A few days after the Democratic National Convention, with much of the political world still buzzing about Bill Clinton's speech, President Obama joked he might want to appoint his predecessor "Secretary of Explaining Stuff."
As the campaign progresses, it seems some on Obama's team appear to be taking that idea to heart. Today, the president's re-election campaign unveiled this two-minute clip, featuring Clinton explaining why Mitt Romney's tax plan just doesn't make any sense.
For what it's worth, Clinton isn't the only one who's noticed the Republican numbers are ridiculous. Mark Zandi, Moody's chief economist and a former economic adviser to John McCain, said the numbers presented by the Romney campaign "will not add up." Daniel Shaviro, a tax law professor at New York University, added, "There really is no serious dispute that the parameters of their plan can't be met. It's like saying you're going to drive from Boston to Los Angeles in 10 hours without speeding. There's just no way to make the numbers add up."
The New York Times' editorial board also argued today that Romney "needs a working calculator," adding, It is increasingly clear that the Romney tax 'plan' is not really a plan at all but is instead simply a rhapsody based on old Republican themes that something can be had for nothing. For middle-class taxpayers without the benefit of expensive accountants, the bill always comes due a few years later."
Leave a Comment:
Ever been coned by a fast talking sales man? Glassing over the fine print saying it is just a standard contract.
The devil is in details, lets hear the details before we sign.......
And that's why they don't provide the details.
So, it seems as if Romney believes that the Bush tax cuts weren't big enough; we've had them for how long now and what have they done but add to the debt?
I hope he is asked that, if he truly believes in trickle down, and if his tax plan really does not cut taxes for the rich because deductions are eliminated, how exactly will there be a trickle down if the "job creators" don't get their tax cuts? Could it be that he's <gasp> not telling the truth?
The video is correct; eliminating deductions will have a lower impact than eliminating the capital gains tax for the uber-rich, so they are still receiving a tax cut - that's why they say Romney would only pay 1% under Ryan's plan.
Add Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone contributing editor) to the list of folks who are candidates for the Secretary of Explaining Stuff.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/matt-taibbi-mitt-romney_n_1969616.html
http://current.com/shows/viewpoint/videos/the-romneyryan-tax-plan-still-makes-no-sense-matt-taibbi-urges-the-media-to-demand-answers/
Matt Taibbi is calling on the Press to do its job and call them (Romney/Ryan) on their BS. Let's hope our press redeams themselves sometime in the next day or two.
Considering Romney's plan is identical to the Alternative Minimum Tax, shall we ask Congress why it isn't a valid way to tax people? Maybe Obama could answer that question? Nah.
Considering Romney's "plan" is more like a series of unrelated words strung together in the futile hope of randomly making some sense, and the AMT has long been rife with problems, and this is at least the second time you've tried to make this pathetic argument in as many days, I have to ask if it isn't time for you to give it up already...Nah.
Shooter, AMT is at 28% and already is in place. So, just how is it credible for Romney to propose that we keep what is while adding a boost to defense spending and this all adds up to a drop in the deficit? Odd way to do math or tax policy.
Besides, just what is the shape of the Laffer curve? It has never been described mathematically as it can't be.
Breaking news. A politician struggles to make a factual argument stating that his opponent is making stuff up and that his only skill is putting a friendly face on nonsense.
Forty years later, and after living through the consequences of that nonsense, nearly half the American still side with the folksy guy and voodoo economics. What Reagan did to Bush I, is what Romney is doing to Obama.
Interestingly, the media were willing participants in Reagan's reality distortion field, because Reagan sold information that people wanted to consume. Selling people a satisfied experience after delivering one's product is how many media professionals define as their primary task.
What is good about Clinton is that he combines passion with dispassionate logical argument. What is bad about the Clintons is that they are Bush-lite moderate republicans advocating deregulation and cozing up to monied interests in a softer, gentler way.
I still love Bill.
Do you love his repeal of Glass Steagal?
How did you like his silencing Brooksley Born warned of a looming crisis in credit default swaps in 1997?
It wasn't a third way. It was just a different pitch effective with where the electorate was at the time. The DLC front man for the plutocracy.
Or NAFTA and opening up jobs moving to china?
And obama trying to act like clinton resulted in massive failure for his admin in since 2010 ..... obamas version of it was on display in his last debate performance , as in " YOU DON'T WANT TO PISS THE RICH WHITE GUYS OFF TOO MUCH "
The thing with Bill is he worked with the repubs to pass all that bad legislation to get the good legislation in there. Glass Steagal is a good example of breaking the banking barriers that, IMO eventually caused the bubble to burst. In that respects, I think Clinton was just as guilty as Gdub in the housing collapse.
When all else fails, talk fast, using big words with little details - it's what the GOTP does! The real problem is that the sheeple have been led to believe that whatever is "wrong with America" can be fixed with a tax cut, simple to say and easy to repeat! Yet, truth be told taxes on those making over $1 million/yr., need to go up, their tax loopholes need to be closed, and SS and Medicare/Medicaid need to be means tested! And since corporations aren't people they need to be taxed too, heavily!! End the corporate welfare and stop allowing them to claim "subsidies & deductions" for off-shoring jobs!!
Ok, so what is the Media's responsibility in this. The View wants to have expression of diverse views, and their viewership would be surprised to learn many of Romney's positions on women's issues.
Romney's goal is to deceive and conceal women about his views, and Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg were participants in this deception. For a clip, take a look at the Mediate piece on this (link). Romney dodged the scrutiny and they didn't call him on it. Walters instead put a veneer of make nice over it and allowed the Romney campaign to substitute Ann Romney only.
Instead, the View should exhibited good parenting skills and not accommodate lies and deception from the misbehaving spoiled child.
Choose the worst consequence the Romney campaign would imagine. How about a 30 minute segment of quotes from Romney stating his hard line positions on womens issues, interspersed with reactions from the panel discussing his positions.
Walters introduces the sequence saying that we offered Romney to represent his views in person but he declined. Instead we shall go on with the discussion on the important choice that America will be making in November. If the governor wishes to reconsider his schedule, then we will make room for his appearance at any time.
Ask yourself why the producers of the View won't let Walters or Goldberg do it. It's in how Walters put it in the Mediate clip. It's clear that she has a brand that she wants to protect, and wants to avoid the appearance of partisanship.
What I was suggesting was a bludgeon mostly chosen for dramatic effect. Walters and Goldberg have been around the block and know of more sophisticated approaches. For example, none of it has to be public. They have a video producer string together the clips and they send them to the Romney campaign with the segment description of how they will use the clips in lieu of Romney's appearance. The campaign goes ballistic, and re-enters negotiation finally agreeing to allow Romney on.
Or-- failing the negotiation, they allow the Romney campaign to select some video clips which balance the impression created by some of Romney's more extreme recorded statements.
Instead Goldberg and Walters chose to participate in Romney's deception of American women. Ann Romney is not going to be naming Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe. She can say anything to put a happy face on her husband and the campaign can deny anything that does not play well with voters. She is no substitute and she should not be allowed on if her husband refuses to appear.
These boys are playing these grand dames for fools. It is time that they showed some backbone, and exercised the power they have at the crucial moment that power needs to be exercised.
Will it be a moment where they expressed cowardice towards the kind of male hegemony that has been pushing women around for the last 2 million years, or will this be a moment when powerful women have the courage to take some risks with their power.
The funny thing about power is that if you don't make people feel the effects of your power, you really don't have it.
Because a surplus on SS for the past thirty years went somewhere else?
There's a reason Roosevelt wanted SS to be for everyone: as he said at the time, that way it won't be welfare for geezers -- everyone (at least numerically) will have a stake in it. Means-test it (and it's already partly means-tested) and you end up with two problems:
In case you didn't know, Medicaid is means tested.
And finally, Medicare has the same problems as SS but with the added problem that only a small fraction of the elderly population can afford private insurance. So means testing doesn't save enough money to make up for the political liability.
If the old-age safety net programs are in trouble, the solutions aren't going to be Randian axe whacks. They'll be simpler things, such as (per Al Gore) paying down the debt after 2000 (oops!), or (per Obama) fixing out out-of-control growth of health care spending for everyone, or simply raising the limit on incomes subject to SS (it used to be about 90% of income was subject to it; the rise of inequality has reduced that to around 80%)
@John, If I remember those history lessons correctly "the media" is supposed to provide a check on those in government by informing the citizenry, that's why there is "Freedom of Speech" written into the documents that WE hold near and dear.
Second being "PC" in today's language means not calling out the liars for the lies that they tell; it's also a reflection of why WE need to have a change from "corporate owned media" - you cannot expect the FOX to police the very hen-house his next meal is coming from. Nor can you expect Barbara Walters & Whoopie Goldberg - as powerful as you believe they are to cut off their noses. It's a crying shame, but it is the truth!
Finally, we the people must be awakened and start demanding more, more from ourselves, more from our "elected" leaders, more from the rich & corporate - and it must start with TRUTH! Gasp, I know, how dare I think that we the people need to be informed and informed with the truth, presented with FACTS, and be able to come to a consensus of which course is best to take for the COMMONS.
@DC, while I understand your point, I do realize that Medicaid is means tested, yet Medicare is not (not really). I also know that the SS trust fund was raided several times to cover expenses that Congress approved of. The point that I probably didn't state well enough is that costs have gone up, so back in 1970 a person that retired on $50k /yr., may have had a few dollars to spare, in today's dollars that's surely not enough - especially when we're talking about health care. But the proposals being put forth right now by the GOTP are draconian, and it's not a bluff, these people have hated all of the "New Deal" social programs that give any benefit to US the 90% of working people, especially in our elder years!
See Warren Buffet, will never have to solely depend on SS or Medicare, yet he too should be paying into the system more than he does right now. As a matter of fact Mitt doesn't pay as much as he should, partly because he's keeping an anonymous amount in off-shore accounts - and there is the problem - the system has been gamed by lawyers and accountants and it is WE the PEOPLE that are suffering because of their greed!! If the rich & corporate don't feel as though they need to contribute, then I invite them to go to another "western" nation and see exactly how much they would be paying in taxes to live there permanently, I'm sure they'll change their tune!
The problem is that for years, WE the PEOPLE have bought into these lies and bs that say that WE are greedy for asking for a hand up when necessary, yet the rich & corporate got to their position all by themselves because they are smarter and deserve more! Funny, cause if people stopped buying at Wal-Mart, those heirs might not be so smug, and if people stopped buying Angel Soft toilet paper or Brawny or quite a few other products produced by Koch industries, they too might change their tune!
The problem is that our government has been hijacked by Warren Buffet's class, and WE the PEOPLE have to start demanding it be returned otherwise we get FASCISM and that is the truth!
Zora I don't think or educational or spiritual institutions are geared to fostering a genuine interest in truth. There is a natural intellectual pleasure to acquiring information which confirms and expands one's capabilities. The latter information acquisition driven by narcissistic forces. Fox news makes a lot of money for a reason. Many people watching MSNBC do so because they are mostly interested in feeling good about views they already hold.
The latter is good for maximizing individuation so that the species mutates and exploits niches at a optimal rate. The former is necessary for billions of instances of such individuals to exist in harmony without engaging in predation or extermination of others unwilling to submit to their self confirmed bubble world. That's why the EU is a remarkable reversal of historical trends and deserves their Nobel Peace prize despite the frequent lampooning from witty commentators on the left and right.
As for cutting off their noses, any exercise of power requires expenditure of consumables. For example, Radditz broke the agreement for what the commentator would do during the debate. She cannot survive as a professional if such events are viewed as anything but infrequent. But not to ever step over lines means she denies humanity.
err... she denies her humanity. That is, her identity- whatever her standards for herself- in her case, her identity as a journalist is submerged into in-existence since her inner image finds no expression in the real world. So, there is little to differentiate herself from an automaton executing rules downloaded to her from the marketing weasels at corporate central.
This implies an unintended criticism of Lehrer. I think treatment of him has been abysmal.
Radditz would have been awful at the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Political competitors interested in earnest debate do not benefit from journalists such as Bernie Shaw asking the lurid and emotional question of Dukakis in a hypothetical about the murder and rape of his wife. The proper thing for candidates is to expose themselves to journalistic interrogation as a separate event. In my view, the proper thing for a debate is for it to be an honest intellectual struggle between ideas. Sadly, it is the assessment of campaign professionals that neither of these types of event is advantageous to their candidate.
And let's be honest about why that is. We like to scapegoat the mass media and political operatives as being cynical. Campaign professionals use what works. What works is a function of the previously mentioned practice of what information is for.
President Clinton pointed out that from the economy to foreign policy, President Obama has a solid record of continually working to strengthen the United States in spite of unprecedented obstruction, he has run a strong campaign, Democrats killed it at the convention and one not so good debate doesn't change everything. Republican policies haven't changed since the Democratic convention when President Clinton made it so clear how come Mitt Romney’s Republican plans are worse than they were, when they put us in the death spiral of this recession. Tax cuts for top income earners has been proven not to create jobs because if you give someone who makes millions, a few thousand, they don't have to spend it and usually don't. The reason middle-class tax cuts have proven to work is because if you give someone who makes $40,000 a year, a $1,500 tax cut they have to spend it. Given who spends it, you will put a lot more money back into the economy if you give 99% of the country a tax break, instead of cutting taxes for the 1% who don't need it. Of course, Republicans will follow-up with why not give it to everybody? I thought the tea party were sick and tired of spending, but I guess they don't understand that if you cut taxes on everybody, in order not to blow up the deficit, you have to cut middle-class benefits that will take more money back from them then they got in tax breaks and 99% of the country won't be putting more money back into the economy. And if 99% of the country aren't buying, than the wealthy so-called job creators won't have customers to create more jobs, so they go back to what they know best, hoarding it. Which means, once again we will be faced with increasing job losses and a growing deficit.
He needs to explain why his wife just took the hit on the Bengazi SNAFU....
A Question for tonight.....
Governor Romney, we know you have a plan to redo the tax code, but we can't seem to get any specifics out of you about what you'll cut and what you'll save. Plus, you refuse to show America your own taxes for at least 5 years as customary, even though they might give us your view on ethics in taxes or be used to show us what loopholes you have proudly taken advantage of that you would do away with in the future. Add to that the fact that the majority of your contributions come from large corporations and the very richest of the rich, I'd like to know why we should believe that you will work for us, the middle class, and not just your rich constituents?
it's a great question....and will therefore remain unasked.
Even the Tax Foundation, one of Romney's oft cited 6 studies, requires 7-8% GDP growth to make it work.
What about the Tillions in defense to terrorist. Battleships and 3 submarines to go after tents in the desert. i would have thought a Recondo School for Special Terrorist removal would be in a more World participation approach. Always with the bomb, bomb, bomb Iran crap. Weak Minds make for Warrior spirit. Rember, Wha if they created a war and nobody showed up. Put that in your 47%.
Mitt needs a working conscience. He has his family snowed or bought. He does not have a religion that requires honesty. He changes positions more often than a guy with hemorrhoids and his campaign staff correct his intentional misstatements and lies in the dark of night where they are not noticed. He is not trustworthy on any level based on what he hides and how he avoids giving any details to his policies and his business practices.
"Arithmetic over Illusion"- Bill Clinton
It doesn't get more concise than that!
I took my absentee ballot to the post office because I ran out of stamps. No where on the ballot or envelope did it say the postage was going to be sixty-five cents. So I commented, "wow, glad I brought it here because if I had not ran out of stamps, I would have put one stamp on the envelope!" The post office clerk said, "yeah, people are mailing these things with a stamp and it won't got there, we have to find the time to sort and send them back to sender for proper postage." I said, "well if the public is unaware, at the end there are going to be a lot of ballots that don't go back in time to be re-stamped and re-sent." He said, "YUP." PLEASE mention this on your news... the public is NOT INFORMED!
As FDR said of them in 1936: "They will tell you they love Social Security. They merely dislike the manner in which the current administration is handling it. If you give it to them, they will make it work for everyone everywhere and it will not cost anyone anything!" (and yes, the snark and sarcasm was heavy)
They've been heavy into the "tax fairy" for a long, long time.
Everyone asks "what happened to the Republican Party that used to be?" Well, that's what happened. They were always this way, about everything! There's a very good reason why my great-grand-uncle, who worked as a political operative for Harry Truman from 1919-1953, said "The only 'good Republicans' are pushing up daisies." It was true 80 years ago and it's still true today.
The last good Republican president was Theodore Roosevelt, and he was an accident. They wanted to sideline him as Vice President, only they didn't expect McKinley to suddenly become a "good Republican." Before you say "what about Eisenhower?" he wasn't a Republican, he was a popular guy whose politics nobody knew (the Democrats even though of asking him to run to replace Truman), who had been the commander of a whole lot of guys who were now home and registered to vote. They knew that was the only chance they had of breaking the Democratic hold on the White House and they were so power-hungry they were even willing to have a guy in the office who wouldn't kill Social Security and the New Deal or lower their taxes
This is all fine and good, but it's really Obama's job to handle this stuff, preferably when the cameras are rolling. I still don't know what the hell was going on during the last debate, but if it happens again, he can pretty much kiss his job goodbye. He needs to show up at the debate tonight prepared. Don't let Romney constantly get the last word, or bully the moderator. Call him out on his lies. Remind him of where and when he made the statements that he will no doubt try to disavow - again. Hammer him on the 47% and his recent reversion back into a New England moderate. Democrats are so good at losing winnable races. Obama had him on the mat, with his foot on his neck, and for some unfathomable reason, he let up. He simply has to have a good showing tonight.
Did you see SNL portrayal? He was thinking about what the heck he was going to do for his anniversary gift. A Broncos sweatshirt in the hotel gift shop…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO2JVacQdMY&feature=related about 3 minute mark
Good for a laugh, especially when Lehrer says Rmoney just said he killed bin laden.
We can't panic, but I agree that he needs to step it up tonight.
Tonight's debate I am going to by a bottle of bourbon. I don't buy bourbon because I like it. I will only use it for Medicinal purposes only. Good luck P. Obama..
"He changes positions more often than a guy with hemorrhoids"
Line of the year....if only it were polite enough to be uttered in the debate.
That is simple , bring up Kennedy's "MULTIPLE CHOICE ROMNEY" comment several times , and there ya go ..How that was not in his ammo bucket the first time is beyond me , when did a wet noodle ever work on the angry red faced modern gop?
I honestly don't know why Romney is not disqualified from running for President without releasing his tax returns. If elected, he will introduce legislation to change the tax code to his personal benefit. This is typically referrred to as CONFLICT IN INTEREST.
And now he set a president , now every corrupt low life business person can run for pres , or office , and the gop voters will embrace them fully
Yet another watering down of democracy , brought to you by the southern confederate hate the liberal u s constitution agenda
Everyone keeps focusing on the fact that Romney and Ryan are refusing to provide details about their tax plan, when they have already provided the only detail that matters:
tax cuts + getting rid of loopholes and deductions = $0
They already did the math, and it equals NOTHING!
A tax preparer wrote in my newspaper that CPAs and IRS agents don't use the word loopholes, only politicians and the media do. There are deductions, exemptions, credits and the tax code. I think loophole sounds like something illegal that you got away with because someone else did not do what they were supposed to.....like dotting an eye or crossing a T....The Republicans are good at making something sound wrong like Welfare, which actually helps people tremendously, not go hungry, not live on the steets, and etc. But because of the GOP hounding about it, they think everyone on welfare is abusing it. The Romney/Ryan tax plan would cut Welfare, and all middle income and low income programs that help people get back on their feet and make it through really hard times. They only help the wealthy who don't need it. And if those tax cuts for the wealthy really made jobs, then where are the jobs and help coming from the millionaires and billionaires???? The only thing I see is millions going to Romney/Ryan compaign....Just think what that money could have done for jobs or work programs....well you get the idea....Romney/Ryan tax plan is only for the people who are wealthy, greedy, egotistical people out for power over the rest of us......
It's pretty astounding that people are willing to spend a whole lot of money donating to PACs to get more people to fall through cracks that are barely receiving the bare minimum basic needs.
I'd like to do some arithmetic and see if someone like Meg Whitman and husband donated $100,000 to Romney/PACs to see how many people would that feed and house for 2012.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76870_Page2.html
Adelson pledged $100 million, but would save $2.3 billion under Rmoney tax plan. So, same math problem with those numbers?
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/11/825851/romney-adelson-taxes-billionaire/
I have no doubt neither one donates to someone charitably, but would the math doesn't work that well for them with their tax deductions.
I was watching J.K. Rowling the other night on The Daily Show. She said that she pays her full share of taxes since she made it big with Harry Potter, becuase she was helped by benefits (welfare) and council housing (projects housing) when she was struggling to write the first Haryy Potter book. This is a woman who is richer than the queen! Great interview:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-15-2012/j-k--rowling
Oops
I have no doubt neither one donates to someone charitablybut would the math doesn't work that well for them with their tax deductions.I meant
I have no doubt they both probably donate to someone charitably, but the math may not work that well for them using charitable tax deductions.
Has anyone considered that if you tax capital gains at 0%, and all of your income comes from capital gains, then you will owe no taxes. Romney wants to cap deductions at $25,000 (or some other undetermined number), if you owe no taxes because all of your income comes from capital gains, why would you care? This is a policy that only benefits the top .1%. It will hit those of us with mortgages, who give to charities, have medical and education expenses (read, the middle class). Someone needs to call Romney out on this.
I said it then and im saying now, the GOP just open up a can of corn we need the worms to fish with you think??