In response to:

Taxpayers, Revolt!

Brent150 Wrote: Nov 29, 2012 3:11 PM
Do you know what would really make Ron Paul supporters happy? ... Yeah, neither do I. None of his proposals were politically possible. Romney was going to lower the tax rates and eliminate special deductions, as well as eliminate Federal spending if it didn't pass the litmus test of "Is this worth borrowing money from China to fund?" Way better than what we have now.
Corbett_ Wrote: Nov 29, 2012 5:38 PM
Brent:

At least Ron Paul was talking about making the cuts we need to survive as a nation. He proved that HE had a handle on how bad things really were. Except for funding for Big Bird, Romney could not name a single program he wanted to cut. His promised "cuts" were cuts in future growth. In other words, Romney represented business as usual.
Emilie3 Wrote: Nov 29, 2012 4:00 PM
Candidates' proposals are almost never "politically possible". They find out once in office that they can't change the status quo. Romney wouldn't have been able to keep his promises any more than Obama could. They always break their promises.
Congress returned to "work" this week (now there's a laugh) to complete its lame-duck session before taking another holiday. Spending other people's money is a taxing experience.

Their task is to avoid the "fiscal cliff," a geological construct of their own making. It doesn't take a genius to predict both parties will try to do two things: (1) reach an agreement that will allow each side to take some credit and (2) require those who work for a living to pay government more while they come up with phony, or inconsequential spending "cuts."

Whatever they do, payroll taxes...