Even Fox Is Calling Out Romney for Dishonesty

[boutons_deux]

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace pressed senior Romney adviser Ed Gillespie on the credibility of the six studies Romney repeatedly cites to support his mathematically impossible plan.

Two of the six studies are Wall Street Journal editorials (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/10/819411/romney-tax-studies-five/) that repeat familiar Republican talking points without crunching any numbers. Wallace pointed out a third study from former Bush adviser Harvey Rosen, which assumes Romney’s plan would generate enough economic growth to pay for the revenue loss (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/the-6-studies-paul-ryan-cited-prove-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-is-impossible/263541/), the same tax logic used by George W. Bush. Yet another one of the six studies is a white paper from the Romney campaign (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/the-6-studies-paul-ryan-cited-prove-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-is-impossible/263541/) itself. Even an AEI tax expert suggested Romney’s math wouldn’t work (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/10/819411/romney-tax-studies-five/), saying “he’s going to need to cut rates significantly less than 20 percent if he wants to honor his other goals.”
But there is one study the Romney campaign hasn’t used. The Tax Policy Center found that Romney would need to raise taxes on the middle class (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/01/620561/tpc-romney-study-taxes/) even if he closed every single tax loophole for the wealthy. Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy and an adviser to the 2008 McCain campaign, called that study the “ definitive (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/12/1004921/zandi-romney-tax-plan/)” one on Romney’s plan

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/even-fox-calling-out-romney-dishonesty

:lol

[DMC]

That's it, cite a source you've long denounced as a farce when it agrees with your position. Honesty, thy name is boutons_deux.

[DMX7]

V61r5PYqLnM

[jack sommerset]

Fox is fair and balanced more than a few hours during the day. This story doesn't surprise me. Brother, since you are obsessed with politics, you should make yourself watch fox 1 hour a day. Choose different shows every week. Do this for 1 year. God bless

[jack sommerset]

DMX7, I dont see humor in your sig? Is it a racial thing? God bless

[mavs>spurs]

i call the op out for dishonesty

[boutons_deux]

That's it, cite a source you've long denounced as a farce when it agrees with your position. Honesty, thy name is boutons_deux.

Fox IS a farce, a 100% Repug/VRWC propaganda/slime machine, NOT a news channel.

Fox ISN'T a credible "source" for me, obviously.

It's funny, and mysterious, that Fox would be claiming that Gecko/Ryan tax/budget was not credible, mathematically impossible, just like serious commentators have been saying.

[boutons_deux]

Lies, Damn Lies, and Mitt Romney's Tax Plan
We all struggle trying to explain why Mitt Romney's tax plan is....inconsistent with reality. Here's another crack at unpacking the basics behind the famous TPC study (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001631-FAQ-Romney-plan.pdf) [1] that originally made this point. It's actually pretty simple:



Romney has promised a 20% across-the-board rate cut. The part of this cut that affects people making over $200,000 per year would reduce tax revenues by about $251 billion per year.

But wait! What about the economic growth this will unleash? That's mostly mythical, but let's bend over backwards here. If you incorporate the growth estimate of one of Romney's advisors, Greg Mankiw,
Romney's rate cuts for the wealthy would only cost about $215 billion per year.

Next, try to pick out a set of deductions and loopholes that can be closed to make up for this revenue loss.

But wait! Romney hasn't said exactly which deductions he would target. So it's not fair to pick and choose specific deductions. Fine. Instead, let's assume that Romney completely eliminates every single deduction for http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_star_trek_computer.jpghigh earners. All of them. It turns out this would make up $165 billion per year.
So even under the best possible assumptions, Romney's plan would cut taxes on the rich by $50 billion per year.
But Romney says he won't cut taxes on the rich.


This is the point at which, on Star Trek, smoke starts coming out of the computer and it implodes because it was forced to consider a logical impossibility.

Here in the real world, it's the point at which conservatives desperately start trying to invent clever excuses.

Martin Feldstein gave it a shot, but it turned out that he calculated wrong: Romney's plan can't work under Romney's conditions.

It can only work if you eliminate deductions all the way down to people earning $100,000. Harvey Rosen gave it a shot, but succeeded only by assuming wildly implausible growth estimates.

Charles Dubay gave it a shot, but miscalculated a provision of the estate tax. Matt Jensen gave it a shot, but made things work only by assuming that Romney might eliminate the interest exclusion on life insurance savings and state bonds.

This is pretty unlikely, though, since a centerpiece of Romney's plan is to cut taxes on investment income, not raise them.

Needless to say, Romney knows all this. The guy ran Bain Capital for years. If there's anything he knows his way around, it's a spreadsheet. So is it fair to say flat-out that he's lying about his tax plan? I guess reasonable people can disagree, but I'd say it is.

There really aren't any plausible assumptions under which his plan can work, and he obviously knows it. But he keeps saying it anyway.

If that's not a lie, what is?

http://www.motherjones.com/print/200651

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fox is fair and balanced more than a few hours during the day. This story doesn't surprise me. Brother, since you are obsessed with politics, you should make yourself watch fox 1 hour a day. Choose different shows every week. Do this for 1 year. God bless

I watch blurbs of all the shitty networks just to make sure that I am not incorrect in my assessments. All you are doing is spewing their slogan like a good robot.

http://www.journalism.org/

Quite frankly if you truly believe what you are claiming here you either

a) do not really consume all the media outlets or
b) are braindead.

[jack sommerset]

Brother, fox is saying they are fair and balanced 24/7. I'm not saying that. Kind of a waste of a post if you ask me. God bless

[Spurminator]

I seriously can't watch more than 3 minutes of Fox News without feeling like my intelligence has not only been insulted, but ridiculed and abused.

[boutons_deux]

GOP Priorities: Raising Taxes On 13 Million Low-Income Households, Cutting Them For 7,000 Wealthy Estates (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/15/1016991/gop-priorities-taxes-estate/)


Relative to the 2009 estate-tax parameters, the estate-tax break enacted at the end of 2010 benefits only the heirs of estates that have assets in excess of $3.5 million for an individual and $7 million for a couple.

For the estates that receive it, the estate-tax break enacted in 2010 is worth an average of $1.1 million per estate, relative to the 2009 parameters, according to the Tax Policy Center. […]

For many lower-income working families, the impact of losing the tax-credit improvements would be substantial. For instance, a married couple with three children that has earnings at the estimated poverty line for 2013 ($27,713 for a family of that size) will receive $1,934 less in combined CTC and EITC benefits next year if policymakers let the improvements expire. Similarly, a single mother with two children working full time at the minimum wage — and earning about $14,000 — will receive a CTC of just $173 in 2013 instead of $1,725.

?The cost of continuing the EITC and CTC through 2013 comes out (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/19/552411/gop-kills-11b-for-families/) to $3.4 billion and $7.6 billion respectively, for a total of $11 billion. The cost (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/the_white_houses_case_for_the.html) of the estate tax cut for its original two year period was $23 billion, suggesting an extension for another year would roughly equal the cost of extending the tax credits.


In short, the Republicans are proposing to recoup new revenue by raising taxes on 13 million American families, while losing roughly the same amount of revenue in order to give a minute, rarified group of the wealthiest Americans another year of enormous tax cuts.http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/15/1016991/gop-priorities-taxes-estate/

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/15/1016991/gop-priorities-taxes-estate/

The VRWC/Repug euphemism is "broadening the tax base" and "sharing the sacrifice". :lol

Anybody have list of Repug projects that do ANYTHING positive for anybody NOT in the 1%? Anything at all that advances the entire country?

[boutons_deux]

Romney’s $4,000 Tax Tale

Mitt Romney falsely claims in a series of TV ads that President Obama “will raise taxes on the middle class by $4,000.” That’s nonsense. The ads cite a conservative group’s study, but even the group itself doesn’t say Obama will raise taxes on middle-income taxpayers. It says his budget could result in a “potentially higher tax burden” over the next 10 years.

In fact, the group’s study considered two other budget scenarios — current law (allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire as scheduled at the end of this year) and current policy (extending current policies into 2013, including extending the Bush-era tax cuts) — and determined that Obama’s budget “provides a middle ground between these two extremes.”

The American Enterprise Institute, which conducted the study, is described in one of Romney’s ads as “nonpartisan” and “independent.” In fact, it is a conservative, pro-business think tank whose leaders include former Vice President Dick Cheney and whose academic advisers include Romney’s chief economic adviser, R. Glenn Hubbard. Three of its board members — including its chairman — gave nearly $1.7 million in combined contributions to the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future.

Regardless of the group’s political leanings and Romney’s misuse of its study, AEI makes a valid point. Debt being accumulated today is going to cost future taxpayers plenty, especially when today’s unusually low interest rates begin to rise. And debt will still be rising for years, whoever is elected.

Take, for instance, the House budget resolution crafted by Romney’s running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan. The federal debt would continue to rise under his plan, although at about half the rate that it would grow under Obama’s budget.

So, by Romney’s logic, the House plan crafted by his running mate and embraced by him “will raise taxes on the middle class by $2,732,” as we will explain later.


A $4,000 Tax Hike?
In the first of three TV ads, which was released Oct. 4, the Romney campaign asks and answers its own question, “Who will raise taxes on the middle class?” The ad’s answer, not surprisingly, is “Barack Obama and the liberals” — to the tune of $4,000.

Although the group bills itself as “nonpartisan (http://www.aei.org/about/),” it is a conservative pro-business organization whose board of trustees (http://aei.org/about/board-of-trustees/) includes prominent Republicans, including Vice President Dick Cheney, and major GOP donors who are actively helping to elect Romney.

AEI senior fellows, too, are prominent Republicans — including John Bolton (http://www.aei.org/scholar/john-r-bolton/), who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush. Some of AEI staffers and advisers are Romney advisers and contributors.

The financial and ideological ties between AEI and the Romney campaign include:



Kevin B. Rollins, chairman of AEI’s board of trustees (http://aei.org/about/board-of-trustees/), has contributed $375,000 (http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_ind/C00490045/P-T/) to the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future, $42,500 (http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?12952486416) to Romney Victory Inc. (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/05/romney-victory-inc-another-weird-disclosure-twist.html), a joint fundraising committee, and $2,500 (http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?12970145126) to Romney’s campaign. In all, he has contributed $450,800 to political committees working to elect Romney, Federal Election Commission records show.

Two other AEI trustees — Bruce Kovner, chairman of Caxton Alternative Management, and Harlan Crow, chairman and CEO of Crow Holdings — were also major contributors to Restore Our Future. Kovner gave $500,000 and Crow gave $150,000, according to ProPublica, a nonpartisan news website that tracks donations to super PACs (http://projects.propublica.org/pactrack/#contributions=C00490045). Crow Holdings separately gave $650,000.

In all, Rollins, Kovner, Crow and Crow Holdings combined to give nearly $1.7 million to the pro-Romney super PAC, according to ProPublica.

AEI’s “national council (http://aei.org/about/national-council/)” includes major GOP donors, including J. Joe Ricketts, who gave $100,000 (http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?12952644092) to Restore Our Future, and David H. Koch, who founded the conservative Americans for Prosperity (http://factcheck.org/2011/10/americans-for-prosperity-2/). AFP has spent $31 million on TV ads (http://www.youtube.com/user/AforP) just in the presidential campaign, according to Campaign Media Analysis Group, a unit of Kantar Media.

R. Glenn Hubbard, a member of AEI’s academic advisers (http://www.aei.org/about/council-of-academic-advisers/), serves as Romney’s chief economic adviser (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=97817).

AEI senior fellows who are advising Romney include Leon Aron (http://www.aei.org/scholar/leon-aron/) (foreign policy (http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/10/mitt-romney-announces-foreign-policy-and-national-security-advisory-team)) and Scott Gottlieb (http://www.aei.org/scholar/scott-gottlieb/) (health care (http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2012/03/mitt-romney-calls-repeal-obamacare-presents-his-own-vision-health-care)).

Gottlieb, Bolton and eight others who listed AEI as their employer contributed to Romney’s campaign. The others were Andrew Biggs, Mackenzie Eaglen, Philip Levy, John Makin, Peter Wallison and Christopher Harmer. They contributed a combined $13,250, according to a campaign finance database (http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=&state=&zip=&employ=American+Enterprise+Institute&cand=Romney&c2012=Y&sort=N&capcode=gm2r4&submit=Submit+your+Donor+Query) maintained by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.


The Romney campaign wisely dropped the description of AEI as “independent” and “nonpartisan” :lol after the first TV ad. But the campaign continues to misuse the group’s study and, in the process, mislead voters.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204273&p=6147368#post6147368

As always, the REPUGS offer, spew NOTHING but lies, distractions, absolutly silly shit.

[jack sommerset]

Brother, this is your thread about fox holding romney accountable. Why the change in direction. God bless

[Winehole23]

non sequitur posting is normal for boutons. he's like the hedgehog: for him, only one big thing exists. evil Republicans and the evil they do.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I watch blurbs of all the shitty networks just to make sure that I am not incorrect in my assessments. All you are doing is spewing their slogan like a good robot.

http://www.journalism.org/

Quite frankly if you truly believe what you are claiming here you either

a) do not really consume all the media outlets or
b) are braindead.


I got this one...


b!

jon tesh

[boutons_deux]

Brother, this is your thread about fox holding romney accountable. Why the change in direction. God bless

The thread is about Gecko/Ryan LYING about their fantasy budget plans. That even FOX says Gecko/Ryan are bullshitting is consistent my other posts here. Your brain terminally addled by your Bible bullshit isn't capable of following, as usual.

[Latarian Milton]

you can't be honest and be a politician at the same time tbh. if you can beat everyone else to this, you're gonna win the presidency. joe wilson exposed obama as a liar years ago

[jack sommerset]

The thread is about Gecko/Ryan LYING about their fantasy budget plans. That even FOX says Gecko/Ryan are bullshitting is consistent my other posts here. Your brain terminally addled by your Bible bullshit isn't capable of following, as usual.

I thought you were rambling. God bless

[dbestpro]

Romney's tax plan is rather simple. 20% less income tax across the board. Closure of tax loopholes, so that everyone that is suppose to pay, will pay. It actually sounds more like a democratic plan, while Obama proposes a socialist plan. There is no true republican plan on the table.

It is an incomplete plan, which is why you cannot find all the details. Why is it incomplete? Because Romney wants input from a united congress on just what those loopholes will be that are closed. Imagine democrats and republicans working together for the greater good. What a novel concept.

[Winehole23]

a united congress working together to gore everyone's ox?

you're right, I can't imagine it.

[TeyshaBlue]

I thought you were rambling. God bless

As if we could tell the difference.:lol

[boutons_deux]

Today Produces Yet More "Facts" to "Check" From the Romney Campaign


In today's edition of ridiculous time wasters, we bring you a bout between heavyweight contender Mitt Romney and referee wannabe Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post. The question at hand: how should we rate Romney's contention that he has three studies verifying that his five-point economic plan would create 12 million jobs?

The winner is....Kessler, of course. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romneys-new-math-for-jobs-plan-doesnt-add-up/2012/10/15/fd1d1e1c-170f-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html?hpid=z3) Romney has always said that he'd create 12 million jobs in four years, but the studies in question (a) use timeframes of 8-10 years, http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_pinocchios_kessler.jpgand (b) don't evaluate his plan anyway. Four Pinocchios for Romney! :lol

The loser is....all of us who still have functioning brain cells — including Kessler, who was forced to spend precious hours of his life on this nonsense that no one at Romney HQ even pretends to believe in the first place. But the rest of us still have to go along with the gag. Presidential candidates these days can literally say anything they want, and we're all required to stroke our chins and pretend to take them seriously.

In any case, the real answer to this question is a lot simpler: if elected, Romney probably will create 12 million jobs in his first term. So would Obama. So would my cat. And we don't need any studies to prove it. If the economy grows at about 3-4% for the next four years, we'll add 12 million new jobs, and there's a pretty good chance that the economy will indeed grow at about 3-4% for the next four years. We might be coming out of our recession slowly, but we are coming out of it, and this means that 12 million jobs is sort of a no-brainer. It's sort of like promising that unemployment will fall under 7%. It will, of course, but that's a pretty low bar. We should expect better.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/today-produces-yet-more-facts-check-romney-campaign