Brad, Romney made a horse the issue, not lilberals--Romneyinterjected Anny Romney into the conversation. I don't think I can recall a comparable situation with the First Lady (where Obama responded to a political attack by using his wife as a cover) ) Once Ann Romney tried to make liberals look bad by saying that she needed this horse for her MS treatment, then her explanation can be examined. Sorry, I'm sure this will be a lesson for Mitt Romney not to involve his wife in politics in this fashion.

And I could care less about this horse, but since DF keeps trying to make liberals look terrrible for supposedly attacking a candidate's wife, then I think we are entitled to point out the truth

freeman2 wrote:So..Romney wants to get rid of the ACA (including the provision regarding not excluding people with pre-existing conditions), has put forth no proposal that would protect people with pre-existing conditions, and yet we're going to assume that Romney will do something about it? You got it exactily the reverse of reality, DF--you are speculating Danivon is not.

No, I'm not speculating. Danivon said Romney would reverse the pre-existing coverage. He doesn't know that and neither do you.

We do know Americans don't like the ACA. We do know it helped the GOP kick the DNC's buttocks in 2010.

Just because Ann Romney incidentally uses the horse for dressage does not mean that the Obama campaign cannot use that horse to show how out of touch Romney is.

Right. Romney's out of touch. How about your Man and his wonderful "in touch" wife?

"The jacket cost more than the average American family makes in a month ($4,284)," kvetched the conservative blog thegatewaypundit.com. "And, she does this as Americans continue to suffer through a deep recession and record unemployment." A commenter called Granny points out, "I had better not EVER hear another word about a mere $900 blouse on Mrs. Romney's back or Sarah Palin's $300 shoes. EVER."

How many more examples you want?

Where does "everyman" send his kids to school?

How was that taxpayer-supported junket to Spain Mrs. Obama took?

You really want to talk about "out of touch?" How about the Man who 2 years ago announced "Recovery Summer," thinks the "private sector is doing fine," and makes sure his buddies get their money out of failing companies and sticks taxpayers with the bill?

Yeah, he's got his finger on the pulse.

Doctor Fate wrote:No, I'm not speculating. Danivon said Romney would reverse the pre-existing coverage. He doesn't know that and neither do you.

Well, we know he has said he'd repeal the ACA (which includes the provision) but can you find where he's said recently that he will maintain the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions?

No, I don't 'know', hence may asking questions. You seem certain, but is that based on evidence, or just gut-feel?

Fate

All we do know is he says he will repeal the ACA, which is an overwhelmingly popular position.

Less so every day. The trend is moving towards approval.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1130.html

As more people actually benefit from the ACA it will likely gain popularity. The question, now that it is determined that the ACA is constitutional, is what Mitt has to replace it. So far he doesn't offer anything more than vague promises..

bbauska

Who cares about the horse!??! If it is not paid for by Government funding then who the H*** gives a rip!!!!!!!???

If she got a tax write off for the provision of the horse to the Olympic team, or as a medical therapy, isn't she using tax dollars?

Danivon a friend runs a "riding therapy" program. Apparently the exercise and the interaction between the rider and the animal are beneficial to a large number of people with conditions like MS, Muscular Distrophy and cognitive problems. Whether the "feeling better" is all down to attitude or there is actual physical benefit is moot. With a degenerative disease like MS, its often mostly about managing the problem and remaining positive...
They should leave Ann alone. She's sharing her horse with the American Olypic program, and without donations like her's there wouldn't be such a program. There are other ways to demonstrate she's out of touch with the common man if they feel thats important.
Why they need to pile on Ann , when they have enough examples of Mitt being out of touch ....I don't know.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:No, I'm not speculating. Danivon said Romney would reverse the pre-existing coverage. He doesn't know that and neither do you.

Well, we know he has said he'd repeal the ACA (which includes the provision) but can you find where he's said recently that he will maintain the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions?

No, I don't 'know', hence may asking questions. You seem certain, but is that based on evidence, or just gut-feel?

It's based on precisely the same evidence upon which you conclude he would not work on a solution for this.

So if many people have therapy animals (Believe me, I know), then is Ann Romney out of touch if she is having a service/therapy animal like many others in society?

RickyP,
Good post. Focus on Mitt, or don't be surprised when Michelle is the focus. Hopefully a candidate's kids are never a target...

rickyp wrote:Fate

All we do know is he says he will repeal the ACA, which is an overwhelmingly popular position.

Less so every day. The trend is moving towards approval.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1130.html

So, two years after the big hullabaloo and signing ceremony in the Rose Garden with that cute kid and a fawning crowd and adoring media, it's still underwater?

That's progress to you?

Please show a major entitlement that passed Congress on a unilateral basis and was still unpopular with the public two years later.

I'll wait.

Meanwhile, they're serving Ben and Jerry's in hell.

As more people actually benefit from the ACA it will likely gain popularity.

You betcha.

I mean, just think how popular it will be when all those taxes go up next year and businesses keep eliminating health insurance. People will love it!

The question, now that it is determined that the ACA is constitutional, is what Mitt has to replace it. So far he doesn't offer anything more than vague promises..

If she got a tax write off for the provision of the horse to the Olympic team, or as a medical therapy, isn't she using tax dollars?

If it's an illegal alien, it's probably getting free healthcare and maybe some low income housing too!

If it's depressed, maybe it's on SSDI!

If it's unemployed, are its benefits up?

Isn't "if" a fun word?

rickyp wrote:If she got a tax write off for the provision of the horse to the Olympic team, or as a medical therapy, isn't she using tax dollars?

No, she's not. I'm endlessly fascinated by how most non-Americans and a surprising number of US Democrats make this basic error. I probably shouldn't call it an "error". It's just a different way of thinking about a polity, government, and taxes. My guess is that for non-Americans the "error" arises because their polities evolved slowly from feudal societies, where the lords basically owned everything including all the "earnings" of the serfs, and whatever the lower classes (including artisans and merchants) were allowed to keep they were allowed to keep by their superiors, who had a monopoly of armed men to enforce their will. (I simplify of course, but I don't grossly distort the essence of things.)

The USA is different at a very basic level, and unless you've been raised in this culture it seems that it's very hard to grasp the difference. (I mean no insult by this. Americans, for instance, have great difficulty understanding why the Brits still have a monarch but that doesn't make us stupid.) The American revolutionaries decided to have a government, granted it very limited powers (in fact excessively and unrealistically limited at first, and thus the Articles of Confederation had to be replaced), and "sold" this federal government to the independently sovereign former colonies (i.e. states) on the basis of very limited taxation and the retention by the states of many, many local rights and powers. So limited was the taxation power of the feds that when an individual income tax became desirable the Constitution had to be amended to permit it.

So in the USA, when a tax is eliminated or a rate is lowered, that's NOT an example of "the government spending money", even though Obama constantly uses that sort of language. The government can only "spend" what it takes in, and when a citizen legally keeps money instead of sending it to DC, that's not a case of them "using tax dollars"; it's a case of the government not taxing every penny and then "allowing" (like a feudal lord) the citizen to have some back.

One could argue that this is just semantics, or a distinction without a difference, but it's not so. This exception to how governments and taxation generally worked all through history up until 1776 is a core tenet of the USA political philosophy that's meaningful and important and has real-life consequences. However, this is becoming less and less true every year. When the POTUS can constantly call an extension of the Bush tax cuts "spending", and not have to back-walk the statements due to press and public outrage, that's a sure sign that the USA is losing touch with this tenet. The rise of the Tea Party is a case of that change being resisted.

So there.

That said, dressage is a stupid elite effete activity masquerading as a "sport"; it has a French name that sounds French; when Republicans want to play with horses it should look like this:



So there.

I take it back.

Yes, they can go longer. Mitt Romney committed murder.

What's lower than the gutter?

The sewer.

Now, where can liberals go next? What's Romney's next "crime?"

Now Romney causes stage 4 cancer. He is a bad guy!

Purple, very nice post. I wanted to say the same, but couldn't have done it as well.

Ricky used language sloppily with regard to Romney using tax dollars on the horse but I have to totally disagree with the premise that Americans understand that they have the right to their earnings and government can only take a part of it, whereas Europeans are used to the idea that the powers that be take everything and are happy for whatever crumbs are left over. Parliament fought with the king for about four hundred years (from Magna Carta to the Glorious Revloution) to limit royal power, chiefly fighting over the government's ability to tax. Our country might have gone a bit further than the Brits but not that much further. Modern Europe, with its assortment of social welfare states, arose out of the horrors of WWII. Why those countries saw a high taxation/high social safety net as the solution (at the expense of individual aggrandizement) is hard to say, maybe because after the destruction of WWII they were somewhat in the same boat

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:No, I'm not speculating. Danivon said Romney would reverse the pre-existing coverage. He doesn't know that and neither do you.

Well, we know he has said he'd repeal the ACA (which includes the provision) but can you find where he's said recently that he will maintain the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions?

No, I don't 'know', hence may asking questions. You seem certain, but is that based on evidence, or just gut-feel?

It's based on precisely the same evidence upon which you conclude he would not work on a solution for this.

Except that of course we do know he wants to repeal the act that does provide for a ban on excluding pre-existing conditions. So, absent anything else, how can we conclude that he would maintain or restore it?

Given that it's a big political issue, perhaps he'd like to clarify his position before, rather than after, the election, or if he has, perhaps you can show it, prove me wrong and win a point. Until then, I going to assume that calling for repeal lends itself to being against.

freeman2 wrote:Ricky used language sloppily with regard to Romney using tax dollars on the horse but I have to totally disagree with the premise that Americans understand that they have the right to their earnings and government can only take a part of it, whereas Europeans are used to the idea that the powers that be take everything and are happy for whatever crumbs are left over. Parliament fought with the king for about four hundred years (from Magna Carta to the Glorious Revloution) to limit royal power, chiefly fighting over the government's ability to tax. Our country might have gone a bit further than the Brits but not that much further. Modern Europe, with its assortment of social welfare states, arose out of the horrors of WWII. Why those countries saw a high taxation/high social safety net as the solution (at the expense of individual aggrandizement) is hard to say, maybe because after the destruction of WWII they were somewhat in the same boat

I really do think that sometimes Americans think they are a different species to the rest of us.

Yes, we Europeans also see tax as taking from us, not as being allowed to be given the rest. Most of us are not employees of the state for a start.

However, a tax break is interesting. Basically, it is an indirect government subsidy. If you don't do X, you pay one rate of tax, but if you do do X, you pay another. Logically it's not much different from levying a tax on doing or not doing certain things. Basically, it means that someone is paying less than someone else, even on the same income, and the difference is decided by government policy.