Romney's Budget Attack

Typical distortions. Not intellectual honest enough to fight on a factual basis.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ref=fpnewsfeed

BRIAN BEUTLER APRIL 17, 2012, 1:45 PM 2853 45
In a new effort to turn the country’s debt and deficits into political problems for President Obama, Mitt Romney’s campaign is promoting a new infographic that draws a comparison between federal and household budgets.

It may be a political winner, but it’s a deeply flawed way to look at budgeting, as even many conservative budget experts admit. And it rests on the false implication that President Obama has no intention or desire to rein in deficits in the coming years.

Click on link and read the rest.

Well heck, we taxpayers subsidize Big Oil. Obama said so today.

"...Dean Baker, co-founder of the liberal-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research says, it suggest either that Romney’s misleading voters about his policy views, or that he has a “loony” view of the economy."

“Families have a lot of debt, but we’re not a family,” Baker said. “We have access to endless supplies of credit. “There is no issue of the government being able to pay off its debt — if there is, he better tell his friends in the financial sector, because they don’t seem to think so.”

I never knew.... "Endless" supplies of credit. Well then, all is well.

"Setting aside the specific figures, the idea here is that no household of modest means would ever come close to racking up the same income-to-debt ratio the federal government has right now.

According to Federal Reserve and Census data, that’s not really true — the average household, which houses about 2.5 people, has over $100,000 in outstanding debt, including mortgage debt.

Separately, the presentation is premised on the notion that Obama completely owns the country’s budget, and politically perhaps he does. But the national debt is cumulative — Obama inherited most of it — and its growth during his presidency is overwhelmingly due to the 2008 economic crisis, which caused tax revenues to plunge and safety-net spending to rise automatically."

As Baker points out, that’s as it should be — and if Romney truly thinks the budget should have been brought to balance in the recession, that should set off alarm bells.

“The budget moves toward deficit every time we have a downturn. That’s a good thing, because it sustains demand into the economy,” he said. “So either he’s making an issue out of something he knows not to be an issue, or he has a loony view about the economy.”

Separately, the presentation is premised on the notion that Obama completely owns the country’s budget, and politically perhaps he does. But the national debt is cumulative — Obama inherited most of it — and its growth during his presidency is overwhelmingly due to the 2008 economic crisis, which caused tax revenues to plunge and safety-net spending to rise automatically.

You can only blame Bush and Reagan for so long.... At some point, it needs does need to be owned by someone. You said so yourself - both democrats and republicans want to reduce debt.

Wanna compare the real problems to a family of four?
Family has $150K in mortgage debt, needs to feed, clothe and educate the two kids, save for their college educations, pay their income and property taxes, bills, utilities, make the car payments, save for retirement etc. etc. etc. All of this is a relatively fixed set of expenses, but they're making it work on Daddy's salary while mom stays home to take care of the kids AND they're even managing to squirrel away some extra cash for rainy days, paying down random IOUs and what-not.
At some point, Daddy, who has secretly been experimenting with homeade LSD while huffing rubber cement in the backyard woodshed on weekends, goes to work on some Monday and tell his boss "you know, Mr. Boss, I don't need all this salary you're giving me...please pay me about 25% less." Mr. Boss predictably and happilyk obliges.
Then, as everyone in their family and circle of friends prophesied, the bills start to pile up, the debt begins to bloom as borrowing increases to meet debt service obligations, the payments start getting made late or not made at all and everyone starts getting really stressed, especially Mommy. You see, Mommy just lost her job because a recession hit right when the budgetary problems started reaching their apex, further compounding the budget problems they're experiencing. So, she goes to Daddy and demands that he go back to work and ask for his old salary back because, well, "this is just freekin ridiculous" and "look what you've done to the family!"
Daddy, in his infinite wisdom, calmly (and rather smugly) responds to Mommy's concerns saying, "actually honey, you have a spending problem, so I am going to be moving all our funds to a bank account in just my name and I have already cancelled your credit cards, reduced our retirement savings and might need to take you and the kids off the health insurance soon too. You're going to have to go get whatever menial job you can find, and the kids are going to have to learn some personal responsibility by essentially raising and disciplining themselves. They're going to have to make do without college and go to trade schools or maybe nothing. We will also be selling your car, but under no circustances am I getting rid of my Mercedes or my season tickets to the Patriots. Last but not least, the house is gonna have to go too...we can just rent a one bedroom and all share the room."
How long does Daddy remain head of the household (let alone a fully intact and functioning male of the species)?

By Richard Cohen, Published: April 16

Among the attributes I most envy in a public man (or woman) is the ability to lie. If that ability is coupled with no sense of humor, you have the sort of man who can be a successful football coach, a CEO or, when you come right down to it, a presidential candidate. Such a man is Mitt Romney.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...UMT_story.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

By Richard Cohen, Published: April 16

Among the attributes I most envy in a public man (or woman) is the ability to lie. If that ability is coupled with no sense of humor, you have the sort of man who can be a successful football coach, a CEO or, when you come right down to it, a presidential candidate. Such a man is Mitt Romney.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...UMT_story.html

---

Thankfully the author points out that Obama lies too, but didn't cite the lie of "taxpayer funded subsidies for Big Oil".

"WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama called on Congress to stop taxpayer-funded subsidies for oil companies, and the Senate promptly ignored him Thursday."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1387789.html

Apparently, The Huffington Post propagates these lies.

Here's more.

"On top of these record profits, oil companies are also getting billions a year in taxpayer subsidies," Obama said. "Think about that. It's like hitting the American people twice. You're already paying a premium at the pump right now. And on top of that, Congress thinks it's a good idea to send billions more of your tax dollars to the oil industry?"

ROMNEY LIES: Claims John Kerry Released 2 Years Of Tax Returns But Kerry Actually Released 20
By Judd Legum on Apr 17, 2012 at 6:15 pm
In a CNBC interview with Larry Kudlow to air later tonight, Mitt Romney defends his decision to release only two years of tax returns — both filed after he decided to run for President — by claiming that 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry also released two years. From an advanced transcript:
KUDLOW: Why not release your tax returns? Why not go back 10 years?
Gov. ROMNEY: Well, we’ve had people run for president before, and they’ve released two years. John Kerry released two years of taxes.. I’ve released one already, put the estimate out for the next year. We’ll have two years of taxes..
In fact, John Kerry released not two years of returns, but 20. From an April 14, 2004 article by Byron York:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...LMT_story.html
Ezra Klein: A rich guy’s case for higher taxes

By Ezra Klein, Published: April 16

“I was a kid in the 1950s,” says David Levine. “And the whole time, the top marginal tax rate was 87 percent. Not many people paid that much. Only three baseball players — Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio and Willie Mays — got there. But it was 87 percent.”

Most people, of course, do not mark major life events by the top marginal tax bracket at the time. But David Levine isn’t most people. Levine is the former chief economist for the investment-management firm Sanford C. Bernstein. He is, as you might expect, a very rich man. But he’s one of those rich guys who, like Warren Buffett, is begging the government to raise his taxes.


America has often grown faster during high-tax periods

Levine has been following federal tax policy for most of his adult life. “My main job was to forecast the economy,” he shrugs. “So taxes are tremendously important to that. And tax policy changes are tremendously important.” And, to him, those changes mostly went the same way: cutting taxes on people, like Levine and his friends, who didn’t need tax cuts, as the working class struggled.

He brandishes a table that tells the whole story: John F. Kennedy brought the top tax rate down to 70 percent. Ronald Reagan brought it to 50 percent, and then to 28 percent. Levine still sounds offended. “I was making seven figures,” he says. “They lowered my marginal tax rate to 28 percent. And the median American, he was paying a 15 percent marginal tax plus his payroll taxes plus the employer’s share of his payroll taxes, which comes out of his income. So he was paying, all in all, about 27.9 percent. And I was paying 28 percent.”


Click on link to keep reading.