Think Progress identified 27 “myths” that Mitt Romney told during last week’s debate in Denver. Steve Benen identified 50 examples of Romney’s mendacity from last week. His list includes the debate but also speeches and media appearances. Some of these lies are big, brassy and brazen. Others are minor distortions. Collectively, they paint a portrait of an extraordinarily dishonest man.
We can start with something straightforward. During the debate, Mitt Romney denied that he has proposed tax cuts that would cost $5 trillion dollars over the next decade. “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” This is not very complicated to resolve. The Tax Policy Center simply looked at the tax cuts that Romney has proposed and calculated what they would do to the 2015 budget. The tax cuts would reduce revenue by $480 billion. If you multiply that by ten years, and you adjust for inflation, that comes out to an average of about $500 billion a year, of five trillion dollars. That doesn’t mean that Romney would blow a $5 trillion hole in the budget. But it does mean that he would have to do some combination of tax hikes and spending cuts to make up for the loss of $5 trillion in revenue his policies would create.
Romney says he will pay for this loss of revenue by closing tax loopholes, but he won’t specify which tax loopholes. It is possible to pay for Romney’s $5 trillion in tax cuts by closing loopholes, but not by closing loopholes that only are used by upper income people. To close the gap, Romney would have to go after tax credits for people’s home mortgage interest payments or the child tax credit. Which makes the following claim impossible. “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families.” To keep his promise to cut taxes without increasing the deficit, Romney would actually be cutting the middle class’s overall rate, but in many cases that cut would be overwhelmed by the loss of tax credits, thereby raising millions of middle class people’s overall tax burden.
Another problem arises from this claim: “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” The way Romney tries to explain this is that rich people will pay 20% less overall, but that gain will be exactly wiped out by the loss of loopholes and deductions. For example, there could be a cap on how much money could be deducted for charitable donations. The most obvious problem with this is that Romney can’t implement this kind of tax reform without both raising the tax burden on some high-income people and reducing it on others, both of which Romney completely denies that he will do. Someone who claims relatively little in charitable deductions would see a sharp reduction in their taxes. Someone who claims a lot in charitable deductions would possibly see their tax burden go up, disincentivizing charitable giving from the uber-wealthy.
This is just one small part of the dishonest game Romney was playing during the debate. If we are to take him at his word that he will not increase the deficit or add to the tax burden on anyone, there is only one possible answer. He won’t be proposing his tax reforms at all. What he has proposed is impossible and contradictory. But he did propose those reforms, repeatedly, for eighteen months. And he says those proposals are still in effect.
He’s just a con man.
I see the expectations game has begun for the VP debate. Me personally, I’m not gonna play it. I think that’s what caused the “meltdowns” last week. Despite all saying to the contrary & the Obama team trying to lower the expectation the Romney team won the expectations game. Some people got so caught up in the laughter at all the stories about Romney’s debate prep, and evident problems on the stump, but the bigger story was a poll showing that a majority of those who planned to watch the debate had bigger expectations that POTUS would wipe the floor with Romney. and when your expectations are sky high and the bottom gets kicked out, then the fall from on high is harder and longer.
all this to say, I think Biden is a good debater. I’m really not sure what kind of debater Lyin Ryan is, but I don’t think he’s dumb and I suspect he does have stamina being a younger guy. So I expect Biden to be his usual “ride or die” Joe and I honestly don’t know what to expect from the lying team. which after the lesson learned from last week is probably the best way to go into thinking for VPdebate.
I’m really not sure what kind of debater Lyin Ryan is, but I don’t think he’s dumb and I suspect he does have stamina being a younger guy.
We know already that Ryan is at least as comfortable as Romney at telling bald-faced whoppers without even pausing for breath, and that he can deliver them smoothly and convincingly, assuming an otherwise ignorant audience.
Probably we’ll see a repeat of Romney’s Denver performance this week, only Ryan doesn’t have the personal weirdness that Romney exudes with every grimace and gesture, so if anything, he’ll come across at least as effectively on his own merits.
But Joe’s gonna be prepared. I don’t expect a repeat of last week; Ryan’s not going to get away with serial lying without at least some pushback. The question is how effectively and thoroughly Biden will able to answer the lies, because they will be all over the place.
What’s magic about ten years? Let’s not lie to make the numbers bigger. He has a $500B annual tax cut. That’s terrible in itself without getting into a numbers fight.
Because that is how the budgeting is normally calculated.
We don’t even have an annual budget for 2012! And the public pays attention to the annual budget. That’s what the MSM talks about. That’s how Romney can say he doesn’t have a $5T tax cut. The public hears $5T and thinks it’s a year.
The CBO may prepare ten year forecasts. I don’t doubt you. When I was with DoD we had 30 year forecasts but OMB only paid attention to the five year defense plan. Look back on any ten year period and you will see that the forecasts of the next ten years are wildly off because of unforeseen events. In 1960 who accurately foresaw the state of the union in 1970? 1970 to 1980? 1980 to 1990? (remember we were supposed to have budget surpluses and high wages?) 2000 to 2010? (were three Middle East wars foreseen?).
Shouldn’t that be extraordinarily?
yes.
The surrogates have been trying to offset this with a stab at thinking the offset will come from more jobs… more taxes paid…more revenue. A wee bit circular as they still don’t outline how the policy creates a line of customers at busineses’ doors in the first place.
If Paul Ryan can drag that one out at the debate without Biden biting its head off, there’s a good chance it will stick.
Given Romney’s sheer volume of lies, the polls should have widened against Romney as the fact checkers did their work. But the mind of a Con has been well trained that denial is safer. When will this Stockholm syndrome break?
If Romney is promising a tax cut to be balanced by closing loopholes, then all he’s promising is a bait-and-switch. He’s hoping you’re stupid enough to hear only “tax cut” and think he’ll close none of your loopholes.
I was somewhat gobsmacked by how brazen Romney was in claiming two things that were inherently contradictory. He has been running for months on this tax cut, claiming that it would stimulate the economy. Then, in the debate, he claims that he won’t actually lower taxes (at least, not on the wealthy).
Forget any numbers. Either you want to lower taxes or you don’t. Romney wants it both ways. He is claiming that he will stimulate the economy with tax cuts that are revenue neutral. This makes no goddamn sense.
Exactly. How can a tax cut that is (supposedly) “revenue neutral” by design have a macroeconomic effect–even in theory?
(Leave aside the fact that it’s simply hated Keynesian economics with its demonic fiscal policies!)
As for deductions, they were substantially revised (and limited) in 1986 and now consist principally of mortgage interest, state (income) taxes, charitable giving and extraordinary medical expenses. Which of those “loopholes” are you going to abolish, Mitt?
Rmoney’s “plan” is such blatant BS and fraud that it’s simply unbelievable. Yet he “won” the debate, apparently….
Look, of course Rmoney is a con man–the entire plutocrat-funded “conservative” movement has been a con game from the very beginning. Rmoney is just their latest liar. He only differs from the usual Repub puppet and flimflam man in that he is himself an actual plutocrat.
That’s what makes the debate performance so appalling. It was crystal clear from Rmoney’s first response that he was going to evade Obama’s argument that he was proposing a “$5 trillion tax cut”. Obama should have immediately changed course and used the phrase “another 20% percent tax cut”—after the Bush cuts! Rmoney couldn’t have denied that—it’s spelled out in his “plan”–and one hopes that even the American Boob understands that “another 20%” is a pretty goddam big tax cut that must substantially reduce gub’mint revenues. Follow up with directly asking Rmoney to identify which deductions and “loopholes” he would cut–which he absolutely won’t do—and the debate could have looked much different.
The bigger problem is the idiocy of a large number of voters. For years, polls consistently indicate most people want taxes increased on the rich—very sensibly. Yet somehow Rmoney can come out and propose another 20% tax cut for everyone, and have most viewers think he “won” the debate? All while Rmoney claims to (supposedly) view the debt and deficits as matters of existential importance? How? Is there simply no common sense out there any more?
The key phrase is “share of taxes”.
If the tax rate were exactly 20% for everyone, then a someone making $1,000,000 would pay $200,000 in taxes and another person making $10,000 would pay $2,000 in taxes.
Change the tax rate to 10% and the first person gets a $100,000 tax cut. The second gets a $1,000 tax cut. So the rich get the bulk of the extra money. But they’re still paying the same “share of taxes”.
He’s just a con man.
He’s not even a very good con man. That’s why I don’t get all this movement in the polls this week. It must be due to the network/cable media effect I’m not seeing over here.