One of the more contentious moments of the debate came fairly early on. President Obama noted, "Gov. Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut." The Republican disagreed, insisting more than once that his plan carries a far smaller, though undefined, price tag.
I imagine many viewers at home weren't sure who to believe. Even some fact-checkers were left confused -- CNN's John Berman said Obama's charge is "false" if "you take [Romney] at his word."
Of course, by that standard, no one, anywhere, has ever lied about anything -- if we take someone at their word, and apply no additional scrutiny, dishonesty is literally impossible.
But those interested in understanding the facts, the policy details are indisputable. As Jonathan Cohn explained overnight:
President Obama repeatedly described Romney's tax plan as a $5 trillion tax plan. Romney repeatedly took exception. The figure is correct. Romney has not given many details about his tax plan, but it's possible to extrapolate from his promises and the Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, did just that. Crunching the numbers, they determined that his proposed rate cut would cost ... $5 trillion.
Last night, Romney simply asserted the figure is wrong, but up until yesterday, the Republican campaign has offered a different defense: the cost will be offset by closing tax loopholes and ending deductions.
This remains problematic, not just because Romney refuses to identify which loopholes and deductions, but because there aren't nearly enough loopholes and deductions to make up the difference.
What's more, in the debate, Romney cited "six other studies" that, according to him support the notion that he can slash tax rates without increasing the deficit or increasing the burden on the middle class. But that's wrong, too: "Those studies actually do not provide much evidence that Romney's proposal -- as sketchy as it is -- would be revenue neutral without making unrealistic assumptions."
Those inclined to "take [Romney] at his word" are living in a fantasy world where calculators don't exist.
Leave a Comment:
When the President mentioned that,the 5 trillion tax cuts, it was one of the times when Romney started getting all flustered and red in the face. We oughta keep talking about it along with his tax returns, this guy is a phoney, of course he is going to try and do his best not to look it. If he had the magic potion to help our economy why hasn't he helped America out then, and told us what the secret magic formula is,...there isn't one.
For the uninformed, Romney's plan isn't much different than the Alternative Minimum Tax. It's a flat tax with no deductions also. But hey, if Democrats are willing to leave all the tax rates where they've been for the last decade, we can work with that.
Do you think shooter? I am curious since you seem to equate getting your income taxes back as a refund because you fail to make enough to be able to pay, with not paying taxes at all. I mean just because you still pay sales tax(and at a higher percentage of your net than those who do not get a full refund on income taxes) or property tax or gas tax or sin tax or...
Oh but of course when your state or county or town taxes you because corporations get tax exemptions by them to move in or billionaires get bills passed to save them a fortune that is different.
I totally agree....If Obama was smart and saw that he should have brought up the 47% remark, his taxes, etc...I promise you Mitt would have blown his top.....Just think Obama truely made only one remark that already started to get under MR's skin.
Someone please forward this to President Obama THE TRUTH BUSTER— liberals told Obama to be cool don't Let ROMNEY GET UNDER YOUR SKIN and watch your facial expressions. don't look angry .Must not look like a angry B Man . But the next time Obama needs to come out swinging make the points talk about his record toot his horn even break the rules interrupt the moderator take over if necessary just like M Romney , Take control of the stage just like Mitt tell the moderator what to do ..Break the rules .just like Mitt. Please Mr President don't fight fair with this man he is a proven liar liar his lies are on fire You must exposed him you must say it Mr President
Drop the tax record @!$%# already. It's just as bad as the birther @!$%#.
Yeah, he should do it. No, he's not going to. no, it REALLY doesn't matter all that much. What we should be concerned with is what is the GOING to do.
Problematic but effective and it is effective that counts.
It's good to know what his economic policies were yesterday....how have they changed today.
His economic policy is in his heart:
"The place you put your money makes a pretty clear indication of where your heart is." Romney, last night
Its not in America ang it will never change, he will harvest
and save elsewhere.
Obama failed to challenge Romney by describing his tax plan as a repeat of George Bush's first term, which it is.
In the abstract, the discussion makes no impression on the viewer, but if the President says it's 2003 all over again cut taxes and increase defense spending, the viewer has something to relate to.
Then if Obama wants to use a zinger, he could say "I didn't know I was debating George Bush".
That sums up the debate the best.
Mitt was nothing but a supersalesman, or a CEO working the board.
What did he say of substance? Nothing. He spent the whole time trying to erase the fallout from his 47% comment by claiming he's for the middle class. (Of course his team thinks that 200,000 dollars a year is a middle class income, but never mind...)
What he did was provide the Obama camp with a whole slew of video moments to put up against others where Romney did the opposite.
I noticed that after the MSNBC commentariat, two of the lesser lights (Matthews and Schulz) in terms of insight were bitterly disappointed, but Chris Hayes, who is a real cut above in intellect, was starting to 'get' Obama's strategy.
What was Obama's strategy? He got Mitt to disavow entirely most of the meat of of his own program plans.
Do you really think America knows half the country pays no income tax? I don't. Do you really think Obama wants to come out of the socialist closet?
Shooter242--I'm glad that you pointed out that they don't pay 'income' tax--but to be fair, they pay a whole lot of other taxes including payroll taxes, state taxes, sales taxes. No one gets away scot-free in this country. If you're part of the working poor, your tax burden relative to your income is a crushing force. The 'flat tax' sounds like a great way to even the playing field, but in real terms it would be an even greater tax burden on the poor. The progressive tax system that we apply today allows people to pay commeasurate with their income. Are there portions of the tax code that are unfair to the rich? Yes, but just as many as there are that are unfair to the poor. No one disagrees that the loopholes and deductions need to be cleaned up, but we can't do it to one side without doing it to the other. Romney wants to 'increase the base' of taxpayers--who do you think he's targeting? Its the 47%--and that simply won't work to generate the kind of income he needs for his equations to add up.
Of course...Do you think America knows that Mittens also pays no income tax, and do you really think Mittens wants to come out of the Feudalist closet?
Pres. Obama is leading in the polls on the economy so perhaps he didn't go hell bent after Romney because Biden will cream Ryan on the subject. Then the Pres. will come out swinging on foreign policy, where Romney is very weak. Or maybe I am losing my mind.
He doesn't? Clearly you're ill-informed, sir. Mitt Romney pays a higher effective tax than most Americans.
No truth here...
MacyR - Mitt's taxes are almost entirely on capital gains. He pays very little INCOME tax. Just as the "50% pay no income tax" right-wing talking point CHOOSES to ignore all of the other taxes that those same 50% do pay - including payroll tax, state tax, property tax, sales tax, etc., the same can be said of Mitt and many millionaires in his position.
@ MacyR, Are you seriously implying that Mr. Romney pays a higher percentage of his income in taxes than most Americans or am I misunderstanding you? Because I will tell you I WISH I only had to pay 13%!!!
Really? It only took 2 posts for you to contradict yourself Shooter?
Cognitive dissonance is fun.
No Mitt Romney pays a lower net effective rate than the average American. The average American pays roughly 20-25% in income taxes and Mitt pays roughly 13% in income taxes. If I had to guess you're going to repeat the talking point that Mitt paid more than most Americans who pay 11%. That number, of course, ignores that the 13% Mitt paid included his state income taxes and his social security and medicare deductions. The average American, when these are included, pays somewhere between 20-25%, but when they are excluded pays around 10% (assuming he or she optimizes deductions). Sleight of hand is fun
A 20% tax cut, offset by closing loopholes, so revenue "stays the same". How does that "fix" anything?
I am going to raise your pay a hundred dollars a week, but charge you a hundred dollars a week for your parking space.
Worse, most of the cuts are predicated on pushing costs to the states, increasing state taxes which are deductible federally. SO, tax payer gets no break and Treasury collects less.
@5 That's why there are no details and it makes it look like a shell game. What's the point? Allegedly they want to cut taxes on the "job creators" so they will trickle down the savings in to jobs for the masses (a proven crock), but then they insist that by eliminating deductions they will not be giving the rich a massive tax break - so again, what is the point? Of course if they reduce or eliminate the capital gains tax rate, it won't really matter if deductions or loopholes are eliminated - the capital gain income won't be taxable (in the case of no capital gains tax) anyway.
The point of a lower capital gains rate is to incentivize investment; however investing in the secondary securities markets does not lead to job creation (except, perhaps at brokerages) so there is no justification for a lower rate unless the investment is in an IPO or a start-up. Eliminate that loophole. It's amazing that the tax code has been gamed to create a class of income (earned predominantly by one class of people) that is taxed at a preferred rate versus income earned by working. This seems backwards to me.
Absolutely, Romney's a con man, promoting a shell game.
And why is ANYONE surprised by this?? It is EXACTLY the same plan that allowed Mr Romney to balance the Masachusetts budget. He just decided, unilaterally, that the state wasn't going to pay for anything so the cities and towns had to make up the shortfall. That caused older, blue collar towns like Holyoke, Fall River, Lawrence, etc to suffer huge problems maintaining police, fire, school and sanitary services while richer towns coasted merrily along. It's his MO and he's not even shy about promoting it.
He was a terrible Govenor & all know it, yet it was one of the few times he was all about the state. He really is just a glorified snake oil salesman.
Day - that's what I thought too! 2+2=4 6-4+2=4 you can do math many different ways but the outcome is still the same. Even if you believe in trickle down economics (which I don't), how does Romney's tax math work? If you lower the tax rate, but take away deductions so the "revenue stays the same" then the "job creators" are still paying the same amount of tax as they were before, so how exactly does that stimulate job growth? I'm all for simplifying the tax code, and my truely middle class self doesn't mind paying more taxes to help my country, but I am offended that rich people who don't have to work make millions off their investments and pay a lower tax rate than hard working people who are just scraping by. I don't trust that Romney would cut out all the deductions that help the middle class, but leave in all the loopholes that help the wealthy.
I keep wondering the same thing every time Romney/Ryan say they want to bring down the debt/deficit with their revenue neutral tax plan. Do they understand what revenue neutral means?
I'm beginning to think that Romney just doesn't understand the meaning of certain words... like when he said Big Bird needs advertising... does he not know that PBS stands for Public Broadcasting Service?
Last night in the debate Mitt Romeny won "Best Performance by an Actor." No question. However, "Best Original Script" went to President Obama.
While disappointed with President Obama's performance last night (wasn't too assertive and didn't challenge Mittwit on his numerous falsehoods), Mittwit came across as a petulant, spoiled child. He was rude in that he constantly interrupted the president, was condescending and cannot shake who he truly is, as evidenced by his constant, smarmy, @!$%#-eating smirk - An entitled 1%er who feels we should be honored and grateful that he's blessing us with his presence this campaign season. While telling stories of his travels, he was stiff, looked as if he had to force to the forefront what little empathy he may have, and still was very, very short on specifics.
In all fairness, while I wasn't overly impressed by the President's debate last night, please let me offer you a few reasons why he may have done what he did:
1) Angry Black Man - while many wanted the Prez. to be more aggressive had he done so we would now have to listen to FAUX NOOZE & the other babbling mouths.
2) With everything that's going on - the Prez. may have been tired.
3) Yesterday was his anniversary - and he had a hot date planned - cause he really LOVES his wife.
3) Shock & awe by the LIES that Rawmoney was spewing forth unchecked.
4) This is the first debate, so he may have been letting Rawmoney hoist his own petard as the Prez. cited facts.
5) Muhammad Ali used to do a "rope a dope" to allow his opponents to think they had him - then he would come in for "the kill".
Let US not count out this President, he's smart, and he ain't down for the count yet.
That's a pretty good postmortem.
I think we should watch the campaign ads the next few days (can't believe I said that) as I'm betting that with all the ammo Mitt gave the DNC last night there will be host of new ones.
I agree completely with this! The POTUS went ahead and let Willard get all warm and comfy thinking he got an edge while he ran his mouth and the crap fell out as usual! I think the next debate is going to leave Willard wondering WTH just happened??? This is far from over!
Thank you vfeinstein...I was beginning to think that I was the only one who thought Mittens was completely smarmy and I just wanted to slap the smirk off his face.
Completely smarmy & a whole lot of flip floppy yet again.
I think President Obama was telling the truth, mature, detailed, thoughtful, and Presidential. He didn't stoop to immature name calling. He let Romney make his bed and put forth a bunch of incomplete plans, fuzzy math, and flip flop on his previous stances.
Obama lost the theatrics. He stunk. And unfortunately, that's all that counted last night.
Though I was screaming at the TV every time Romney flat out lied, I think you're absolutely right, Zora. I think probably the biggest factor for Obama's rather lackluster performance was that Romney came right out of the gate with a massive denial about his own tax plan that one commentator even said that no one could have predicted that Romney would disavow his own tax plan and go against everything he's run on up to now.
I have always believed, and still do, that the president plays three level chess while most of his opponents are playing checkers. I agree with Zora, I think there is a strategy afoot here that is simply not apparent yet, and I think we will be seeing clips from this debate quite alot in the coming weeks, most of them juxstaposed against other clips of Mr. Romney disputing himself. Unfortunately for Mr. Romney, shaking the Etch-a-Sketch does not erase actual film footage.
Zora,
I concur with your analysis and I am in no way, shape or form, counting Obama out ... one down, two more to go. But, all things considered, if I were Obama, I would have displayed a more even-keeled angry black man ... FUXNoize be damned.
It may not have been the Presidents Intention, but
last night may have been a blessing in disguise, look
at how things worked out. Instead of Obama and Romney
going back and forth on lies, Obama let Romney expose
himself to the viewers, while he remain cool, calm and collected.
We wake this morning a bit dissapointed, but notice how much
the conversation has turn to Romneys 27 lies in 38 minutes, notice
its not Obama making the case, the righties can't blame Obama.
Romney and his lies were on full display for all to see, that was an
unintended consequence, instead of one man Obama making the case
now we have, Twitter, Facebook and the media doing it for Obama,
think aboutit.
Last night, Romney abandoned the tax plan mentioned above, touting a new one that he says will not decrease taxes for the top income brackets and will for the middle class. I've read a bit about that and do not find anything in it that supports his claims.
His premise is that by specifying a maximum deduction amount as well as the allowable deductions to accumulate to reach that amount, middle class taxes will decrease. After deductions, a flat percentage rate will be due. In the best case scenario, middle class taxes will not change at all. I mean, if the middle class gets to continue taking all of the deductions they can now take, what changes?
Of course, that all depends on what continues to be an "allowable" deduction and how many in the middle class have that particular deduction available to them. It seems to me the taxpayer group most likely to be hit hard by this plan would be the working poor.
In the meantime, his new plan mentions nothing about changing the tax rate for capital gains, so for all we know, he might be planning to eliminate it -- and perhaps the inheritance tax as well, yes?
He did not abandon his tax plan, he just lied about it.
Under any scenario, Romney's proposal is mathematically impossible. The top 3.1% average making $563K a year. They take average deductions of $91K and pay an average of 26.1%. If their tax rate were reduced 20% to 20.9%, yet their deductions were reduced so they paid the same amount of taxes, their deductions would have to be reduced by $118K (I'd be happy to give you the spread sheet to calculate it yourself).
Opps! Romney is $27,000 short on the deductions needed to be reduced in order to keep the taxes the same. You see? He needs to reduce deductions $118K, but they only have $91K in deductions.
In other words, his proposal is mathematically impossible!
You know, and we haven't even gotten to the 2nd or 3rd claim in his proposal... which are just as ridiculous as the first one.
BTW, my source is: http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-soi/08in11si.xls
Bad Bob I don't like your facts- they contradict my fantasies about Romney.
Remember according to Shooter just by Romney being Romney jobs will magically start to appear once he's elected president.
That's because he has 'magic' underwear!
Mitt said he would put a $17,000 cap on deductions. I guess this does not apply to the 1% or rich.
I thought he said $25,000 last night. Was I mis-hearing?
He said $17,000 2 days ago I think. But last night it was "$20,000 , $25,000, pick a number"
Cause, you know, details don't matter. His basic answer was "there are different ways to do this, this is just an idea. Trust me, it'll all come out in the wash".
“As an option, you could say everybody’s going to get up to a $17,000 deduction. And you could use your charitable deduction, your home mortgage deduction, or others, your health care deduction, and you can fill that bucket, if you will, that $17,000 bucket that way,” he said. “Higher-income people might have a lower number.”
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-03#fact-checks
Yes, we will all come out in the wash, all washed up under MittWitt Tax proposals. What a liar. Keep saying it Mitt, like your 5 sons, maybe someone will believe it. I am still Obama all the way, but last night was hard to watch.
If you read Berman's fact-check, he is claiming that Romney is not calling for the full 5 trillion as tax cuts for the wealthy. But Obama didn't say that. Furthermore, Romney previously said the tax cut would be paid for by closing loop holes. Now he is merely saying the cost will be less than the full 5 trillion. It completely disqualifies him as a deficit hawk.
The big disappointment for Obama supporters was that Romney didn't trip up and get caught in his own net of lies and contradictions. Going in I kept wondering how he was going to present himself, having presented himself differently, and with contradictory information, to different groups along the campaign trail. He found a way to lie to the camera and seem like he had something to say. The disappointment was in him being not challenged enough and not thrown off his game. Reminds me VERY much of the Reagan-Carter debate when Carter had facts to back himself up, and Reagan just kept laughing, smirking, and performing like a circus clown.
I disagree with the Carter Reagan comparison. Reagan articulated a coherent vision of government he had developed and promoted over decades. Carter's failure was in not articulating an equally coherent counter vision for America's future. Carter just wasn't very bullish on America.
Last night Romney was all about tweaking regulations, keeping the best of Obamacare and reducing the budget without really hurting anyone. He tried to sell the idea that he would be better at being Obama than Obama.
It could be an over all strategy imo , you can lose all your mojo going on the attack early , you can also come off as overly defensive about your policies , obama seemed to want to display a conciliatory mode of working with the gop as much as he can in this debate , which you do want to get across at some point in the debates , maybe they wanted to do it sooner , rather than later?
We all know obama has more fire than that , he can keep his powder dry and go in for the kill later
And ahhhh 2 minutes to describe your economic plan? I like pbs and jim , but if this is the only opportunity to really get to hear what they are speaking about , we as a nation need less sound bites and time constraints , and a lot more substance , imo that just plays into the bumper sticker politics the gop thrive on , but we do not need a long winded professor speech either
The difference is that Reagan came across as a likable grandfather. Romney came across as a petulant jerk.
Another difference is Obama is not Carter. I like Jimmy Carter, but he is not the politician Barack Obama is.
The factcheckers all agree that Romney's math doesn't add up, but how many professional pundits and other low information voters actually pay attention to factcheckers?
After you get past style, Obama won the debate on the merits.
Perhaps someone could explain one of the arguments I heard Gov. Romney make last night.
I haven't read the transcript, but as I understood him, he was claiming he would not reduce the amount of taxes paid by any high-income individuals, but that it was necessary to reduce nominal income tax rates, so that small-business owners who pay income tax, rather than corporate tax, would have more money with which to hire workers.
My question is this: If these taxpayers' rate cuts are actually offset by eliminating deductions and loopholes--that is, if the rate cuts are truly revenue neutral--then how can they make money available for hiring?
Am I missing something?
From they way I understand it, and I could be wrong. But lowering the tax rate and closing the loopholes and some of the deductions to offset the loss of revenue. Is essentially not really doing anything, because although people pay a lower rate, they are still paying the same amount if not more. They just think their taxes are lowered because the know they are paying a lower rate. So it actually doesn't free up more money, people just think it does, because they never look passed the "low rate" aspect of the argument.
Voodoo economics.
Magic underwear!
I still don't understand how anyone things that lowering taxes produces jobs... demand produces jobs, jobs don't produce demand. If you cut my taxes I'm not going to run out and hire someone for a job that has no work.
Rmoney lied blatantly throughout what I/we could stomach of the "debate".. Debates, where obvious lies qualify as answers and zingers like "those aren't the facts" or whatever that @!$%# said.. Style over substance is appealing the sub-par intellect of the Amecian* "Idle" crowd. Spoiler: Idle means stuck in Shooter321's or IrishPat's demented psyche.
I don't think that just because the President did not call Mr Romney a liar, or challenge him about his numbers, that he whiffed on the debate. I do believe that what the Rev Al said is true though, that he will be held to his "facts" and it won't fly. I also agree with Chris Hayes that the President needs to maintain his likeability lead, and that engaging in geurilla(sp?) debating right now is tipping the cart too much. I like my President remaining Presidential. On the subject of Social Security though i don't think surrogates today should allow Mr Romney to get away with his new attitude of "middle-roadery", Mr Rommney is definately not going to protect our Social saftey net
Undecideds and GOP base think the one who yells the loudest should be the winner-so so sad. POTUS looked to me as if he was trying to bite his tongue (when head was down) and was abiding by this debate's rules of procedure. Can any of you "objective" media imagine what GOP would say had our POTUS acted as aggressive as Mr. Romney? That ANGRY BLACK man......
Although disappointed with President Obama's performance last night, I see your point. It is well taken and most likely true. Never the less, I do hope that he will come on a little stronger the next time. I do NOT like Robme and wouldn't vote for him if he was the only one running, but he almost had me swayed last night. He still did not get specific, so nothing new there. Soem people believe in saving the best for last....hope that is our pez's strategy. OBAMA 2012
With todays short attention span it seems risky, if indeed it is a stratesgy. I'm uneasy, but Chris Hayes is a lot smarter than most.
I kept thinking that Obama was writing down every single lie that Romney was saying... making notes for future ads possibly? Or things to say to him in the next debate when Romney tries to say that he didn't say the things that he said even if he doesn't remember what they are.
Even though it looked like president Obama was weak and timid to the Mittster, in actuality , president Obama, showed what a great leader he is. A man who can control his own spirit, (temper) can rule a country; a man who cannot rule his own spirit, cannot rule a city block. I know who Iwant to be my commander and chief, President Obama. Vote 2012!
Excellent! I was really struggling today because everyone claims Romney won the debate and I was bummed, but your post helped me know that this isn't over yet, and our President is smart and so are the people he works with. I know they have a ground game like no other and while I wanted him to smack the smirk off Romney's face, he did just let him dig and dig and dig....hopefully a hole that will swallow him up in the coming weeks. I also hear the President today on the campaign trail with energy and enthusiasm. He gave a great speech about the "real" Mitt Romney. It was hilarious! - But thank you again for giving me a "quote" to hold onto as we listen to the GOP gloat and declare victory.
RACHEL: I think we're looking at a coordinated effort to sell a BIG TAX CUT LIE. During the debate last night, Romney challenged the President specifically on his claim that he (MITT) had been proposing a $5 trillion (20% across-the-board) tax cut. In fact, it was at that point that Mitt dragged out the obviously prearranged tale about his sons repeating stories over & over until they became TRUE. Mitt used it to, in effect, say that Obama had been lying all along about RomneyRyan wanting to make a $5 trillion tax cut. Of course, at the heart of that claim lies the smoke-and-mirrors notion that the cuts would be REVENUE NEUTRAL once they defined the loopholes they're considering.---- Now, flash back to the conversation that the "hard-hitting" FOX NEWS anchor Chris Wallace had the other day with Paul Ryan. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/30/1138216/-Chris-Wallace-gets-tough-with-Paul-Ryan-on-FOX-Ryan-fails We were all very impressed that Wallace would challenge Ryan that much, and it finally drew to a draw when Ryan insisted that it would be revenue neutral once they closed loopholes. Good for Chris Wallace, right? WRONG: IT WAS A SETUP for what Mitt claimed last night, that the President had been lying all along.They've created an elaborate CONUNDRUM. They can continue to push the tax cut lie, but no one can actually prove that they're lying because, well, the wild revenue-neutral stuff just might conceivably be true (when unicorns walk on water). The hard-hitting FOX NEWS interview seemed to be too-good-to-be-true because it was actually an elaborate setup. And it's all too complex for most voters to fathom. How would Obama even address it without getting into the feedback loop that Chris Wallace demonstrated with Ryan? Of course, once Romney puts the BIG TAX CUT LIE beyond the fact checkers, his whole Great Wall of LIES gains more credibility. Romney is a little too slick for America.
Man Good Blog. I totally feel the way you do. Without question if Mitt is elected many things he will end up doing will contradict most his flip-flop positions....This man is a worse nightmare than Bush.
Even if Mitt holds his current positions until election, how can any one truely believe him...I mean there is enough video and personally stated evidence from Mitt to prove othervise. The only people who will vote for Mitt is the rich, a partisan voter, a raciest, and stupid people.....If Mitt gets elected it only proves the rest of the world right, "that the US is no longer a leader in this world." The decision will only show the world how ignorant of a nation we have become. I thought i'd never see a day when 'a CROOK' runs this country, but if Obama doesn't ko this loser than I guess that day will be Nov. 6th.....Citizens be prepared to back track to the 1780's.
Sam, excellent Blog. I never thought about it that way.
The GOP nominee and his appointed mouthpieces are today running with the philosophy that saying something long enough makes it true, and saying ANYTHING, ANYthing, is fine as long as the outcome is the grabbing of presidency.
No surprise from Romney as an individual in this debate. He has no problem lying or repeating falsehoods (like about his tax cut proposals)…….ever. He has no problem being a bully as demonstrated by the way he bullied the moderator ……. or the way his Bain company bullied employees out of their jobs, pensions, and health insurance, or the way he bullied his fellow students by pinning down a gay boy and cutting his hair off. It's always tough to fight people like this. You have to be extra quick on your feet when Romney makes up statements about this study (what study is that!) or that study …….. it is difficult to be a nice guy (like Obama inherently is) with this kind of person. Just ask Bill Clinton.
One more comment about integrity. Romney is a self proclaimed liar. Romney is definitely a thief in that he has supported voter suppression (as in stealing votes from good Americans) to gain the Presidency. As yourself how anyone can justify voting for a liar and a thief.
Hello,
Now you all will probably laugh at me here, but I watched the whole debate performance and do believe Mitt's win is highly overrated.......Obama not once ran from his record or his intentions for this country.....I thought Mitt came off as a jerk.....the whole debate he hid from all his lies and what actually hurts him more is the fact that he's walking away from a huge part of his plans for this country....5 trillion in tax cuts......I do think Obama should have drilled Mitt on all these lies and inconsistant positions Mitt's taken, BUT I can see why Obama didn't bother.....Mitt's own words and the air waves are pounding Mitt enough..................but in all, I think this debate hurt Romney more than Obama...Romney took a big step backwards by simply backing out of his tax position....so now we know even less to where he stands and what he actually intends......
Three last things: 1. I believe the reason Mitt is hiding his taxes is because in this country "you can't be President if your convicted of a felony".....I think when Mitt was found by the IRS for doing some illegal tax things for Bain that should have raised red flags on his own taxes.....I personally believe the assumptions concerning Mitt dodging taxes and doing illegal things.
2. Concerning the republican idea of trickle-down-economics...If trickle down economics is better than growing the economy from the middle class out, PLEASE show me one event or case in the history of this country where it has worked? According to everything I have found it has never led to a country surplus, only a budget deficit.
3. Al Sharpton was correct....I you really listen to what Mitt was saying, his proposal sounds like it came out of the 1800's. You simply can't move those decisions to the states, because not every state would provide equal representation for all citizens. Things such as abortion or women's rights is not so much a state problem but more of a national problem because it concerning all women. If states are allowed to make many of these decisions then many rights of Americans are isolated in 50 (each state) different ways thus making our national constitution "INVALID".
I agree. the best strategy PBO could have used is just to let Mittens talk himself into a big hole. The Tax Policy Center- the 1% will receive $246,652 per year in addition to Bush Tax plan. Brookings Tax Center- Republican tax cuts will cost 4.9 Trillion over 10 years.
Romney was very weak on Education and kept punching at PBO about the 90 billion into Renewable Energy Enterprises and espousing the fact that 50% of the college grads cannot find work. Renewable Energy research and development takes new technologies. College graduates are capable and willing to work on these issues, and they vote. Romney wants to put these young upstarts to work in the coal mines and laying pipe for the XL pipeline. Very 19th century.
Romney also gave the heads up that he will FIRE TONS OF FEDERAL WORKERS, TEACHERS and SOCIAL WORKERS. Another reason for people to go to college.
Romney LIED when he said that corporations do not get tax cuts for shipping jobs overseas. His closing argument rings hollow on his platitudes for creating 12 million jobs and bring jobs back from overseas to raise the middle class. PBO allowed Romney to outline his plan for "the race to the bottom", while OBAMA illustrated the specific plan for his "race to the top".
You stated, "Romney also gave the heads up that he will FIRE TONS OF FEDERAL WORKERS, TEACHERS and SOCIAL WORKERS. Another reason for people to go to college."
I thought I was the only one who caught that since no one brought it up. The republicans think were deaf and blind.
One factor people aren't taking into consideration is this.....the prediction is in the next 4 years 12 million more jobs will be created....that's expected....Mitt claims 12 million new jobs as well. But when you take his total of 12 million jobs that number isn't whole or truely factual...the way to determine this on LIMITED INFORMATION is too take 12 million (Job growth) he promised as the starting point or high point of job creation along with his tax reduction policy (well say 20% across the board) and you find his ideas will create drastically fewer jobs than obama if any at all.
People in this country seem to fail connecting the dots....a 20% cut across the board would result in millions and millions of job losses......so in my opinion at best Mitts first 4 years would result in approximately a 75% job loss of current predictions.....what this means is while obama will see 12 million the next 4, with Mitt on the other hand because of all the cuts will see a negative creation rate to at best around 4 million new jobs in 4 years. That's a rate that is 20% lower than the last 4 years.....
I wish that Pres.Obama would label MR as an Economic Anti-Patriot! MR's investments aren't in US T Bills or US Financial Institutions. MR invests his money OUTSIDE the US; should be mandatory for our Presidents to invest in THIS COUNTRY. Liars need to be confronted and they need to be told they are lying. My mother confronted me in a lie once by saying these sage words: "You assume that you're smarter than the person you are lying to; you don't have a good enough memory to start lying or keep track of the stream of lies that will be necessary when you start this one lie." A life lesson!!
Let us not forget, that Romney can feel comfortable in stating lies with a straight face. He does it all of the time. He also knows that the moment the President responds, he will be labeled as an angry Black man and thus unelectable. That stereotype isn't easily washed away with many Caucasions. Stuck between a rock and a hard place!!!!
You hit the nail on the head. We all wondered and laughed when the conservatives conspired to release the 2007 video as 'shocking news' about Obama's 'racism' and 'anger'.
Setting a meme before the debate against which the POTUS had to be on guard to keep from providing fuel was the plan all along.
So Romney doesn't plan to cut the tax burden of the rich? So what about that elimination of the Estate Tax, which now only applies to estates over 5 million plus dollars? That doesn't lower the tax burden on the wealthy? Odd ......
It just simply means that they won't have to donate a Chair to a University or a new wing to a hospital to avoid paying it to the government. And it makes them look soooo concerned for the Community.