Thursday, October 04, 2012

Obama Campaign Manager Admits $5 Trillion Attack On Romney Is Bogus


Stephanie Cutter, President Obama's Deputy Campaign manager tried to double talk her way out of it, but she got cornered on CNN and was forced to admit that the '$5 trillion in tax cuts' attack on Romney is bogus, and that the figures the president attempted to pull out of the nether regions of his anatomy are sheer fantasy...just like Mitt Romney said they were.

Nevertheless, President Obama repeated this nonsense today in his stump speech.


Erin Burnett, CNN host: So you're saying if you lower them by 20% you get a $5 trillion tab, right? 

 Stephanie Cutter: It's a $5 trillion tab. [crosstalk] Burnett: But then when you close deductions it's not going to be anywhere near $5 trillion, that's our analysis. 

Cutter: Well, 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. So it is going to cost someone and it's going to cost the middle class. Independent economists have taken a look at this. There aren't enough deductions for those at the top to account for the number of tax cuts that they get because of Mitt Romney's policy so you have to raise taxes on the middle class. As Bill Clinton said, it's just simple math. 

 Burnett: Okay, they'll just say that you can do that. There are other studies. I know the one to which you're referring, but there's also the possibility of economic growth. 

Cutter: Prove it. Erin, prove it. 

Burnett: We can't prove either side, that's all I'm saying, but the one thing that I can say is not true is the $5 trillion tax cut. 

 Cutter: I disagree with you. You can prove it. So then they should just say that they're counting entirely on economic growth to pay for a tax cut. Which is an interesting theory because that is what George Bush and let's look at how that turned out, we had the slowest economic growth since World War II.

 Burnett: They're not saying entirely, they're saying closing loopholes and economic growth, both. I understand you disagree with it.

Actually, this is bolshoi and spin on top of admitted bolshoi and spin. Here's why:

 First, actually, you can prove that cutting taxes increases revenues. Cutter isn't accounting for the increased tax revenues that come when you slash taxes and increase economic activity. That's how President Reagan saved the American economy after Jimmy Carter's incompetent hands were pried off the steering wheel.Increasing taxes and regulations ('revenues' in DemSpeak) has the opposite effect.Always.

Oh, and by the way, that supposed $5 trillion in the study  Stephanie Cutter quotes so freely is projected over ten years. The idea that the economy isn't going to grow enough or that the increased tax revenues from the economic activity generated by lower taxes and reduced regulations isn't going to eclipse that sum in a decade is absolutely...well, only something either someone with no knowledge of how economics works or a blatant con artist would try and sell. Take your pick on which one Stephanie Cutter is.

Second, it's CNN, but I would expect a journalist to challenge Cutter on her cute little meme that under George W. Bush, we had the lowest growth since WWII. Forget about the recession Bush inherited from Clinton and the tax cuts, which even left leaning economists admit gave our economy a 'soft landing'. As matter of fact, a lot of economists write that had the Democrat dominated Congress allowed President Bush the full amount of tax cuts he wanted, the economy's growth would have increased dramatically.

 In 2004, growth was at just over 4.4%, just a hair under what is was during Bill Clinton's last year in office..and that includes over a trillion dollar hit from 9/11 and two wars. Coincidentally growth began a downswing in 2004, after another trillion dollar hit from Hurricane Katrina and the election of a certain freshman senator from Illinois named Barack Obama who was quite disposed to vote for the Bush policies he later blamed the recession he inherited on, including funding those infamous wars.

 Growth cratered starting in 2007, when the Democrats took over Congress and accelerated deficit spending to new heights. So when you talk about reduced economic growth under Bush, you have to remember who was controlling the purse strings in congress for a good part of his two terms.

 Lefties always react violently to the idea that with less taxes and regulation to encourage economic activity, you can grow the pie and actually make more in tax revenues. Because it hits at the core of their power, the desire to make Americans dependent on government. This isn't the first time Stephanie Cutter has been caught lying . Problem for her is, she isn't very good at it.


Anonymous said...

Countering the 5-trillion-dollar-tax-cut claim was crucial, & it is good that that was effected by Romney at the debate. ... heard the debate live on radio ( Romney sounded secure, intelligent, & confident ; &, Obama, well ... hehe, ... annoyed ) & have just re-watched on YouTube ( Romney was even more impressive, & Obama looked like a bored kid ).

Romney mentioned : 1) standing up to ( Red ) China within the 1st 5 minutes, which was impressive ( joshuapundit & I disagree completely re Peking : I view Peking much more negatively ) ; 2) the oil exploration which O would like to claim for his credit was on
PRIVATE land ; whereas, the feds halved the exploratory permits, & mentions of the Canadian petrol pipeline & nat gas ; 3) no taxes to increase the deficit & only middle-class tax cuts ; 4) the test of is this programme ' worth borrowing from China ? ' ; 5) mentions Spain ( a complete mess ) & US both at 42 per cent gov spending ; 6) 90 billion dollars to ' green ' industries = 50 years of oil breaks ( mostly small oil exploration companies ) ; 7) unforced error by O by broaching subject of 716 billion dollar cut to Medicare ; 8) 15 per cent of nursing homes & 50 % of doctors must refuse Medicare per new reduced payment schedules, 4 million Med Adv people lost ; 9) 5 banks declared ' too big to fail ' by O's government as per Dodd-Frank ; 10) repeated ref to 716 billion dollar cut ; 11) another unforced error when O broaches subject of not being able to buy ins across state lines ; 12) the TENTH Amendment is mentioned by Romney ( hallelujah ! ) ; another passing ref to the 90 billion dollars for ' green ' energy & how that could been 2,000,000 teachers. Great Night... shall end here in effort to avoid posting limit. --dragon/dinosaur

Anonymous said...

Oops ! Apologies from me for very bad proof-reading, though I do have 2 excellent excuses in that I had been up about 22 hours by that time, & I'm more accustomed to QWERTY & AZERTY manual typewriters than modern computer screens. [ There should be a 13) after hallelujah ! & ' could have been ' should be in the next sentence. Plus, I had intended to de-abbreviate the abbreviations, though I trust that they are intelligible. Apologies ! ]

In celebration of Romney's performance, I am about to do my imitation of Jimi Hendrix's ultra-famous kneeling-down-to burn-the-guitar-at-Monterey pose, et voila, there you are ! It has been more than 40 years, & I can still do it !