just like the rest w/financial & political shenanigans.
"Putting Romney’s tax returns in presidential context -- The controversy over what’s hiding in Mitt Romney’s unreleased tax returns continues. But even without the missing filings, putting his 2010 and 2011 tax numbers in context is strikingly informative. It dramatically shows what an outlier Romney is on a few basic tax and income dimensions. Figure 1 plots effective tax rate and adjusted gross income on all the recent presidential tax returns we could find, including Romney’s 2010 and 2011 returns (we consulted the Tax History Project for original returns and we standardized the data here)."
Not sure where Meg Whitman would fit on this chart, but one could imagine. Sort of explains the 'birds of a feather flock together mentality'.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Yes, Mitt Romney is rich. VERY rich. Most of his income is "unearned" and taxed at a lower rate.
Funny, wealth didn't seem to bother you when John Kerry was running... and he's richer than Romney by a factor of 3. And he refused to release ANY tax returns for his wife (which he conveniently claims for himself when disclosing his wealth).
Posted by palm reader, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Had to admit it's a great chart, for perspective.
"and he's richer than Romney by a factor of 3. And he refused to release ANY tax returns for his wife (which he conveniently claims for himself when disclosing his wealth)."
Mixing Kerry's wife's wealth and his when convenient? John Kerry released 20+ years of returns.
Mitt Romney is running for president, not his wife, to write tax policy. He's running on his successful business career.
Romney needs to be transparent with the American voter.
Romney needs to release 12 years of returns, as did his father. Romney would have to release more if he was trying to get confirmed by the Senate. Rather surprising the Republican voters didn't ask for the same.
Posted by Shiney Objects, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2012 at 11:42 am
Economy? 160,000 new jobs last month. After taking over from Bush, while Bush&Cheney were shedding 800,000 jobs a month in December 2008 with a negative GDP/growth rate, Obama has had 28 months of private sector job growth creating over 4 million private sector jobs.
Meanwhile, Romney's economic polices are a repeat of Bush&Cheney, incorporating the old Bush&Cheney team; Romney doesn't even deny it when asked.
No one brought up the Irish Setter on the roof of an international car trip until Pogo did. No one brought up Mrs. Romney until Pogo did. No one brought up Mrs. Romney until Pogo did. No one brought up Mrs. Romney's work ethic until Pogo did. No one brought up Olympic security until Pogo did. Pogo asks us to believe him.
Romney's lack of faith in the American people and hiding his tax returns is extremely questionable. It is spectacularly so, given many, many members of his party have long pushed a silly birth certificate debate, yet they believe a politician's unsubstantiated claims about 12 years of tax returns.
Do not be distracted by Pogo's dog-on-car-roof deflection.
What is Mitt Romney hiding from his own party? What is he hiding from the American people.
Mitt has made many claims about his tax returns, his taxes paid, his use of tax rules, his willingness to answer questions about taxes - "I'll get back to you on that...."
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2012 at 12:50 pm
George Bush had a net gain in jobs and Obama has a net loss in jobs. The libs are cherry picking Bush's last month and are ignoring all the job job creation Bush had and all the job losses Obama has had. You have to look at things in their totality.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Aug 7, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Obama has done nothing with the economy. The unemployment rate has been consistently above 8% since he has been in office. He has increased our national debt by over 5 Trillion dollars in the short 3 1/2 years he has been in office. For every $100 of national debt George Bush created Obama has created $246.
Now Obama is tearing down the top achievment of the Clinton Administration - Welfare Reform. Obama is an unmitigated disaster. But don't worry. After November 6 Obama can apply for a job to be George Soros' Adminstrative Assistant. Their socialist philosophies align perfectly. It would be a good fit for Obama after he is voted out of office. [Portion deleted.]
Posted by 23 million new jobs, a resident of another community, on Aug 7, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Hank, you went so far with the rhetoric, that you got [Portion deleted]? Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Most of us look back on the Clinton years as two terms of peace and great prosperity.
Budget surpluses, cut the size of government, 23 million new jobs, a great economy.
Hank looks back at the great Clinton great economy and sees welfare reform.
Recall that Hank is the guy who is for Romney because Romney supports Bush/Cheney policies, hires the Bush/Cheney team, and when asked how he would differ from Bush/Cheney Romney can't answer the question.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Aug 7, 2012 at 1:22 pm
I don't see how Obama created 23 Million jobs when there are fewer people working today than when he took office. Must be the same liberal accounting that also created over 5 Trillion Dollars more of new debt.
The Palo Alto Library provided a summary on Edward Klein's new book "The Amateur. This is what the summary said
"It's amateur hour at the White House. So says New York Times bestselling author Edward Klein in his new political exposé The Amateur. Tapping into the public's growing sentiment that President Obama is in over his head, The Amateur argues that Obama's toxic combination of incompetence and arrogance have run our nation and his presidency off the rails. "Obama was both completely inexperienced and ideologically far to the left of Americans when he entered the White House," says Klein. "And he was so arrogant that he didn't even know what he didn't know." Klein, who is known for getting the inside scoop on everyone from the Kennedys to the Clintons, reveals never-before-published details about the Obama administration's political inner workings and about Barack and Michelle's personal lives. From Obama's conceited and detached demeanor, to his detrimental reliance on Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett's advice, to the Obamas' extravagant and out-of-touch lifestyle, The Amateur reveals a president whose blatant ignorance and incompetence is sabotaging himself, his presidency, and America."
I read the book and it is an accurate albeit benign summary of the Amateur. Obama is actually far worse than what the summary reveals.
Edward Klein writes articles for Vanity Fair. He was also the former foreign editor of Newsweek magazine, and was the former editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine. These are fairly liberal publications although not as liberal as most of the the people who have blogged on this topic.
Posted by 23 million new jobs, a resident of another community, on Aug 7, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Hank - you posted about Clinton - the response was about Clinton and the Clinton great economy that created 23 million new jobs. The economy that gave us two years of budget surplus - the surplus Bush/Cheney gave away on their path to doubling the national debt while giving America it's first trillion dollar deficit.
Sorry that you're not reading too closely these days.
Romney supports the same Bush/Cheney policies that you support. Policies that led to job losses of 800,000 per month at the end of Bush/Cheney's term.
Obama turned that around, with job creation in the private sector for the last 28 months, creating 4 million new private sector jobs.
- Choice Obama = 4 million new private sector jobs in the last 28 months
* or *
- Choice Romney = Bush/Cheney failed policies that led to monthly job LOSSES of 800,000 jobs in December 2008 and January 2009.
Notice that Hank will never comment on the jobs by month chart posted above Web Link
Posted by 23 million new jobs, a resident of another community, on Aug 7, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Hank's desperate attempts to justify a vote for Romney/Bush/Cheney:
1. "Bush gained Jobs and Obama lost Jobs over their entirety of Presidential service." Please look at the jobs by month chart - the disastrous job loss months are the famous Bush/Cheney bikini graphredWeb Link
It explains all - Obama's so called 'job loss months' were the first few months of his term, where he fought to bring America out of the Bush/Cheney recession. Since then, Obama has 28 months of private sector job growth creating 4 million new jobs.
2. "Romney does not equal Bush Cheney." Protest all you want, but hank has never addressed the fact that Romney will continue Bush/Cheney policies, has hired much of the Bush/Cheney team, and even Romney himself can't tell Americans how he is different from Bush/Cheney.
For example, Bush and Cheney were handed two years of surplus from Clinton - Bush then gave tax cuts to corporations and to millionaires and billionaires, driving the deficit eventually to a trillion dollars.
Romney seeks to do the same, but on steroids - tax cuts to corporations and the wealthiest among us, while raising taxes on the middle class, while driving the deficit through the roof.
Hank claims "Romney does not equal Bush Cheney" but even Hank can't give us significant differences, with valid, corresponding proof - links to mainstream sites (not the fringe right hack sites that Hank gets his info from. You know the ones: Obama's a Kenyan, a radical Christian Muslim, Socialist Nazi that never showed Hank the REAL birth certificate.)
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2012 at 7:09 am
Obama is an abject failure and liberals using the tired untrue talking points of Debbie Wasserman Shultz isn't going to change anything. Liberals are so transparent in their desperate attempts to tie Romney to Bush that all it does is result in their self stultification. No one believes that Romney Bush nonsense except California liberals.
Yes the California Obama voters drank the Kool Aid and their brains have been fried on the lies, prevarications, deceptions, and wishful thinking of the inept and bungling Obama admininstration. But come November 6 the disappointed and fed up independents and Decline to States will carry the day for the Romney Campaign. Not in California but in the swing states. Governor Romney will win the majority of electoral votes in the swing states and he will win the electoral college.
Monday's Gallup poll reported:
"Eighty-six percent of voters who say they voted for Barack Obama in 2008 are backing Obama again this year, a smaller proportion than the 92% of 2008 John McCain voters who are supporting 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Nine percent of 2008 Obama voters have switched to supporting Romney this year."
The trend is that an increasingly number of people who voted for Obama in 2008 are not going to vote for him a second time. "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me."
As the woman in the basketball ad said:
"Its funny they (her children) can't find jobs to get their careers started and I can't afford to retire"
"I supported President Obama because he spoke so beautifully. He promised change. But things changed for the worse."
"Cutting taxes and jobs. That's the change we need. Tell President Obama to cut the job killing debt."
Unfortunately for Obama it is too late for him. He has gone into a steep dive and won't be able to pull up in time. His great miscalulation was that he thought he could make Socialism work in America when it has failed everywhere else. Socialism does not work anywhere.
I for one, am extremely grateful that Governor Romney will be elected on November 6. And on December 17 in State Capitols throughout the country the elctors will sign the Certificates of Vote, which are sealed and delivered to the Office of the President of the United States Senate (Joe Biden). Then on January 6, 2013 at 1 PM EST before a special Joint Session of Congress Biden will "read em and weep"
Posted by Hank's rhetoric, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2012 at 10:37 am
"liberals using the tired untrue talking points" and then Hank Lawrence spews forth the Rush Limbuagh "tired untrue talking points" without refuting a single fact listed by the posters!
Hank -- they all want you to dispute, debate or argue (not just have you deny like a 5 year old holding his breath) this monthly JOBS chart!! Web Link
Hank -- they all want you to dispute, debate or argue (not just deny like a 5 year old holding his breath) the fact that Romney himself can't differentiate Romney policies from GEORGE W BUSH!!
Hank -- they all want you to dispute, debate or argue with actual policy announcements how ROMNEY is different from BUSH!!
- tax plan raises taxes on 95% of Americans to give tax cuts to the top 5%. Show us what, if anything, in Governor Romney's that disputes that.
- in this time of great deficit, Governor Romney seeks to explode spending and cut revenues by giving tax breaks to the richest among us and corporations. How does he plan to control the deficit after he blows it up with those two moves?
Instead of legitimate dialogue, Hank pastes transcripts of Romney ads, and gloats of a victory in an admittedly close, close but with a clear Obama electoral advantage, election.
What world do you live in, Hank? We reside in the same neighborhood, but light years apart.
For every job gained under Bush 4.72 jobs were lost under Obama. That Obama is a real dynamo. He has outspent Bush by a factor of 2.46 and has lost jobs by a factor of 4.72. Yep that Obama is a real winner!
Posted by Hugh Petersen, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2012 at 1:19 pm
What about the monthly job chart every one asks you to comment upon? Web Link
It clearly shows the jobs losses assigned to Obama came at the very beginning of his term, in fact the 800,000 jobs lost in January 2009 are 'assigned' to President Obama even though he took office 3 weeks into that month.
Do you feel those 800,000 American jobs lost in January 2009 are Obama's (inaug Jan 23) fault, or President Bush's fault?
That month alone destroys your specious statistics. Completely throws your numbers upside down. You also failed to recognize the millions of jobs created since the job losses under President Bush were ameliorated. That is very selective and quite insincere.
And what about Governor Romney following President Bush's policies - you seem to suddenly have changed the subject rather than take the challenge, the gauntlet thrown your way - "they all want you to dispute, debate or argue with actual policy announcements how ROMNEY is different from BUSH!!"
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2012 at 1:26 pm
You make the false premise of Romney being Bush yet you provide nothing more than slanted rhetoric. You made the accusation. You provide the proof.
And Romney will create far more jobs than Obama has lost! And that will start happening when that ignominious fiasco of a president (the Community Organizer) vacates the White House on January 20, 2013.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2012 at 1:43 pm
you continue to quote teh jobs lost statistic and conveniently ignore teh CAUSE of those losses. We started shedding jobs under Bush's watch. The economy isn't like a light switch. The president can't just flip a switch and instantly stop job loss and turn the economy around. But, you already know that. You just want to continue living in Republican la la land.
Posted by 23 million new jobs, a resident of another community, on Aug 8, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Hank - it's not a false premise. There isn't much of anything to identify between the policies of Romney and Bush/Cheney. It's like proving a negative!
Even Mitt couldn't do so when asked in one of the few interviews he's bothered to do!!!!!
Let's list a few folks and a couple comparisons, because it's not easy proving a negative - how are Romney's policies DIFFERENT from Bush/Cheney? answer: they're not, so providing proof of the "substantial" (ha!) differences is up to Hank Lawrence.
1. the Republican National Committee: Alexandra Franceschi, responded to a question asking whether the 2012 GOP agenda was any different from the Bush/Cheney agenda. "I think it's that program, just updated," she replied.
2. "Mitt Romney's plan? A new $250,000 tax cut for millionaires. Increase military spending. Adding trillions to the deficit." With the added benefit of raising taxes on the middle class to pay for some of it, the rest will be added to the deficit.
3. Like Bush, Romney thinks tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs. Bush proved that completely false - consecutive months of hindreds of thousands of job losses.
4. Romney's economic advisers are all tied to Bush/Cheney: Glenn Hubbard, Gregory Mankiw, John Taylor, and Kevin Hassett
5. Hubbard is the worst offender - takes personal credit for the tax cuts that turned Clinton's surplus's into deficit as the Bush/Cheney chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers
6. Even numerous Republicans see the Bush/Cheney stamp all over Romney: "There are a couple of new faces, but not nearly as many as there should be," Republican strategist Michael McKenna said. "The terrible thing is that [Mr. Romney] is helping Obama make his case: 'Hey, we are going back to the Bush administration.' "
7. "A key failing of Bush was that he spent far too much money. Bush's Office of Management and Budget chiefs, like Joshua Bolten, were not spending cutters. Indeed, they were believers in big government like Bush was,"
8. Colin Powell on Romney's foreign policy team being loaded with Bush/Cheney alumni, and talking up Russia being our number one enemy: "Come on Mitt, think," Powell said. "That isn't the case."
9. Of Romney's forty identified foreign policy advisers, more than 70 percent worked for Bush/Cheney.
10. Romney wants to be the CEO president. Who else thought a CEO president was a good idea? Dubya!
There's tons more comparisons of Romney = Bush/Cheney: the same policies, the same team, even Romney couldn't answer the question:
"WILLIAMS: And let's talk about domestic -- the economy before we wrap things up. The major planks of your job plan, lower taxes, both corporate and marginal rates, and reduce regulation. Explain how that would be different from what George W. Bush tried to push through?
ROMNEY: Well, let me describe -- actually, there are five things that I believe are necessary to get this economy going."
Hey Mitt! Here's a softball -- hit it outta the park, baby! Here goes: Tell me how you differ from Bush/Cheney!!
Mitt: "Well, ummm, duh, uh, ahem, let me pivot to my 5 point non-answer from my stump speech...."
Hank -- why did you guys pick Mitt, of all people????
Posted by Hugh Petersen, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Ball's in your court. As 23 million jobs said, it's not their responsibility to disprove a negative. 23 million put a lot on the table showing similarities between Governor Romney and President Bush. Time for you to highlight any substantial differences between the two.
Governor Romney couldn't answer the question, can Hank Lawrence do better? Do you treat the readers to more bluster about November, or facts to back up your claims?
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2012 at 4:36 pm
don't hold your breath. Hank is an empty suit. All he has is RNC and Rush Limbaugh talking points. He NEVER directly addresses a question. It would be refreshing if he did. It could make for interesting reading. An exchange of different opinions - an actual conversation. Instead of two sides just throwing stuff at each other. What a concept.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2012 at 7:07 am
The people of America voted for Barack Obama in 2008 on the premise of Hope and Change. Instead we now have a president who is a Dope and Blames.
While the California liberals will continue to drink the Obama Kool Aid, people in the heartland of America see Obama for what he is and that is a naive dilettante who is chasing the fool's dream of socialism. Socialism does not work and the rest of the country has seen and felt the disastrous repercussions of the Obama socialist policies.
Now it is time for another change and the American Public will vote for an experienced man with proven success in both the Private and Public Sectors.
Liberals have no one to blame but themselves. If they had not thrown Hillary Clinton under the Bus in 2008 they would be in much better shape for this presdential election.
Posted by palm reader, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2012 at 10:14 am
Hank Lawrence is a Republican Party County Committee Member, District 4. He is under extreme pressure and not handling it well. His party is bankrupt in California. Romney is significantly behind in the electoral college, the national numbers are starting to reflect the Obama lead, the sure thing to take the Senate in November is evaporating and the Dems may hold the Senate with 52 seats, even the House will see large Dem gains.
Too much for Hank to handle.
The best he has is a fifth grader taunt "Dope and Blames".
If that seems pathetic (it is) consider those Distinguished Republican Statesmen (snark) that will speak at the Republican Convention in a couple weeks:
- Donald Trump
- Herman Cain
- Michelle Bachman
- Rick Sanatorum
- Rick Perry
- Ron Paul
- George W Bush
- Dick Cheney
Of all these Distinguished Republican Statesmen, only Dick Cheney actually LIKES Romney.
The rest know Mitt Romney to be a flip flopping liberal from Massachusetts, the author of Obamacare, more Left than Ted Kennedy, as Mitt himself has told his party. He is so secretive that Republicans can't trust him.
Guys like Hank are deathly afraid to see Mitt's taxes, because Hank knows that in 2004, Mitt gave a LOT of money to lefty socialist causes that Hank detests.
Therefore, when you cannot fathom why a Republican Party official like Hank 'goes off the rails' with childish taunts, just consider the pressure he is under. All that is happening while Hank tries to support a candidate he would NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS otherwise support.
Hank is not handling it well.
It's okay Hank - just think of a nice warm beach, or your nice blankie.
Posted by palm reader, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2012 at 11:33 am
"Dope and Blames" reappears! Welcome back, Hank! The Republican (bankrupt) Central Committee is letting you post again?
You have one poll on your side, to soothe your worst nightmares - the republican Rasmussen poll.
Yet, outside of Ras fantasy land, your nightmare continues:
CNN/Opinion Research 8/7 Obama +7
FOX News 8/5 Obama +9
Reuters/Ipsos 8/2 Obama +7
Pew Research 7/26 Obama +10
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 7/22 Obama +6
If the GOP nominates the liar/flipflopper who won't even show his OWN PARTY his taxes, it's only going to get worse for you, Hank. The senate will stay blue and the dems will pick up 20+ seats in the house.
Already, the far right is up in arms over Romney going back to support his Romneycare this week. Revolution at the convention?
Perhaps we see Speaker Pelosi with the gavel next January?
Romney is the man to make that happen!! It's amazing you support Romney as your nominee.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2012 at 12:19 pm
the Gallup Poll shows that more than one half of all Americans disapprove of Obama's performance. Today's gallup Poll shows 51% disapprove and only 43% approve.
It looks like Obama is going to be a one term president. His Western European Socialism experiment has been an abysmal failure. I can't wait until November 6. Bye Bye Obama.
Palm Reader I will take some of that Pelosi Action. How much would you like to wager on the Democrats taking back the House? If I win you write a check to the Wounded Warriors Project. If you win I will write a check to the ACLU. And while were at it would you like to place a wager on the Electoral College Vote?
But you can take satisfaction in Obama winning California while I take satisfaction in Romney winning the nation.
Posted by palm reader, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Hank's false bravado will make for enjoyable reading in 3 months. I do find it odd that a republican party official finds that losing a bet requires him the unpleasant task (for Hank) of supporting the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties. Rather makes the whole case, doesn't it?
Thanks for the offer Hank, but I've already placed my money for the duration. To be clear of where I stand:
- President Obama currently leads the composite head-to-head polls and is rapidly extending his lead to the insurmountable range
- President Obama, again according to composite polls is very near electoral landslide territory in the swing states
- composite polls (far fewer, of course,) show the Dems retaining the Senate and picking up seats in the House
Those are FACTS Hank, not the bluster of your nature. Now that the corporate owned media is starting to recognize it (against their interests, as a "tight race" sells more newspapers, ad time, etc..) America is seeing factually what it has long known:
- Mitt Romney's likability, his favorables vs unfavorables are far worse thatn President Obama's.
With Mitt Romney refusing to 'come clean' with the American Public on his tax returns and years of not paying taxes, it's only going to get worse. You have two weeks to find a real nominee that has a chance to make this a race, at least for the Hose and Senate.
CNN: "Mitt Romney's unfavorable rating is up, most Americans think the Republican presidential challenger favors the rich, and it appears the number of people who believe that the economy will not get better if Romney is elected has edged up slightly, according to a new national poll... It all adds up to a seven point advantage for President Barack Obama over the former Massachusetts governor, with 52% of registered voters questioned in the survey saying that they'd vote to re-elect the president and 45% backing Romney."
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Aug 11, 2012 at 8:32 am
The ACLU purports to defend the Bill of Rights when in fact it vigorously opposes the 2nd amendment and the 10th amendment. So how can it support the Bill of Rights when it opposes some of them?
I remember the 1984 Democratic Convention with Ted Kennedy getting drunk at Ed Moose's Washbag (that's what Herb Caen called it)and staggering down Columbus Avenue. That was before Bill Clinton put the moves on Eleanor Mondale. All that circus lacked was Joan Baez and Angela Davis. Those democrats were really giddy about how they were going to "Whup Reagan's a**"
Then came the earth shattering Newsweek Washington Post Poll that had Walter Mondale 18% points ahead of Ronald Reagan. That poll whipped Francisco up into a socialist frenzy with visions of hammers in sickles dancing in their heads. And how did that election turn out? Ronald Reagan 525; Walter Mondale 13. Mondale only won Minnesota and Washington D.C.
Well Obama will do better than Mondale but he will fall short of 271 even with California's 55 electoral votes. So Palm Reader you might consider a change in professions.
Posted by palm reader, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Aug 11, 2012 at 9:14 am
Hank compares Romney to Reagan? Reagan the man who had the largest tax hike in history on working Americans when he doubled payroll taxes?
Romney will raise taxes 11 times on the middle class like Reagan? Romney will trade arms with Iran like Reagan? Romney will have his team get over 100 indictments, like Reagan's team, the most indicted in history?
Hank spins his yarns because he can't handle the truth that Romney is sliding fast in the polls.
Romney will get a couple supporting bumps in the polls with the convention speeches where he hides his tax hikes on the middle class with flowery rhetoric, and a bump in the polls with the Ryan pick before Americans realize he wants to dismantle Medicare and replace it with vouchers.
"Introducing the Committee to End Medicare: Romney-Ryan 2012"
Romney leaks it on a Friday night - the Friday night news dump to downplay the pick, nine days before the convention.
Romney's embarrassed by having to make the Ryan pick just to shore up his base. As he hugged Ryan during the intro (seriously, go replay it) he says WHILE HUGGING RYAN "Every now and then, I'm known to make a mistake."
Posted by Edward David, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Aug 11, 2012 at 11:17 am
Mitt Romney looked at his polls and decided to do a re-launch at the convention. Just like when a start-up shifts and re-launches, its always a bad sign and resembles a Hail Mary pass at the end of a game. Didn't work for John McCain, didn't work for Bob Dole with Jack Kemp.
Who would thought Gov Romney would do so bad against Obama in this economy?
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2012 at 5:19 am
When Reagan was inaugurated, there were 16 tax brackets — ranging from marginal rates of 14 percent to 70 percent. By 1989, that was down to two brackets — with marginal rates of 15 percent and 28 percent.
Yes he did raise taxes in some areas-- in areas that liberals applauded. Reagan raised cigarette taxes. He also raised the Federal Gasoline tax from 4 cents to 9 cents to pay for maintaining Federal Highways. The Federal Gasoline tax has since more than doubled to 18.4 cents per gallon. California's gsaoline tax is now at 48.6 cents per gallon just behind New York's 49 cents per gallon. And what do we get for that? We got CARB, the agency that created the toxic MTFE and other liberal boondoggles.
Reagan closed tax loopholes and broadened the tax base. In 1982 the Democratic controlled Congress lied to Reagan and promised him that if he raised taxes they will cut expenditures by a ratio of 3 to 1. Reagan's mistake was believing that Democrats would actually keep a primise. Then Reagan signed into law the “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.“ The Democratic House and Senate then reneged on their promise and ignored the planned spending cuts.
The lesson learned her is to never trust the Democrats. They will go back on their word every time.
Romney and Ryan will not be fooled by the Democrat liars again.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2012 at 11:18 am
Liberals can't seem to acknowledge the great things Regan did. It is not the number of times taxes were reaised or lowered; it is the end result.
Before Reagan took office, there were 16 tax brackets — ranging from marginal rates of 14 percent to 70 percent. By 1989, that was down to two brackets — with marginal rates of 15 percent and 28 percent.
Posted by Alfred Liberal, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2012 at 3:18 pm
> Liberals can't seem to acknowledge the great things Regan did.
> ...marginal rates of 14 percent to 70 percent. By 1989, that was down to two brackets — with marginal rates of 15 percent and 28 percent
Is that what they told you over on redstate? Perhaps you were unaware that the 1986 Tax Reform bill was sponsored by Bill Bradley-D in the House and Richard Gephardt-D in the Senate. The bill was passed by the Democratically controlled (58-42%)House, so perhaps some of the credit (and blame) for it should be spread beyond just President Reagan's signature.
That said, it is interesting that you so blithely ignore that the '86 tax reform act taxed removed the 60% exclusion for capital gains, which resulted in raising capital gains rates from 20% to 28%. (It was Clinton who signed in reductions to 25% and finally 20%.)
Also, the 28% top bracket belies that the top marginal rate was actually paid by upper middle income earners with income from $74K to $185K who got hit with the bubble bracket 33% rate.
The '86 act did a good job with real estate deduction reform, but it was at the expense of creating a new maze of passive activity rules.
Posted by Joe, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Aug 13, 2012 at 3:25 pm
As a proud loser, let me take this opportunity to say Pshaw! to winners telling me to give it a rest. I wish there were more losers here and that we had collectively more of an opportunity to rub shoulders with the winners, of which there seem to be an overabundance.
Posted by off with their heads, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Aug 13, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Hey Get a life, There's no resting for those of us being ground under by the one percenters. You'd like to rob us of our voices, too? You're either part of the one percent or one of the hopeful stupids: someone too dull to understand that if you ain't got it already, you're not going to get it ever in this brave new world. This isn't pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps America. This is a corporate oligarchy that's destroying our democracy. Get your head out of the sand.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2012 at 9:28 am
Wednesday's Rasmussen Poll shows Romney ahead of Obama by 47% to 43%. Obama slipped 1 percent overnight.
Meanwhile today's Gallup Poll has Romeny ahead of Obama by 47% to 45%.
I am encouraged that the people in America are finally waking up to the fact the Obama is hopelessly over his head and that we need Romney to do what Obama has been incapable of doing. Obama has been way over his head from the beginning.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2012 at 11:46 am
As Ryan Williams so eloquently stated:
“Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will ensure America leads the world in the 21st century by strengthening middle-class families and creating jobs. President Obama and Vice President Biden have taken our nation backward with failed policies that have resulted in higher unemployment, more debt, and a weaker economy. A campaign based on rage and divisiveness can’t hide the president’s failed record.”
Posted by Hanks middle class destruction, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Ryan Rmney will destroy the middle class, a job Bush started. Ryan Romney will give more tax breaks to the 1 percent and pay for part of it by raising taxes on the middle class and the working poor, and destroy medicare as we know it.
Why should so many sacrifice for the priveliged few?
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2012 at 12:06 pm
This is all getting quite tiresome. No one on this thread is changing their minds so enjoy yourselves by continuing to talk past each other and repeating talking points from Sean and Rachel, respectively.
Regarding polls, the only poll that counts is the one in early November, which is a little less than three months from now. A lot can happen in that time, including monthly job reports and eruptions in the Middle East. And there are always those unexpected issues and events that no one can plan for.
Then again, we might just luck out and have a serious conversation about jobs, debt, spending, entitlements, taxes, wars, Syria and Iran. Then again, some of you prefer to talk about Mitt's taxes or Biden's gaffes.
When you read polls, it's important to understand who is being polled - people, adults, registered voters, likely voters, etc. There is a big difference. And there is a recent controversy about some pollsters oversampling certain groups which may bias results.
Of course, NO ONE DOES THIS, which what each political party counts on!
Posted by palm reader, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Pogo - seems to me no one brought up Biden until you did. The right is all over the gaffe just days after declaring this was a debate of big issues, that we had to get away from the small talk.
Here on this forum, it sure looks like a lot of folks want to talk about big issues:
- Jobs: Obama's created 4 million in the last 27 months and wants to create more with the American Jobs Act, which Ryan voted against
- Taxes: Obama wants to keep the tax cuts for the first $250K every American makes; Romney Ryan want to double down on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and raise taxes on everyone else
- Economy: Romney's famous quote about sending the economy back into depression by cutting spending too fast is at odds with his and Ryan's plan to slash spending so they can give tax breaks to the wealthiest 1% and more breaks for corporations
- Women's Rights: Ryan is in favor of "PERSONHOOD" which takes away hormonal birth control, also prevents in-vitro fertilization, a procedure that a number of Mitt's son's have used for their own families; Ryan will also require a woman carry her rapist's baby to full term, even if the health of the mother is at risk. Want to talk about Ryan CO-SPONSORING a forced trans-vaginal ultrasound bill? Or is that TOO serious for us to talk about here?
- Defense: Obama got Bin Ladin; Ryan Romney march off battleships; in Ryan Romney's defense, with a Defense budget that has doubled since 2001, Ryan and Romney want to spend much, much more on the bloated Pentagon and DHS bureaucracy. In a time of great deficit
- Deficit: Ryan is the 'big thinker', the 'fiscal hawk' (that's really funny- he voted for all of Bush's budget busting schemes!) When asked when his or Romney's plan would balance the budget, Ryan said he didn't know, hasn't run the numbers yet (REALLY? isn't that like saying the dog ate your homework?) The CBO scored one of Ryan's budgets, it did not balance the budget, but they only took the numbers out THIRTY YEARS.
Pogo - if you want to talk about the poll that counts, yes it is in November, but it is 50 polls, with the swing states that matter. That's where Romney and Ryan are in deep trouble:
Settled red/blue states give Obama a significant lead of 237 to 191 with 110 in tossups, MOST of the 110 leaning to Obama. This is a GOP disaster in the making. They ran the wrong guy, and he picked the wrong guy. Worst GOP pick ever, except Quayle and Palin.
Battlegrounds Obama Romney RCP Average
Ohio 47.8 43.8 Obama +4.0
Virginia 47.4 44.2 Obama +3.2
Florida 47.0 45.6 Obama +1.4
Iowa 45.3 44.3 Obama +1.0
North Carolina 47.3 48.3 Romney +1.0
Colorado 46.6 45.4 Obama +1.2
Nevada 49.3 44.0 Obama +5.3
Missouri 42.5 48.8 Romney +6.3
Wisconsin 49.8 44.4 Obama +5.4
Michigan 48.3 42.0 Obama +6.3
Pennsylvania 49.3 42.3 Obama +7.0
New Hampshire 48.3 44.8 Obama +3.5
Pogo: folks HAVE been talking about serious issues; even some of Hank's unsubstantiated rhetoric actually touches on serious issues occasionally (occasional luck, perhaps.)
Pogo: these ARE the serious issues, take away a few posts and these ARE the issues being discussed. I'm sorry (not really) that you don't like the turn these posts and THE ELECTION are taking.
Ryan was the clear favorite VP choice among democrats. Republicans are wondering how to cut their losses and still hold onto the House. They are privately freaking out about Romney, and Romney's choice Web Link While we all understand the warnings of an October surprise etc, today, these numbers are looking like a lock, a real Palin/McCain blow out. This is going to get uglier.
Pogo - serious enough for you?
I can go on and on. Romney Ryan is a disaster ticket for the GOP. A disaster for America if elected (unlikely as it is.)
Posted by Hanks middle class destruction, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2012 at 12:57 pm
holy toledo, batman! Palm reader got on her high horse!!!!! Great post. Didn't know Ryan hated women that much. Palm reader, you go girl!
A national ultrasound bill. That's the garbage that knocked. Macdonnel gov-va off the ticket. Romney is going to lose women by a ton.
Breaking news the romney ryan .com website about romneys tax returns
What a amatuer campaign. They can't agree on whose tax plan before. They announce. They don't buy all the available addresses. They send the boss out to talk about etch-a-sketches. They MUST be all of bush's team, they're so bad.
Posted by palm reader, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Thanks, hanks destruction!
Let's get serious beyond Ryan's interest in Ladyparts.
Ryan on the combined Romney Ryan budget plans, after dozens of evasive answers, Ryan friendly Fox:
> "Hume: When will we see Romney plan in all its particulars laid out? <decent question by Hume>
> Ryan: You have seen more details from Mitt Romney on fiscal policy, on saving entitlements, on getting back to work than the incumbent president of the United States has offered. <for those not reading carefully, that's Ryan evasion turning into a whopper of a LIE>
> Hume: Well, wait a minute, he proposed a full-blown budget. <Hume calls Ryan on his lie>
> Ryan: His budget didn't even try to balance the budget." <Ryan pivots and changes subject; funny because Ryan and Romney don't balance the budget either!>
Maybe Pogo wants to get more serious than that! So let's add topics:
- Social Security: Ryan supported Bush's ill-fated plan to privatize Social Security; Ryan's budgets want to cut payments to seniors. Today, Biden outlined the difference Number one, I guarantee you, flat guarantee you, there will be no changes in Social Security," Biden said, per a pool report. "I flat guarantee you."
- Medicare: Ryan wants to gut Medicare and give future seniors a coupon to try to buy insurance.
It's quite odd that the GOP is doing everything possible to lose the senior vote, baby boomers and the women's vote.
Ryan's lies aren't going to endear him to anyone but the far right fringe. Right, Hank?
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2012 at 2:29 pm
palm reader -
If I squinted just a little, I could almost see Rachel Maddow's lips moving as I read your post. You continue to prove my point far better than I could. Nothing new, just regurgitation. In that regard, you and Hank have more in common than you imagine!
With regard to the shiny objects, I've yet to hear a single serious word for either candidate about how they are going to get our economy moving again... or about how to deal with Syria or Iran... or how to deal with the problems in Europe... or about how to deal with Medicare going broke... Today, Obama DID discuss Romney's dog on the roof (not me), and Romney did invoke Obamaloney again. In the meantime, about 25 million Americans continue to look for full time work and Congress's popularity - D's and R's alike - hit an all time low of 10%. Question: Who are the 10% that approve of Congress?
As I said, let's see what happens in November. Until then, this is all nothing more than red meat for believers. Sort of.
Posted by palm reader, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Aug 15, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Pogo - thank you. Not often I get compared favorably with a Rhodes scholar. Let's see: Obama deals with Iran and Syria every day, Romney just wants another war, this time with Iran. Have you heard the 'big thinker' team of Ryan Romney discuss either country in detail? Neither have I, but they look good on that battleship! Did they build it themselves?
"Congress's popularity - D's and R's alike - hit an all time low of 10%."
Disingenuous to lump the R and D like that. While many polls call this the worst congress ever, the public has different opinions on the D's and R's in congress. (PPP)
. . . . . . . . . Favorable Unfavorable
Congressional Dems 34 ------ 56
Congressional GOPs 27 ------ 63
Pogo - again, thanks for the TWO complements - the 2nd being you whining about shiny objects when I listed the following subjects: Economy, Jobs, Deficit, Social Security, Medicare, Defense, Taxes and actual swing state poll data.
What others talk about - Economy, Jobs, Deficit, Social Security, Medicare, Defense, Taxes and swing state poll data showing Obama's clear advantage.
Pogo's "red meat" - gaffes, dogs, "Obamaloney", and whining about it.
Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community, on Aug 16, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Lets just make sure we know what the polls are saying so our vote will be for the winner. That is exactly the mentality that leads to electing the candidate with the biggest campaign budget for ads. Precisely why we have a congress that is so polarized it can only agree on 61 bills out of 4000+ in an entire session. How about just taking some time to really study the issues, make sure you understand them, apply your own values to a decision and then vote accordingly-not just for President, which in my mind is less important that Congress at this point, but all candidates. Finally, try this, if after doing the analysis, your not sure; don't just vote party or polls, how about, if you're in, you're part of the problem and you are out.
Meanwhile the national unemployment rate rose again from 8.2% to 8.3% last month. Unemployment rates increased in 44 states, was even in 4 states and actually went down in 2 states.
In Nevada, the unemployment rate rose to 12 percent in July from 11.6 percent the previous month. Nevada is suffering from the highest employment rate in the nation. In Michigan the unemployment rate rose to 9 percent in July from 8.5% in May. One Detroit Pizza chain has halted deliveries at night due to the high rise in crime.
Last month in Chicage more people were murdered by gangs than U.S. soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. However, as bad as the situation is in Chicago, the way Obama is murdering the economy makes the streets of Chicago look like High Tea in Buckingham Palace.
As more people are catching on to Obama's deflections from his moribund record, they are beginning to realize that he is just not up to the job and that they need someone with a proven track record of success. That man is Mitt Romney.
Posted by Sam Escalon, a resident of the Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley neighborhood, on Aug 18, 2012 at 8:05 am
All the posters above have been nailing Hank for cherry picking; wow, they got that right!
Hank posts the Gallup, yet the more recent Republican leaning Rasmussen daily tracking poll has Obama up by a couple. You just can't trust Hank Lawrence anymore.
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows President Obama attracting support from 46% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 44%."
tweet yesterday about the poor choice Ryan pick "Remember when you had to wait till after the convention before the GOP began to regret their VP pick?"
Real Clear Politics, TPM and others all have Obama far ahead in the battleground poll averages -- Ryan gave Romney no bounce, in fact gave the Democrat Party more ammunition to blast the GOP about budgets, jobs, Medicare, tax returns, etc.
What are Republicans thinking? This is a Republican disaster in the making, givng back everything gained in 2010
Posted by Romney is LOSING, a member of the Encinal School community, on Aug 27, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Republicans give up on their hallucinogenic-induced dream of winning Pennsylvania:
"Americans for Prosperity (the Koch group) has cancelled the rest of their PA TV ad buy. Still up in other swing states including MN and NM" — @chucktodd via Twitter
Thanks, conservatives billionaires, for wasting your money in PA for all these months. Much preferred than in the few swing states that Romney still has a slight chance. DAvid Koch - please keep spending your inherited trust fund money on New Mexico and Minnesota!
Looks like the writers above were on to something about the Swing States decidedly leaning Obama.