Wow. "Do you think we got it right but missed a key issue? Did we get it wrong while making some good points?" Actually, I would say you got it wrong while making a whole lot of faulty points.
"And, however well intentioned his belief that the Bush tax cuts should be ended for upper income brackets, his $250,000 benchmark has been remarkably low, as two income families and small business owners and others in the suburbs can attest." You know, only 2 percent of U.S. households earn more than $250,000. And the tax increase is only on the income above $250,000. And the amazing thing is, you've been bamboozled by those with high incomes into the thinking that this is class warfare. Egad.
Mitt Romney (and all the primary candidates) stated they would not accept a budget deal that had $10 of spending reductions for each $1 of increased tax revenue. Really? This would be your idea of a balanced approach (moderate?) to our budget problems?
You state in your closing statement, this is "moderate Republican Mitt Romney" working together for the common good. How you can see it that way, I do not understand. All of the sacrifice to bring the budget in balance must come from the spending side (but not defense, only spending that goes to those on the lower end of the income scale). And, somehow, you decry class warfare?
Obama has proposed various levels of increased tax revenue/spending cuts, generally around $1 of increased tax revenue to $2.5 spending cuts. The Republican-Romney agenda is $0 of increased tax revenue. And Mitt Romney will push back against House Republicans. How? How is this moderate?