Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Elsewhere: Simpson-Bowles, Taxes (Again)

Sorry for the slow blogging today; I think I'll have another post coming later, but it might wind up waiting to tomorrow.

Meanwhile, I hit the Romney tax "plan" again over at Greg's place. Got a Hermione reference in this time. I don't think I've used Samantha Stevens yet.  Or, for that matter, Sabrina's aunts. Or that one where Donna Pescow's kid is an alien. No, not the one where the kid is a robot; that show was just stupid.

At PP, I talked about the bizarre Romney/Ryan position on Simpson-Bowles. Can anyone think of a similar case, where one candidate repeatedly hit the other for not taking a position that the first candidate didn't hold? I can't.

Meanwhile, I'll just drop an extra comment in here...the game's still in progress, so who knows how it will turn out, but I'm beginning to believe that perhaps Mike Leake is not as good a pitcher as Johnny Cueto.


  1. There wouldn't, be chance, be a connection between the first paragraph and the last?

  2. Does the Romney-Ryan position on Simpson-Bowles make more sense if you think of it as "This is the kind of policy that your side claims to like" (said, of course, as a way to divide you from your base)?

    I was thinking recently about the famous "Keep your government hands off my Medicare." Everyone likes to make fun of it, and many people (especially newspeople, it seems) would rather declare something inexplicable than make an effort to understand it. It struck me while listening to a radio discussion this morning of a poll in New Jersey in which people said they trusted insurance companies more than government and they wanted Medicare to remain in the hands of the government and not turned over to insurance companies. It all makes sense if it reflects a general fear of change from whatever the norm is now in a particular category or subcategory: whatever changes will only change for the worse. So, keep your hands off my Medicare, whoever you are and regardless of who runs it.

    1. I agree with you about Medicare. But I don't think that's an explanation for S-B.

      I think what would be similar are single-payer advocates who are upset with the GOP for not supporting ACA. Right? But it's not quite the same, because at least within Congress all the single-payer Dems were willing to vote for ACA.

  3. The answer that Romney has, or would have, on the tax issue is easy: unrealistic growth projections and an implicit and incredible increase in income/wealth inequality.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Who links to my website?