Posted on 10/06/2012 4:36:53 PM PDT by Kaslin
One of the strongest elements of Mitt Romney's spectacular debate performance was his decisive rejoinder to the president's oft-repeated allegation that the Republican plans to raise taxes on middle class families. Obama said Romney has designs on an unpaid-for $5 trillion tax cut that would eventually necessitate higher tax bills for average Americans. Romney flatly rejected the claim by calling it false, then explained what he actually has in mind. But the president returned to the "$5 trillion" well on several subsequent occasions, prompting more rebuttals from his challenger. FactCheck.org and CNN reviewed Obama's accusation, and found it wanting. "Not true," declared the former organization. As for the cable news channel, well, just watch this:
Obama Campaign Concedes Their 5 Trillion Attack Is Not True
Mary Katharine Ham provides a partial transcript:
BURNETT: Stephanie, let me ask you about that. Because here at CNN, we fact checked that, that $5 trillion in tax cuts and we’ve come and said that’s not true. Mitt Romney has not promised that. because he’s also going to be closing loopholes and deductions. So his tax cut wouldn’t be anywhere near that size.
CUTTER: So you’re disputing the size of the tax cut? Or are you disputing also how he’s going to pay for it?BURNETT: We’re disputing the size.
CUTTER: Erin, he has campaigned on lowering tax rates by 20% for everybody, including those in the top 1%. that was one of the main selling points in the Republican primary.
BURNETT: So you’re saying if you lower them by 20% you get a $5 trillion tab, right?
CUTTER: It’s a $5 trillion tab.
BURNETT: But when he closes deductions he won’t be anywhere near $5 trillion. That’s our analysis.
CUTTER: Well with, okay, stipulated, it won’t be near $5 trillion, but it’s also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he’s going to close.
Well, well, well. One of the few on-message attacks Obama launched against Romney on Wednesday night was this $5 trillion line, which has since been refuted by fact-checkers -- whose verdicts, you'll recall, the Obama campaign take "very, very seriously." But under intense questioning, even one of Chicago's most skilled liars was forced to admit that the claim is wrong. Will Obama continue trotting it out anyway? Of course he will. His campaign is still running ads hitting Romney on "outsourcing," an attack fact-checkers dismantled ("no evidence") months ago. Why is Obama obstinately promoting false narratives? I'll let a promising young politician explain the cycnical ploy:
Obama 2008: "If you don't have any fresh ideas, you use stale tactics to scare the voters"
Numerous experts have also determined that Mitt Romney's tax plan is most assuredly not the mathematically-impossible threat that Obama has described. Indeed, some have concluded that Obama's policies are most likely to result in tax increases on the middle class -- something this president has already done through the Obamacare mandate tax. Romney's not exaggerating when he lambastes the Democratic ticket for proposing huge tax hikes. Joe Biden himself has confirmed the GOP attack, and done so proudly.
President Obama Contradicts His Own Campaign On Veracity Of $5 Trillion Tax Cut
Even Rasmussen says it's tight. Are you intentionally both so obnoxious and obtuse?
Romney may win despite himself, but it won't be because people want him to be President. Most believe, as I do, that he'll take care of his corporate cronies at the expense of true free-enterprise. This is exactly what Arnold did in California, for which Bush and Rove were largely responsible. They paid off the very folks who play both sides of the aisle, in fact, the big winners under Arnold play mostly to the left (Berkshire Hathaway investments).
Worse, in the process of taking over the Party apparatus, what you get is RINO apparatchiks. Once Rove set Gerry Parsky in place in California, conservative nominees in statewide elections never saw another dime of Party money. So if you think the GOP-e is bad now, you ain't seen nothin' yet. It's what RINOs do.
RINOs are horribly destructive to the cause of conservatism because the people, rightly, see them as corporate crooks. What they don't see is that the left is even worse in that regard because those corporations own the media. Somehow, in their need for both party and corporate money, conservative candidates never seem to make that case.
Sounds like you should vote for Ubama. Please feel free.
Since Wed night, there are 2 NEW ads about Romney’s tax cuts & they are beating the same old drum with the same old lies.
One ad actually starts with a clip from Wed night of Romney saying he isn’t putting out a huge tax cut. That is followed by a clip of Greenspan’s wife —Andrea Mitchell—saying how nothing Romney says is mathematically correct. Between numbers swirling around Obamacare & the unemployment numbers, how can I think that ANYONE in the Obama administration can do math? Even his Treasury Secretary could not prepare HIS own taxes correctly!!!!
BUT—OBAMA’s campaign is spend money running this ad and another one like popcorn popping in the hot skillet.
On Friday night on KOLO, ABC affiliate in Reno, that one ad ran 3 times between 5 PM and 5:49 PM.
I think every member of Obama’s campaign is a crazy person- they continue to tell lies on the one hand & then squirm until forced to say it is a lie on the other. But they keep running the ads.
Meanwhile, the media gets paid millions of dollars to let these ads bloom like red algae. They are poisonous.
Proof of stupid hand-wave poster who needs to have the last word. Please feel free.
Host: “No. It's not. See, here's a pencil. Add one more: that's two.”
Cutter: “Okay, stipulated; one plus one is two. But, one plus one is four hundred.”
Seems to me you're the hand-waver here.
By population, yes, by money, no, and it seriously depends upon how one defines "wealthy." Four of the top ten are Waltons. Packard, Pew, Jones, Rockefeller, MacArthur... the big foundations that exert the most political influence almost all represent inherited wealth.The folks who build the companies that hire the people - they are the folks I am talking about. 90+ percent are self made. BTW, the Walton family was just plain old middle class working stiffs before Sam came along. You appear to begrudge his children and grandchildren the fruits of his labor, or am I misunderstanding your attempt to make a point?
The US does not tax wealth -it taxes income. As such when money is inherited it is with few exceptions already taxed once -are you suggesting it be taxed more or that wealth be redistributed if inherited?
I would suggest that reducing taxes is always good.
The death tax does tax wealth. It hits small business and landowners, not the wealthy, and is thus ultimately regressive.
I would suggest that reducing taxes is always good.
Given your knowledge of our current tax structure, I'll give your opinion all the consideration it is due.
You seem to have an issue with the "wealthy" as you intentionally differentiate them from others -that is what drew me to your comments that premise a LEFTIST class warfare meme. You can not have class warfare without at first dividing up into classes.
REGRESSIVE -you no like? translates into PROGRESSIVE -you like?
Again there is no wealth tax -ONLY if one takes an inheritance as income is it taxed. AND as I stated -I would suggest that reducing taxes is always good.
Given your knowledge of our current tax structure, I'll give your opinion all the consideration it is due.
Given your objections and your arguments it appears you think income taxes are good, they should be progressive; and the wealthy should pay more. You promote leftist redistribution probably without realizing you do -you sure as hell argue for it.
What part of equality under the rule law do you not get and why do you dislike the "wealthy"?
Another idiot incapable of seeing outside the Hegelian dialectic to which he has been conditioned. You said there were no wealth taxes. I not only showed you one, and a biggie, but a wealth tax that hits conservatives disproportionately, allowing the super-rich leftists (fascists actually, you know, the people who sponsor the regulations squeezing landowners and small business people... those guys, but I digress) allowing the super-rich leftists to clean up for pennies on the dollar (which they always do after a collapse they've engineered). Simply because they have money, you come running to the rescue, blathering the usual class warfare crap. I'm talking legal inequities that are structured by wealth level. They are regressive. You don't get it.
So the rest of your drivel is equally senseless. It is neither politically nor economically sound, but scads of metrics. Unless you shape up, I'm done with your stupidity.
An idiot huh?
Actually it is YOU that don't get it. You want your big government king and argue for him against their big government king. I say tear down the castle e.g. cut up the credit card.
Balancing a budget does nothing to limit government --tyranny is tyranny no matter the why.or the fair and or balanced approach to finance it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.