Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016


This opinion piece originally appeared at

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2012 The National Memo
  • Bill Fultz

    But Romney could manage just that if he dupes enough sheeple into voting for him. The only upside is the disaster his policies would cause could render the RepuGlican Party to the scrap heap. The scary thing is he could finish the job of destroying this country that the Bushista regime started.

  • PatrickHenry

    There are many positive points in Romney’s tax plan, as your Memo points out, but most people only read the negative headline. The way our tax code is now, many poor pay zero income taxes while receiving many benefits, while the wealthy pay the highest percentage, hardly fair. I bought and sold homes and made $100,000 capital gains on it and paid zero taxes, our family income is $58,000 annually, while Romney paid 15% on already taxed income. By hitting the wealthy more with capital gains taxes restricts them from growth to create jobs. The fairest way is to have a flat tax, all paying the same percentage, no deductions.

    The point is, we should not all be wanting others to pay more taxes, we should be trying to get Government to spend and tax less!

  • imabrummie

    In response to Mr Patrick Henry, I have a question: Could it be that the reason the gazillionaires pay more in taxes is that their income (from all sources!) is so much higher than the rest of us? You also suggest that hitting the wealthy more would create fewer jobs . . . the wealthy have done remarkably well since the dunce from Texas who claimed the war (unpaid for) in Iraq was over gave them tremendous tax breaks . . . perhaps you could enlighten us all by explaining where are all those extra American jobs they have created since benefiting from those Bush tax cuts, or are you counting those they have created in India, China, etc.?

  • Dax

    News Alert! Bush is NOT running for President. Suggest you become an informed critic, perhaps by reading Romney’s Tax Plans, rather than throwing out worn out rhetoric that does nothing but muddy the water.
    Try reading Romney’s ideas on repatriating jobs and corporate profits back to the US. You may not agree with his ideas, but at least you will understand the argument.


    Bush put us 12 trillion in debt, and killed MARINES LIKE ME, for the Military Industrial Complex that he and Cheney, and the rest of the 1% of the richest Americans own stock in. We didn’t die for this country, we died for the Military Industrial comyplex. They divided Clinton’s 3.5 trillion surplus amongst themselves with their tax cuts for the richest 1%, like Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and yeah, you too Boehner, and the rest of the filth in Congress, PAY WHAT WE PAY, 30% IN TAXES, NOT 15%, YOU SCUM BAGS!

  • JulesGuidry

    They would raise tax on upper and lower middle class, cut social security and medicare, and lower the minimum wage; while cutting tax on people earning millions. Greece is a good example of what happens to working middle-class people and the poor when the economy takes a downward turn. Romney has all but said, he cares very little for the poor.

  • imabrummie

    If you had taken the time to actually read my comment, you will note I did not suggest that Bush is running, so before you suggest I become an informed critic, maybe I can suggest that you learn to inwardly digest what you read before you respond. Additionally, as you seem to be a fan of Mr. Bendybones Romney, maybe you can enlighten me as to where all those jobs are that giving tax breaks to those who do not need them have created.

  • Lawrence Nannery

    Anyone who argues for a flat tax is really waging class warfare against middle and low income people. Ignorance of the logic of progressive income tases, and a blind eye to all the taxes that are for necessities allows such folk to cook a broth of inequality, a danger for any democracy.
    Here’s why the progrsseive movement of the late 19th century campaigned for the progressive income tax. We all must pay taxes to keep society going, in many ways. But when public services are rendered, who benefits more? The rich. Banking laws, police and firemen, tha army itself — these are just the most obvious defenders of the property rights of all of us, the property of the rich being protected many times more valuable than that of the average citizen.
    When Eienhower was president the top marginal rate was 91% (99% during WWII in England), and no one complained. Under Nixon it was 60+%. But the the more riches that fall to the rich the more niggard they become. And so, when Ronald Reagan became head beast he decided to put America back on a basis sorthy of 1860. It has crippled us, made us angry at one another. The rich cannot tell God from Mammon, and anyone who denies this has no notion of what is in the Bible. Here is the Christian way of viewing this thoroughly boring topic: in no case should unearned income ever be taxed at a rate lower than earned income.