Lying Liars

You Lie!

Many fibs, half-truths, and lies are told during Sunday talk-show appearances, but this one stands out as being particularly preposterous

Christie: Gov. Romney’s not talking about more tax cuts for the wealthy. In fact, what he said is that the wealthy will pay just as much under a Romney administration as they pay today.

Perhaps in bizarro world this is true, but in reality Mitt Romney has mentioned cutting taxes in virtually every stump speech he has given since he began running for president 5 years ago.

Romney's own campaign website proposes cutting cutting taxes for the wealthy and the Ryan budget, which Romney approves of, cuts the top marginal tax rate by over 10 percent.

Both Romney and Ryan have also proposed eliminating taxes on capital gains. This would be a significant tax cut for the wealthy because taxes on capital gains are the only taxes many of them pay.

Chris Christie is so off-message he probably woke Grover Norquist after he had already gone to ground for the day.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    OK, someone has to explain this to me.

    What Romney/Ryan seem to be saying is, “We’re going to lower everyone’s tax rates, but we’re also going to eliminate deductions and exemptions, so everyone will end up paying about the same amount.”

    Have I got that right?

    Assuming this is true, what is the point? If it’s truly “revenue-neutral,” and it won’t result in anyone paying any more or less in taxes, why do it at all?

    Let’s back up a bit: If it’s truly “revenue-neutral,” then either (a.) everyone will pay the same amount in taxes they’re paying now; or (b.) some people will pay more and some people will pay less. So, if it’s (a.), then what’s the point? If it’s (b.), who pays more and who pays less?

    • JMAshby

      It isn’t true. Plus, there aren’t enough loopholes to close that would make up for the amount of revenue lost by cutting taxes in the amount they’re talking about.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        I know that, but I’m less concerned with whether it’s true than with what the point would be if it is true.

        Maybe my point is that it’s a little far-fetched to think that lowering rates and eliminating loopholes will be “revenue-neutral” on an individual level (as opposed to in the aggregate), for everyone; i.e., that no one, rich or poor, at the end of the day will pay more or less than they already are. I think it’s obvious that some will pay more and some will pay less; otherwise there’s no point in doing it.

    • MrDHalen

      If you keep pointing stuff like this out after a Romney/Ryan win and you’re going to end up in one of the “Pray the Liberal Away” re-education camps!

      /Snark (Maybe) (Hopefully)

      • mrbrink

        Get it right, Dan!

        It’s “ROMNEY! ROMNEY!/((ryan))”

        He will not tolerate anyone showing him up!

        • MrDHalen

          Sorry!!! Now I’m going to be headed to the camps as well.

    • nathkatun7

      You are trying to make sense about tax/budget proposals that make absolutely no sense! Romney’s plan is pure “Voodoo” economics.He is promising to drastically cut taxes, drastically increase defense spending, eliminate unspecified tax loopholes, and at the same time balance the budget. The vast majority of non-ideological economists know fully well that Romney’s budget/tax proposals do not add up. Unless, of course, you factor in massive increase in taxes for the middle class and the poor. Ryan’s plan, on the other hand, simply focuses on cutting taxes, cutting social safety nets, while promising to balance the budget several decades from now. Bottom line: neither plan makes any sense; except may be for the wealthy Americans who stand to reap the greatest benefits from tax cuts.

  • i_am_allwrite

    Actually, dropping the top rate to 25 from 35 amounts to a rate cut of nearly 30%, i.e. they will be paying nearly 30% less in taxes.

    • JMAshby

      Actually, it would be from 38% to 25%*, but yes you’re correct.

      *Bush Tax Cuts expiring