Following up on earlier item, Paul Ryan is facing some criticisms after dodging Fox News questions yesterday, saying he doesn't "have the time" to explain why his tax and budget figures don't add up. Today, the Republican congressman talked to Wisconsin radio host Charlie Sykes, and gave this another shot.
For those who can't listen to clips online, here's the heart of Ryan's response:
"Look, the point -- you know, I like [Fox News' Chris Wallace], I didn't want to get into all of the math of this, and have everybody start changing the channel. Look, we raise $1.2 trillion or so in the income tax every year. And we have about a $1 trillion every year in tax preferences. And the people who use most of those are people in the higher income brackets.
"And so what we're saying is, we're going to lower tax rates for everybody across the board by 20%, and we can pay for that without losing revenue by closing loopholes for people at the top end of the income scale. Everybody gets lower tax rates as a result. And you can keep these preferences for middle class taxpayers and have 20% lower tax rates."
No, you really can't. For one thing, Ryan makes it sound as if he can eliminate $1 trillion a year "in tax preferences," which in turn can finance tax cuts. But even putting aside the dubious nature of the figure itself, Romney has already said the home-mortgage-interest deduction, the health care deduction, and the charitable-contribution deduction are all off the table. If Ryan is serious about identifying $1 trillion a year in savings from deductions, loopholes, and exemptions, he's going to offer some details or it's impossible to take the rhetoric seriously. The arithmetic just isn't there.
For another, let's also not forget that the Romney-Ryan plan also calls for increased defense and entitlement spending, which the candidates can't even pretend to pay for.
And finally, Ryan added in the same interview, "When you're offering very specific, bold solutions, confusion can be your enemy's best weapon."
As Jon Chait joked, "In other words, when you're specific and bold, your enemy will try to trap you into being specific. Don't let them!"
Leave a Comment:
Well considering the Republicans lie threw their teeth every chance they get. The debate should be interesting on what lies Romney will be trying to shove down people’s throats as he tries to act as some real nice guy. Being Mr. Spiritual man, as he would really encourage fenced and locked in workers as slaves. Being Mr. Economy man as he gives big tax cuts to the wealthy and gets rid of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as every policy they have would destroy our economy and the worlds. Being Mr. Foreign policy man as he just causes more trouble in the world with wars like his little buddies Bush and Chenney which was just for how fast they could line their pockets and allowed people to be murdered. And the list could just go on, but why just continue with the Republican nonsense. Vote them out.
Ah, the math. Ryan can't explain it concisely because it's all about imaginary and irrational numbers.
...And you can keep these preferences for middle class taxpayers and have 20% lower tax rates.
And Ponies!
...you know, I like [Fox News' Chris Wallace], I didn't want to get into all of the math of this, and have everybody start changing the channel
But really, he was just trying to spare Wallace the embarrasment of poor ratings.
Everybody already changed the channel, so that can't be an excuse.
Name one. Just one.
One is a number. The GOP is against numbers. People might get confused.
They're not going to name anything George, the bastards take the Fifth whenever any one asks them a direct question.
Given that the math looks impossible, and that I do not trust a word out of R politicians' mouths, is it possible that eliminating the kinds of loopholes that Romney used to get his $100 million IRA could get us some of that savings? I know there was a retirement advisor that was upset that Romney was giving away their best tricks, and they would not be able to use them. Is there an estimate on how much money is being hidden.
That said, no R will get my vote at any time in the forseeable future.
Please, please, please get Maddow to, every night until he accepts, start inviting Ryan on the show and let him explain this to the public. (And call him a coward until he comes. Hahahahaha....) Then, on another show, have a budget expert on -- a real one -- to explain how Romney-Ryan's plan is a load of shhit.
Please, please, please do this. It's what TV SHOULD be for.
Paul Volcker was recently quoted (after making a disclaimer that he "wasn't a budget expert) that Ryan's budget seemed based on a "wing and a prayer."
Proof that Ryan is Lyin'.
The numbers don't add up ..........
........... so crazy people have now become the republican voting base.
So entertaining to watch republicans stir up the voting base.
Yes, the public is made up of nitwits....Riiiiiiiight.....
They talk a good game, but they will do absolutely nothing but, cater to the rich, they have to now, all those campaign promises were directed specifically at their rich corporate friendly people, the only people who are donating to their campaign.
Hey, um, isn't this redistribution? Can't add and not even a good liar.
Could they not post "the math" on their website so that folks who want to get into the math could look into it? That would at least give them some cred that they have math to back up what they say. But they haven't. Which means they have nothing....
The public may not be comprised of nitwits, but there are certainly too many of them -- and too many who are comfortable not thinking through facts, accepting only those facts that comport with their own emotionally-derived beliefs. I'm not comfortable that well fewer than a third of American adults can name the 3 branches of government. And I should be happy that a large number of those are voting thoughtlessly?
saw an adlai stevenson quote the other day. paraphrasing:
a supporter said "you have the support of all thinking voters." his reply "but we need a majority,"
too many nitwits.
He also said "The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal - that you can gather votes like box tops - is, I think, the ultimate indignity to the democratic process."
What would he think if he came back today?
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/adlai_e_stevenson.html#YiTpLB5whGKxW9QA.99
Here's the simple way the math doesn't work. If you lower taxes for the middle class (not rates, total revenue from the middle class) and you don't lower total revenue, then you must be getting MORE from the rich and/or the poor. Those are the only choices.
It is repugnant to even think of raising taxes on the poor. And for sure, they aren't talking about raising more revenue from the rich. The rich don't care what their rate is, they care how much they pay. Period. And there's no way the GOP will vote for a new tax code that asks more from the rich.
It almost makes sense as a philosophical argument, that "everybody" should pay some income tax, and getting rid of some deductions would help that. But that would mean the working poor would pay income tax, in addition to payroll tax.
No, Paul, your math doesn't work.
In one breath Romney and Ryan claim that they are going to reduce taxes for everyone, and in the next breath they claim that half the country are non-tax paying deadbeats.
They only want the taxes on the rich to be reduced. Screw everyone else!
Romney math: 2 + 2 = (oh, just fill in the blank with something Mitt - ANYTHING!)
2+2=22 in Republican WhackoWorld.
In Mitt math ...2 + whatever he needed = 14.1%
I do'nt mean to get wonky on ya,but I know that Pres.Obama's tax plan is to raise tax's on upper income people a wee bit and then work on tax reform.But the Romney/Ryan plan is one of smoke and mirror's set up for lawyer's of corporation's and the wealthy to find new loophole's to exploit,while the rest of us are left to pay for their tax cut's.
Is there a way to subtly encourage blog posters to pay a bit more attention to spelling and grammar? Quasi-literate posts don't merit much attention from this particular ol' fart, however thoughtful their content.
Seems to me it takes Ryan more time to say his two paragraphs worth than it would to simply take a sentence or two to answer the question, e.g., "The tax cuts we're proposing would cost $_________, and we'll pay for it by _____________."
If they actually did that, no one would vote for them!
and their heads would asplode.
Chris Wallace of Fox News tried that (in a very assertive manner, I might add), and Ryan blithely stuck to his nebulous "I'm not gonna get into the numbers" jazz.
This election means something different for each party. For the party of Greed, Obstruction and Plutocracy (GOP), it's about protecting the wealthy, controlling who gives birth and when (regardless of why or whether they want to), reverting this nation's culture to the way it was 60 years ago, and belittling anyone who does not call him/herself a white Christian.
For the democrats, it's about working through our differences and representing the entire country -- all colors, all religions, all walks of life -- and moving us all forward toward a peaceful prosperity.
Can't wait to vote!!!
Anyone have a clue how much "or so" is? That might help the math add up! ;-/
Really, how clueless do they think We, the People, are that we don't realize not giving specifics merely means the Candidate does not want to be boxed into a corner so he may do exactly what he wants without anyone pointing out he is not fulfilling campaign promises and/or doing the exact opposite.
I also wonder why he cares about stating details because he can just wave his "retroactive wand" and say he never said what he said but he stands by whatever he said even if he doesn't recall what he said he said for pete's sake!
Not that I think Romney and Ryan's math adds up, but President Obama has also said that the money we save from the wars will go towards programs that the middle class needs and infrastructure and the like. My issue with that math is that Obama himself made the point in his first campaign that both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were being fought with borrowed money. So, the money we "save" from the war is borrowed anyway- how is that any better math than Romney/Ryan? I prefer the President's plan myself, but he will still be borrowing that money, just to suit his own aims. It strikes me as hypocritical, that is all. Romney and Ryan DO have some pretty attrocious math, but so does the president on a level. But, for me, the difference isn't necessarily the math, as much as what the candidates say they want to do with the money. I trust Obama's agenda more than Romney. Period.
Lyin' Ryan has EARNED his nickname!
Every republican in congress voted for the Ryan plan...every one of them. We need to get all republicans out of office...all of them for they only took office to enrich themselves and their friends.
ADMIT IT, Paul--there IS no math that can explain your budget or tax plan. I am overjoyed that Chris Wallace called him out on it (since these two don't really go on any shows that would, normally, call them on the carpet about ANYTHING). WTG, Chris! What Mitt and Paul don't realize is that there are "true" fiscal Conservatives out there, who are, actually, interested in lowering the deficit and balancing the budget. So when you are a candidate, who is trying to "play" fiscally Conservative, but your numbers don't add up--you, just, might get called out on it! Even, or especially, by Right wing "friends".
I wonder how long Chris Wallace will last at Fox. He first pokes holes in the polling "skew" nonsense and now poke holes in the Ryan budget nonsense.