tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post7040326331125860466..comments2024-03-28T08:51:18.908-04:00Comments on the daily howler: WHO LOST AMERICA: Sirota and Lawrence, Dionne and Rendell!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-79461271687961914372012-10-19T11:25:55.034-04:002012-10-19T11:25:55.034-04:00If you want to imagine that the reporting on Romne...If you want to imagine that the reporting on Romney's plan has been good you're welcome to that delusion.<br /><br />I won't be joining you in it.Neither Anonymous Nor Irishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-63148717152381551652012-10-19T07:58:40.343-04:002012-10-19T07:58:40.343-04:00Dear Neither Anonymous,
We are living in a world ...Dear Neither Anonymous,<br /><br />We are living in a world in which the noise machine and its groupes can actually attempt to claim with a straight face, that Barack Obama didn't say for two weeks that Benghazi was an act of terror because he only "implied" it when he said it was an "act of terror" in his first speech about Benghazi on the day after Benghazi.<br /><br />Do you recall two weeks ago when Somerby said Romney was right when he said that it wasn't a $5 trillion tax cut because Romney was only talking about "tax rates" and besides, Romney said the 20 percent rate cut was still open to negotiation? Then Somerby's claim that when Ryan specifically said "20 percent" he "restored specificity" to the plan? Specificity on the size of the rate cut that was ALWAYS on the Romney/Ryan Web site?<br /><br />Now try to "explain" Romney's tax in a way that satisfies Somerby when Romney is allowed to move the goal posts like that.<br /><br />And yes, it has been done. And reported. Several times.<br /><br />But when it is done, Somerby nit-picks the point he thinks is weakest and tosses the entire analysis out.<br /><br />But you don't have to take my word for it. Go back and read the Incomparable Archives.<br /><br />I never thought I'd have to say this, but Somerby's work this entire election cycle has been incredibly weak and far below the standard I used to expect from him.<br /><br />But if you want to think he is some savant, go ahead. Free country.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-55734352535987832372012-10-18T15:51:18.808-04:002012-10-18T15:51:18.808-04:00I agree with The Daily Howler's object to the ...I agree with The Daily Howler's object to the "lie" meme. Paul Ryan, seems to me,<br />did very little if any fibbing in the debate, what was being called out was his rank hypocrisy. What Sirota calls out (and TDH makes so little of) was a two facedness <br />Mitt has displayed on every issue. The central dishonesty both sides have to live<br />with is that Mitt doesn't get the "math." Of course he does, the drill is, you create<br />such dire straights with the economy that you force the county to get rid of <br />the entitlements special interest groups have foisted on us, like Social Security<br />and The Department of Education. What will Mitt cut? He tells us in all honesty <br />he won't tell us. <br /> Bob's absurd pooh poohing of the 47% percent revelation tells us he has<br />a long way to go in giving a crap about struggling Americans as well. It's also <br />fair to note, how many times has Bob bashed the dimwitted Dowd with her<br />comment about writing about Welfare reform? Presumably Dowd uttered hive<br />giveaway to Joe Klein only once. But Romney, who's running for President, gets<br />a pass because he only made his statement only once? It what sort of world<br />do we expect satirical Ob Ed writers to be more responsible than the leader of<br />the free world? Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288008924419574934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-34845114577276972962012-10-18T15:05:35.893-04:002012-10-18T15:05:35.893-04:00And of course, don't forget, "We need to ...And of course, don't forget, "We need to lower tax rates in order to stimulate small business. The wealthy will still be paying the same percentage, but we'll give the middle class a tax cut because they've been crush. But it will be revenue neutral."<br /><br />Or so the fantasy goes.<br /><br />Now once again, try explaining bat-shit crazy.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-75116975149283494182012-10-18T15:01:01.625-04:002012-10-18T15:01:01.625-04:00I’ll try again
Assume Romney’s right, the top ear...I’ll try again<br />Assume Romney’s right, the top earners are paying 60% of tax revenue while the rest of us are paying the other 40%. If he gives an across the board 20% tax cut, the top earners will still pay 60% and the rest 40%. <br /><br />Imagine the total revenue is $500. Top Earners now pay $300, Bottom Dwellers pay $200. <br /><br />If there’s an across the 20% board cut, the top earners would then pay $240 and the bottom $160. The top earners still pay 60%, but the tax cut benefitted them by $60, but only by $40 for the lower 95%.<br /><br />So it does benefit the wealthy the most, while keeping them paying 60% of the total bill. <br />After you grasp that, explain how these three statements can all be true.<br /><br /> 1) In the first debate he said: "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans."<br /><br />2) In the second debate he changed that and said: “The top 5 percent of taxpayers will continue to pay 60 percent of the income tax the nation collects.”<br /><br />3) In both debates he unequivocally said he’d lower tax rates on the middle class.<br />HANKESTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-46630287762535546312012-10-18T14:46:45.846-04:002012-10-18T14:46:45.846-04:00Not so helpful.
It's a LIBERAL POV that insis...Not so helpful.<br /><br />It's a LIBERAL POV that insists (even perhaps correctly!) that Romney's "real" plan is just the tax rate (and tax bill) cut for everyone (which would in $ terms mostly benefit the rich).<br /><br />But Romney has also "announced," many, many times that he will not let the rich pay a lower share of the tax burden. So he's as "committed" to that as to the rate cut, rhetorically.<br /><br />He has "announced," too, repeatedly, that his tax plan will be revenue neutral. Another, rhetorically equal commitment.<br /><br />He's also "announced," that this will also (magically?) reduce the federal deficit.<br /><br />You or I or anyone may think that parts of this are more likely to be his "real priority" -- but the fact is that -- as a matter of arguing his plan to the American people -- Romney is wedded to the Whole Thing, not just the part someone chooses to emphasize.<br /><br />You (and Somerby) are right -- "the math" does not permit all of these things to be true at once.<br /><br />But those other parts are important parts of the Romney For President sales pitch. We ignore the sales pitch at our peril.<br /><br />So your first paragraph is right: This debacle of a plan CAN be coherently described. <br /><br />And that just supports Somerby's contention: It's a monstrous failure of the so-called liberal and mainstream media that they have mostly FAILED to do so.Neither Anonymous Nor Irishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-20898244063308922792012-10-18T14:31:59.976-04:002012-10-18T14:31:59.976-04:00"We’ve had eight months to find a way to expl..."We’ve had eight months to find a way to explain the sheer nonsense of this proposal." <br /><br />Bob, to echo the above comments, how can you possibly explain "sheer nonsense"? <br /><br />And especially when you yourself are willing to give Romney a pass every time he comes up with a new version of this sheer nonsense, as you did just two weeks ago?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-55077060676157091492012-10-18T14:18:00.029-04:002012-10-18T14:18:00.029-04:00This post of yours is about as convoluted as the e...This post of yours is about as convoluted as the evolution, de-evolution, re-evolution, and re-de-evolution, of Romney's tax saga. Sorry, Bob, but you're going to have to work harder on clear writing. tilhttp://til.tknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-71589869783937598222012-10-18T14:11:28.947-04:002012-10-18T14:11:28.947-04:00Oh hell, NANA
Give the Bobber his due. The fact ...Oh hell, NANA<br /><br />Give the Bobber his due. The fact that Romney's position on taxes is incoherent and/or intentionally misleading doesn't mean its dishonesty and incoherence can't be coherently described.<br /><br />On the other hand, it doesn't help when Bob insists that Romney's recorded claim that he's going to cut *taxes* (not just rates) "was grossly misleading or just plain wrong" -- because, don't you know, Romney has been insisting all along, in parenthesis, says Bob and Ezra, that's he's not going to lower the taxes of the rich. It apparently doesn't occur to Bob that calling for "rate cuts" as opposed to "tax cuts" is what's "grossly misleading", since Romney is quite transparently concealing that he *is* giving huge tax cuts to the very rich.<br /><br />Why do I say that? Because Romney's math doesn't add up! That revelation, after all, is the whole point of giving Romney's tax proposal the attention Bob wants it to get: to show that it doesn't compute, and that there's no way to recoup that 20% rate cut by cutting the deductions of the very rich, particularly if you're going to keep capital gains taxes low, sustain the carried interest loophole (billionaires pay 15%) and eliminate the estate tax.<br /><br />So, the effect of Romney's proposal is to give the rich a huge tax, because the 20% rate cut is the *only* proposal he's announced and is committed to. But, in Bob's universe, we're not allowed to say that he's cutting taxes, because most of the time Romney says he's cutting rates, not taxes. Helpful?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-9805106360516314412012-10-18T14:06:44.590-04:002012-10-18T14:06:44.590-04:00Since when is Ed Rendell reomtely considered a lib...Since when is Ed Rendell reomtely considered a liberal?<br /><br />He's as liberal as Evan Bayh or Ben Nelson.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-24958641086207361332012-10-18T13:21:35.291-04:002012-10-18T13:21:35.291-04:00Of course he’s lying.
1) In the first debate h...Of course he’s lying. <br />1) In the first debate he said: "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans."<br /><br />2) In the second debate he changed that and said: “The top 5 percent of taxpayers will continue to pay 60 percent of the income tax the nation collects.”<br /><br />3) In both debates he unequivocally said he’d lower tax rates on the middle class. <br /><br />If the lower earners, meaning the people paying the 40%, are going to be sending the IRS fewer dollars , then the top earners also need to send in fewer dollars to remain at the same percentage. Meaning high income people would have their taxes reduced. <br />If he intends to be revenue neutral for the top 5%, then he would also have to be revenue neutral for the bottom 95%. Meaning the middle class would not get a tax cut. <br />This is 3rd grade math, and 9th grade logic. He lied, QE freakin’D. <br /><br />Hankestnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-2906050944014229852012-10-18T13:15:53.393-04:002012-10-18T13:15:53.393-04:00"This ridiculous tax proposal never made any ..."This ridiculous tax proposal never made any sense from the start!"<br /><br />But you're angry that we haven't explained it?<br /><br />You almost concede that it can't *be* explained!<br /><br />But you're angry that the NYT and "the liberal world" haven't explained it?<br /><br />That they've "gamboled and played??"<br /><br />Well, you're right, actually.Neither Anonymous Nor Irishnoreply@blogger.com