Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 10/06/2012 4:36:53 PM PDT by Kaslin
One of the strongest elements of Mitt Romney's spectacular debate performance was his decisive rejoinder to the president's oft-repeated allegation that the Republican plans to raise taxes on middle class families. Obama said Romney has designs on an unpaid-for $5 trillion tax cut that would eventually necessitate higher tax bills for average Americans. Romney flatly rejected the claim by calling it false, then explained what he actually has in mind. But the president returned to the "$5 trillion" well on several subsequent occasions, prompting more rebuttals from his challenger. FactCheck.org and CNN reviewed Obama's accusation, and found it wanting. "Not true," declared the former organization. As for the cable news channel, well, just watch this:
Obama Campaign Concedes Their 5 Trillion Attack Is Not True
Mary Katharine Ham provides a partial transcript:
BURNETT: Stephanie, let me ask you about that. Because here at CNN, we fact checked that, that $5 trillion in tax cuts and we’ve come and said that’s not true. Mitt Romney has not promised that. because he’s also going to be closing loopholes and deductions. So his tax cut wouldn’t be anywhere near that size.
CUTTER: So you’re disputing the size of the tax cut? Or are you disputing also how he’s going to pay for it?BURNETT: We’re disputing the size.
CUTTER: Erin, he has campaigned on lowering tax rates by 20% for everybody, including those in the top 1%. that was one of the main selling points in the Republican primary.
BURNETT: So you’re saying if you lower them by 20% you get a $5 trillion tab, right?
CUTTER: It’s a $5 trillion tab.
BURNETT: But when he closes deductions he won’t be anywhere near $5 trillion. That’s our analysis.
CUTTER: Well with, okay, stipulated, it won’t be near $5 trillion, but it’s also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he’s going to close.
Well, well, well. One of the few on-message attacks Obama launched against Romney on Wednesday night was this $5 trillion line, which has since been refuted by fact-checkers -- whose verdicts, you'll recall, the Obama campaign take "very, very seriously." But under intense questioning, even one of Chicago's most skilled liars was forced to admit that the claim is wrong. Will Obama continue trotting it out anyway? Of course he will. His campaign is still running ads hitting Romney on "outsourcing," an attack fact-checkers dismantled ("no evidence") months ago. Why is Obama obstinately promoting false narratives? I'll let a promising young politician explain the cycnical ploy:
Obama 2008: "If you don't have any fresh ideas, you use stale tactics to scare the voters"
Numerous experts have also determined that Mitt Romney's tax plan is most assuredly not the mathematically-impossible threat that Obama has described. Indeed, some have concluded that Obama's policies are most likely to result in tax increases on the middle class -- something this president has already done through the Obamacare mandate tax. Romney's not exaggerating when he lambastes the Democratic ticket for proposing huge tax hikes. Joe Biden himself has confirmed the GOP attack, and done so proudly.
President Obama Contradicts His Own Campaign On Veracity Of $5 Trillion Tax Cut
"The rich" got to be "the rich" by investing their excess income in businesses that generate profits and taxes and employ people who pay taxes on the wages they receive from those businesses.
"The rich" create sustainable jobs, i.e., jobs that create value.
Government can only create unsustainable jobs, i.e., jobs that kill private-sector jobs created by the investments of "the rich."
exactly
So I guess the real Mitt Romney did show up.
Which means every time Barry the Liar said the real Mitt Romney didn’t show up, Barry the Liar was in fact still lying.
This Cutter chick is just pure evil.
Wow.. even FactCheck.org and the most busted news source's flak chuckers protecting Obama walked away from that one.
That's quite a broad brush you're painting with. A little too broad, IMHO. It seems like the kind of stereotyping that could cause unnecessary bias against the conservative side of the political spectrum.
There's no need to disparage people based solely on race, which is what the phrase "like Eric Holder's people do" seems to imply. It serves no constructive purpose that I can see.
JMHO...
Crazy Eyes Cutter... what a NUT JOB.
Don’t all liberals lie?
Here's an interesting book on that thought: The Millionaire Next Door.
As evil as they come
Well, the real Obama certainly did. It's just that so few on the left have ever seen him, they didn't recognize him.
Erin Burnett has been channeling the late great Mark Haines lately.
bump
Yes, they do, but Obama is the Prince of Lies.
All of them? Really?
I think there are a good many rich people who inherited money and invested overseas. That doesn't create a single American job. So let's quit with the fantasy that all we need to do to create jobs is cut taxes, because it just doesn't sell, as is confirmed by the polls. The leverage in decreasing regulations is far greater in terms of both net revenue and GDP.
The principal benefit of cutting corporate taxes does is attracting foreign investment. Without cutting regulations, that won't happen anyway.
“...to be thrown back into the cess pool of stereotypes has to suck.”
Racially broad-brushing people is so destructive to the conservative cause. It happens on this site way too often. All it does is reinforce the liberal line about conservatives being racist, makes outreach that much harder, and keeps people from joining us. That is certainly true in my family.
Yes, they do, but Obama is the Princess of Lies.
There. Fixed it.
I stand corrected.
/bow
So morality is defined by polls.
I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the heads-up.
Who are his people?
The pain you feel today is the strength you'll have tomorrow.
Good for mitt standing strong against that lie.
Most undecided who don’t involve themselves
In politics will never learn about their admitting the lie.
Hopefully mitt continues to speak about personal stories at crowds to prepare for the
Town hall debate. He needs to add humor also.
Helps connect with audience. Remember Bush’s ‘wanna buy some wood’ ?
Obama will do very well speaking to the audience which will help his lack of clarity.
You probably need to ask him. He's the one who said it. I'm merely bowing to his wishes.
Every year FORBES magazine features the 400 richest people in the world. Every year I go through the list to see how many inherited their money. It's always a very small percentage. Most of those on the list Got their money through some kind of entrepreneurial activity.
I used to teach Multinational Corporate Management. One of the reasons for investing in a foreign country is to place a factory inside that country's tariffs and other trade barriers. This is usually better than trying to manufacture in the US and then exporting.
BZZZT. World War II destroyed much wealth that was abroad. Moreover, you don't properly account "Rockefeller" or "Pew" by looking at one person's holdings. For example, four out of the top ten in America are Waltons.
I have to agree that E Plurb’s attack on the $500 sneakers is out of line. The retail price is actually about $325.
You do realize that your are accusing Eric Holder of being a racist, right? He's the one who refers to "his people."
I presumed he meant the people the USA whom he represents.
Evidently you presume something different.
Hey Rush, I found your media “slut”. Forget Fluke the Nymphomaniac. Cutter has passed her by lightyears.
How do the Democrats do it - get the most pathological liars in politics? Boxer, Pelosi, Wasserman-Schulz, Waters, Lee-Jackson, Fluke and Cutter?
Must be a defective gene or thousands.
The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_11?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=millionaire+next+door&sprefix=millionaire%2Caps%2C216
This has nothing to do with my argument or my preferences. I was referring to why Romney has had such a hard time closing the deal against such a destructive incompetent. As it is, either Romney wins or you can kiss what remains of your sorry case goodby, that is, unless you plan on winning a civil war against a communist foe willing to using smallpox if it must.
Hence, making a pompous snark like that will get it shoved where it belongs. Will it be mayo or K-Y?
I'd have paid cash money just to watch FactCheck bleed out of their mouths and ears when they made that admission against interest.
Ex-cellent!
The result? Between 2003 (when the Rates were fully implemented) and 2007, Federal Tax Receipts INCREASED BY 35%, from $1.75 Trillion to $2.5 Trillion.
Liberals, including Pharaoh Obama, cannot comprehend a growing Economy. To them the pie never gets bigger.
BTW - We all know what happened in 2007, the Pelosi and Reid gang took over and everything went to hell in a hand basket. As they say, timing is everything.
“I think there are a good many rich people who inherited money and invested overseas.”
Then you have not studied wealth in the United States. Over 90% of the “wealthy” are 1st generation business owners. They ARE the job creators. See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st289.pdf
Yankee privilege-academy snob and blonde ice queen with piggy little eyes.
Basic info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Cutter
She was one of Slick's pizza-horking 20-ish ingenues. A Smithie, like Barbara Bush .... and Georgetown Law. She's only 44 years old but has her hand on the tiller of state and is deemed one of the most powerful people in Washington, regardless of party.
Born in 1968, she has zero memories of the 60's, 50's, 40's ..... how reassuring!
Guess that's what going to Smith gets you.
Great post, and yes before the Pelosi and the Reid gang took over the economy was thriving and unemployment was practically nonexistent. Then when they came in, disaster came in with them
By population, yes, by money, no, and it seriously depends upon how one defines "wealthy." Four of the top ten are Waltons. Packard, Pew, Jones, Rockefeller, MacArthur... the big foundations that exert the most political influence almost all represent inherited wealth.
Only if you believe the cooked polls commissioned by the state-controlled media branch of the DNC.
As Clint noted, the Empty Chair improved by codetoad:
ROMNEY LOST THE DEBATE! OBAMA IS IN CONTROL!
It is past time to fire Barack and his empty chair and have both of them hit the road back to Chicago!
So hit the road Barack and take your empty chair and empty suit with you!
Even Rasmussen says it's tight. Are you intentionally both so obnoxious and obtuse?
Romney may win despite himself, but it won't be because people want him to be President. Most believe, as I do, that he'll take care of his corporate cronies at the expense of true free-enterprise. This is exactly what Arnold did in California, for which Bush and Rove were largely responsible. They paid off the very folks who play both sides of the aisle, in fact, the big winners under Arnold play mostly to the left (Berkshire Hathaway investments).
Worse, in the process of taking over the Party apparatus, what you get is RINO apparatchiks. Once Rove set Gerry Parsky in place in California, conservative nominees in statewide elections never saw another dime of Party money. So if you think the GOP-e is bad now, you ain't seen nothin' yet. It's what RINOs do.
RINOs are horribly destructive to the cause of conservatism because the people, rightly, see them as corporate crooks. What they don't see is that the left is even worse in that regard because those corporations own the media. Somehow, in their need for both party and corporate money, conservative candidates never seem to make that case.
Sounds like you should vote for Ubama. Please feel free.
Since Wed night, there are 2 NEW ads about Romney’s tax cuts & they are beating the same old drum with the same old lies.
One ad actually starts with a clip from Wed night of Romney saying he isn’t putting out a huge tax cut. That is followed by a clip of Greenspan’s wife —Andrea Mitchell—saying how nothing Romney says is mathematically correct. Between numbers swirling around Obamacare & the unemployment numbers, how can I think that ANYONE in the Obama administration can do math? Even his Treasury Secretary could not prepare HIS own taxes correctly!!!!
BUT—OBAMA’s campaign is spend money running this ad and another one like popcorn popping in the hot skillet.
On Friday night on KOLO, ABC affiliate in Reno, that one ad ran 3 times between 5 PM and 5:49 PM.
I think every member of Obama’s campaign is a crazy person- they continue to tell lies on the one hand & then squirm until forced to say it is a lie on the other. But they keep running the ads.
Meanwhile, the media gets paid millions of dollars to let these ads bloom like red algae. They are poisonous.
Proof of stupid hand-wave poster who needs to have the last word. Please feel free.
Host: “No. It's not. See, here's a pencil. Add one more: that's two.”
Cutter: “Okay, stipulated; one plus one is two. But, one plus one is four hundred.”
Seems to me you're the hand-waver here.
By population, yes, by money, no, and it seriously depends upon how one defines "wealthy." Four of the top ten are Waltons. Packard, Pew, Jones, Rockefeller, MacArthur... the big foundations that exert the most political influence almost all represent inherited wealth.The folks who build the companies that hire the people - they are the folks I am talking about. 90+ percent are self made. BTW, the Walton family was just plain old middle class working stiffs before Sam came along. You appear to begrudge his children and grandchildren the fruits of his labor, or am I misunderstanding your attempt to make a point?
The US does not tax wealth -it taxes income. As such when money is inherited it is with few exceptions already taxed once -are you suggesting it be taxed more or that wealth be redistributed if inherited?
I would suggest that reducing taxes is always good.
The death tax does tax wealth. It hits small business and landowners, not the wealthy, and is thus ultimately regressive.
I would suggest that reducing taxes is always good.
Given your knowledge of our current tax structure, I'll give your opinion all the consideration it is due.
You seem to have an issue with the "wealthy" as you intentionally differentiate them from others -that is what drew me to your comments that premise a LEFTIST class warfare meme. You can not have class warfare without at first dividing up into classes.
REGRESSIVE -you no like? translates into PROGRESSIVE -you like?
Again there is no wealth tax -ONLY if one takes an inheritance as income is it taxed. AND as I stated -I would suggest that reducing taxes is always good.
Given your knowledge of our current tax structure, I'll give your opinion all the consideration it is due.
Given your objections and your arguments it appears you think income taxes are good, they should be progressive; and the wealthy should pay more. You promote leftist redistribution probably without realizing you do -you sure as hell argue for it.
What part of equality under the rule law do you not get and why do you dislike the "wealthy"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.