Cutter: Yeah, we’ve been lying about the $5 trillion we said Romney’s lying about

posted at 12:41 pm on October 5, 2012 by Mary Katharine Ham

Here, CNN’s Erin Burnett takes Obama spokesperson Stephanie Cutter to task for leaving out half of Gov. Mitt Romney’s tax plan in order to claim he’s pitching a $5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy. What he has said is that he would like to lower tax rates for everyone by 20 percent, but that he would make his plan revenue-neutral by getting rid of some deductions and loopholes and producing higher economic growth. It’s perhaps understandable that members of the Obama campaign are utterly unfamiliar with the concept of higher economic growth, but simply ignoring half of Romney’s plan is dishonest.

As soon as Team Obama realized its excuse-making was getting embarrassing after the president’s debate performance, they pivoted to a replay of the response to Rep. Paul Ryan’s convention speech in Tampa. They can’t call either of them dumb, so they have to call them liars. In the service of that narrative, they either present mere philosophical disagreements as “lies” or they dishonestly represent parts of Mitt Romney’s plan to make him into a “liar.”

Until, inexplicably, the campaign’s most reliable fudger of facts decided to get all truthy when pressed by Burnett. Burnett starts pushing her at about 40 seconds, after the Obama clip.

BURNETT: Let me play this one and then get your reaction.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: When I got on to the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney. But it couldn’t have been Mitt Romney because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night said he didn’t know anything about that.

BURNETT: Stephanie, let me ask you about that. Because here at CNN, we fact checked that, that $5 trillion in tax cuts and we’ve come and said that’s not true. Mitt Romney has not promised that. because he’s also going to be closing loopholes and deductions. So his tax cut wouldn’t be anywhere near that size.

CUTTER: So you’re disputing the size of the tax cut? Or are you disputing also how he’s going to pay for it?

BURNETT: We’re disputing the size.

CUTTER: Erin, he has campaigned on lowering tax rates by 20% for everybody, including those in the top 1%. that was one of the main selling points in the Republican primary.

BURNETT: So you’re saying if you lower them by 20% you get a $5 trillion tab, right?

CUTTER: It’s a $5 trillion tab.

BURNETT: But when he closes deductions he won’t be anywhere near $5 trillion. That’s our analysis.

CUTTER: Well with, 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.

Cutter then pivots to arguing that there won’t be enough loopholes or deductions to remove from high-income earners to prevent affecting middle-income earners. That’s debatable, as both Burnett and Princeton economics professor Harvey Rosen note.

“If you are lowering the rates the way you describe, Governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class,” Obama said. “It’s — it’s math. It’s arithmetic.”

Obama was basing his claim on a study by the Tax Policy Center, a project of the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. But there are at least three critical flaws the the TPC study: (1) it assumes pro-growth tax reform can’t actually produce economic growth, (2) it assumes two tax expenditures worth $45 billion per year are not ‘on the table’, and (3) it assumes tax reform must pay for repealing Obamacare’s tax hikes, rather than assuming that the repeal of Obamacare’s spending will pay for repealing the tax hikes. If one corrects these erroneous assumptions, the math checks out.

As Princeton economics professor Harvey Rosen writes, Romney’s plan would neither require a net tax hike on the middle class nor a tax reduction for the rich under “plausible” growth assumptions.*

The whopping growth rate required to make the math work? 2.29 percent, according to Rosen, which in a world before Obama seemed plenty plausible.

Cutter also complains that Romney hasn’t named specific deductions and loopholes, though the Tax Policy Center study on which Obama’s team is basing its claims assumes two big loopholes/deductions worth $45 billion are off the table for Romney, when they’re not.

Romney’s arithmetic and specificity are both more legitimate lines of debate than Cutter’s original distortion—ones, I might add, President Obama had more than enough opportunity to press Romney on when he was standing 7 feet from him Wednesday. Yet he declined to do so. Maybe next time, champ. But next time, Romney will have done significant work on narrowing the gap Obama had opened on the tax issue, and he’ll have Cutter’s “stipulation” in his back pocket.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Man, if Erin Burnett & Kirsten Powers would join the right team, we’d have all the hot chicks!

22044 on October 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Lying is the cornerstone of the Obama administration and campaign.

albill on October 5, 2012 at 12:44 PM

I love that Stef comes back with their basic premise for the Obama campaign, you can’t prove we’re lying…probably.

CitizenEgg on October 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Math is hard.

Shorter Obama: It was my understanding there would be no math.

rbj on October 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM

And I wanted to say that the Bain issued Life Model Decoy of Mitt Romney did a great job of kicking the butt of the Obamabot beta model.

CitizenEgg on October 5, 2012 at 12:47 PM

I have to say that bho/team have an unbeliveable gall saying anyone lies? bho/team wouldn’t know the truth if it was to bite them in the hind end!
L

letget on October 5, 2012 at 12:49 PM

It’s perhaps understandable that members of the Obama campaign are utterly unfamiliar with the concept of higher economic growth, but simply ignoring half of Romney’s plan is dishonest

BOOM.

SAZMD on October 5, 2012 at 12:50 PM

I wish these politicians would give actual specifics such as which “loopholes.” That way, when they are elected or re-elected we can hold their feet to the fire.

MoreLiberty on October 5, 2012 at 12:50 PM

So Romney repeatedly pointed this out in the debate and Obama kept saying it, now Cutter says they’ve been lying about it, and Obama will still keep saying it and the media will keep reporting it.

supernova on October 5, 2012 at 12:50 PM

What a complete liar. She now says that it won’t be anywhere near 5 trillion even though the liar in chief is out there lying through his a&& even today. We can certainly flatten the tax code if we reduce deductions and exemptions to get to at least 5 trillion, but these libs don’t understand basic economics.

Ta111 on October 5, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Not understanding ecoonomics, good putting a pony tail on a Horses Azz. Priceless !
The Capitol Dumb Card “Who’s in your wallet?”

stormridercx4 on October 5, 2012 at 12:52 PM

She admits it’s a lie, then returns to it towards the end of that clip. Amazing. Too bad Burnett didn’t press her on the fact that the Obama admin has also counted on economic growth to justify some of their predictions, none of which came to pass.

changer1701 on October 5, 2012 at 12:53 PM

The current foundation of this entire country is now based on a pack of lies and distortions. There is no more honesty, integrity, unity or patriotism. The Democratic process has been subverted to the point where it is no longer a feasible alternative for change or progress. Our freedoms and liberties are being reduced more and more by every executive order Obama publishes and by a myriad of restrictive polices and proclamations he continues to shove down the throats of the people. These are very sad times for the Republic.

rplat on October 5, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Can someone point me in the direction of the actual math? As in, how much revenue is lost by cutting the rates, and how much will be regained via closing deductions. Just someone show me a spreadsheet, please.

ernesto on October 5, 2012 at 12:53 PM

So, did Cutter just strip Obama of one of his talking points ?
Me thinks so. But I am sure there will be a clarification. Again.
These folks just have a problem with live conversations.

And oh yeah, I really do not like this Cutter lady.

Jabberwock on October 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Say, where has Debbie Downer gone?

johnnybravo on October 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Can someone point me in the direction of the actual math? As in, how much revenue is lost by cutting the rates, and how much will be regained via closing deductions. Just someone show me a spreadsheet, please.

ernesto on October 5, 2012 at 12:53 PM

That might be a bit much for someone who struggles to add 2 and 2 and come up with 4.

Bitter Clinger on October 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Can someone point me in the direction of the actual math? As in, how much revenue is lost by cutting the rates, and how much will be regained via closing deductions. Just someone show me a spreadsheet, please.

ernesto on October 5, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Perhaps if you define “fair share” somebody could help you out.

Jabberwock on October 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Mitt needs to nail Obama on this, and do it quick…call him out.

He explained that his tax cuts would only happen if they were deficit neutral, not adding to the debt. He repeated that several times, and now he needs to become “exasperated” and dress down the Obama for being blatantly dishonest.

And notice how “brave” Obama is, now that he is off the stage away from Mitt, someone needs to call him out on that…he reminds me of the boisterous man, who becomes meek when his wife walks into the room.

right2bright on October 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM

This is what these clowns do! They have no record to stand on! It’s going to get worse. From here til election day, it’s going to be a disgusting display of chicago style thuggery, lies, deceit, disinformation, deception, dis-information, intimidation and low-life tactics that will demean the office of the President for ever!The Obama Enemy media has been put on notice that the truth will not be allowed or accepted! Anyone filing any stories that don’t have Obama winning or something negative about Romney will be Blackballed and put on one of the Failure-in-chief’s Lists!
Final UPDATE for those following:How to take on the Obama Enemy media: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

God Bless America!

paratisi on October 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Can someone point me in the direction of the actual math? As in, how much revenue is lost by cutting the rates, and how much will be regained via closing deductions. Just someone show me a spreadsheet, please.

ernesto on October 5, 2012 at 12:53 PM

If you -really- cared, I’m sure you could do this yourself. Right?

lorien1973 on October 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM

It’s so much easier when you can just put out lying tv commercials or lie in speeches to your supporters about what your opponent stands for. It’s much harder when your opponent is standing next to you to rebut your lies, or when the media actually do their job from time to time.

I keep wondering how Cutter can look at herself in the mirror but I figure she has the same mental disease so many liberals have, which is the delusion that conservatives are so inherently evil that anything that they have to do to defeat them is justifiable.

eyedoc on October 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM

I used to think Stephanie Cutter was kind of hot.

But her inner ugliness and her dishonesty make her a hideous beast.

UltimateBob on October 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Can someone point me in the direction of the actual math? As in, how much revenue is lost by cutting the rates, and how much will be regained via closing deductions. Just someone show me a spreadsheet, please.

ernesto on October 5, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Pal, read the post intro above by MKH, she explains it…although I doubt you will be able to understand it, it would involve you taking off your socks and counting with your toes.

All we need is a 2.29% economic growth, something foreign to a liberal, but our economy can grow under the right leadership…of course you are correct, it can’t happen under the present administration.

I can see your angst, for you and your liberal friends to “succeed” America has to continue to fail…sad…

right2bright on October 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM

So Romney repeatedly pointed this out in the debate and Obama kept saying it, now Cutter says they’ve been lying about it, and Obama will still keep saying it and the media will keep reporting it.

In this case the media (CNN) committed a random act of journalism and actually challenged the lie. What’s got into CNN lately?

johnnybgood on October 5, 2012 at 1:00 PM

As evidenced the day after the debate and today’s campaign event, Obama speaks tough and all campaigner in chief…at the debate he folded like the House of Cards he is!!!

His minions can’t seem to keep their stories straight.

CoffeeLover on October 5, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Math doesn’t lie. Democrats? eh…yeah

DanMan on October 5, 2012 at 1:00 PM

I’d hit it. With a 2-by-4.

Archivarix on October 5, 2012 at 1:01 PM

I love these assumptions here:

- The assumption from the Romney campaign is that you have to close enough loopholes and deductions, and stimulate enough economic growth, to make the lowering of rates revenue neutral.

- The assumption from the Obama campaign is that Romney’s assumption won’t work, and that you’ll have to put a bigger burden on the middle class to keep the lowering of rates revenue neutral.

No one is even considering the possibility that perhaps government should spend less! When did “revenue neutral” become the magic phrase? I don’t want revenue neutral! I want government to be cut. Romney and Obama may be coming at the tax issue from different perspectives, but both perspectives are based on finding the best way to make sure the government doesn’t have to do with less.

It’s absurd.

Shump on October 5, 2012 at 1:01 PM

I love that Stef comes back with their basic premise for the Obama campaign, you can’t prove we’re lying…probably.

CitizenEgg on October 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM

And also the other basic premise of the Obama campaign, that it’s all George W. Bush’s fault.

Romney clearly stated that he wants to cut taxes by 20% across the board, including on the middle class, so how does Cutter argue that Romney’s proposed tax cut would hurt the middle class?

The other fallacy is that the $5 trillion is based on 10 years, but let’s face it–no one can be President for more than 8 years, and the House of Representatives is renewed every 2 years, and if the House changes majority, so does the tax policy. We should be quoting numbers about how much taxes are cut PER YEAR.

Steve Z on October 5, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Can someone point me in the direction of the actual math? As in, how much revenue is lost by cutting the rates, and how much will be regained via closing deductions. Just someone show me a spreadsheet, please.

ernesto on October 5, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Pal, read the post intro above by MKH, she explains it…although I doubt you will be able to understand it, it would involve you taking off your socks and counting with your toes.

All we need is a 2.29% economic growth, something foreign to a liberal, but our economy can grow under the right leadership…of course you are correct, it can’t happen under the present administration.

I can see your angst, for you and your liberal friends to “succeed” America has to continue to fail…sad…

right2bright on October 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Indeed. You can see where is concerns are by the bolded comments above.

Bitter Clinger on October 5, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Er, Comrades, Comrades, er, slight deviation from truth. Misplacement of facts. But, Capitalist Pig, Romney, lie, anyway. All Capitalist Pigs lie. Comrades not lie. Comrades stipulate.

- Stephanie Cutteroskovitch

OhEssYouCowboys on October 5, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Ras polling just came out with swing states

Obama up by +1 in Ohio
Romney up by +2 in Florida
Romney up by +1 in Virginia

CoffeeLover on October 5, 2012 at 1:03 PM

OT: 7.8% not created by job seekers going away…

But Obama says he added 873,000 jobs in September!!!!!!!!!!

hahahahhahahahaha

faraway on October 5, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Doubling down on lies, it’s what the regime does when it’s got nothing.

Kissmygrits on October 5, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Stephanie Cutter is a pretty girl.

(if you can’t say anything nice…)

Alberta_Patriot on October 5, 2012 at 1:04 PM

I wish these politicians would give actual specifics such as which “loopholes.” That way, when they are elected or re-elected we can hold their feet to the fire.

MoreLiberty on October 5, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Mitt has repeatedly said he wants CONGRESS to work with him to achieve the budget goals he is proposing. Are you for more of the same we are seeing with Reid? Obama does not want to balance a budget therefore he is being accomodated by his senate majority leader.

DanMan on October 5, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Romney needs to put out an ad using 3 clips. First, him in the debate emphatically denying there is a $5 trillion cut (also the “you can’t make up your own facts” quip if time), then Cutter’s “ok, it won’t be anywhere near $5 trillion,” then O on the campaign trail yesterday again talking about the $5 trillion. At the bottom of the screen on each clip, show when and where the clip took place.

It would show Obama is knowingly lying about Romney. Romney does appear to be making O’s dishonesty a theme which is great, needs to be reiterated at every opportunity. Then, R can make a final pitch to the American people from the last debate through the election: Obama cannot be trusted. Don’t vote for the guy who keeps lying to you.

Mayday on October 5, 2012 at 1:04 PM

I’d hit it. With a 2-by-4.

Archivarix on October 5, 2012 at 1:01 PM

C’mon. You’d hit that 5 trillion times.

lorien1973 on October 5, 2012 at 1:05 PM

heh, John Roberts just mentioned this on Meghyn Kelley’s show.

Flora Duh on October 5, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Fu*king parasites..every damn member and/or associate
of this Administration.

ToddPA on October 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Democrats will never understand dynamic analysis. They can only think static. If you have more, someone else has less. There is a finite pie to divide up, that’s all they understand.

If you cut taxes on Americans >>> reduce taxes and regulation on business >>> it will generate economic growth >>> growing the tax base >>> resulting in more money to the treasury.

Democrats and liberals just cannot understand the concept. They just are not capable of that kind of thinking.

jazzmo on October 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Man, if Erin Burnett & Kirsten Powers would join the right team, we’d have all the hot chicks!

22044 on October 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM

This is true. Burnett’s been firing on all cylinders lately between the clip linked here and another where she held an administration spokeperson’s feet to the fire re:Libya.

If she could be turned, she could become a powerful ally. A great asset.

Spannerhead on October 5, 2012 at 1:07 PM

C’mon. You’d hit that 5 trillion times.

lorien1973 on October 5, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Ha ha!….yeah

jazzmo on October 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM

But they still have no conscience when it comes to lying about employment numbers.

stukinIL4now on October 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I’d hit it. With a 2-by-4.

Archivarix on October 5, 2012 at 1:01 PM

I’d use a drone.
Don’t want to get too close.

Jabberwock on October 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Isn’t overall tax revenue $2.2 Trillion per year?

How does one cut $5 trillion from a tax revenue base of $2.2 trillion?

A 20% tax cut is somehow going to result in a NEGATIVE number?

Varchild on October 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Isn’t overall tax revenue $2.2 Trillion per year?

How does one cut $5 trillion from a tax revenue base of $2.2 trillion?

A 20% tax cut is somehow going to result in a NEGATIVE number?

Varchild on October 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM

The same occurred to me. This must be over 10 years.

jazzmo on October 5, 2012 at 1:12 PM

cutter needs to stick with msdnc…they’ll let you keep going on with her lies

andrea mitchell is doing cutter’s job for her right now….

pathetic

cmsinaz on October 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM

I used to think Stephanie Cutter was kind of hot.

But her inner ugliness and her dishonesty make her a hideous beast.

UltimateBob on October 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM

I felt the same way about Stef, but now when I watch her, she seems to be developing a permasmirk that doesn’t do her face any favors. It’s a horrible tell that she’s lying and I can only wonder how her family must react to this side of her. Sad really, what shills feel forced to do for the team. Call an honest guy a felon. Lie through your teeth when you know you’re lying and then act outrageously outraged that the formerly docile/bought off media are pushing back on your talking points?

CitizenEgg on October 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Good to see all of the concern trolls pounding away at their computers behind Cutter at Barry HQ. :-)

Punchenko on October 5, 2012 at 1:14 PM

OT: October 2 not the Obama’s wedding day? Wedding Picture

AZfederalist on October 5, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Man, if Erin Burnett & Kirsten Powers would join the right team, we’d have all the hot chicks!
22044 on October 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Meh, the left can have them. We have Dana Perino and Megyn Kelly.

jawkneemusic on October 5, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Can someone point me in the direction of the actual math? As in, how much revenue is lost by cutting the rates…

ernesto on October 5, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Revenue is GAINED by cutting rates.

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
John F. Kennedy.

Washington Nearsider on October 5, 2012 at 1:14 PM

So basically, the Obama Team says 1 trillion dollars = 5 trillion dollars.

And the 1 trillion is fictional.

itsnotaboutme on October 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Man, if Erin Burnett & Kirsten Powers would join the right team, we’d have all the hot chicks!

22044 on October 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Add Alex Wagner to the list

faraway on October 5, 2012 at 1:16 PM

The same occurred to me. This must be over 10 years.

jazzmo on October 5, 2012 at 1:12 PM

It’s their wild guess over 10 years (and then rounded way up) because they somehow needed to get a big number into their lie to make it more believable. I know…I know, but they love selling the big lies.

CitizenEgg on October 5, 2012 at 1:16 PM

If you cut taxes on Americans >>> reduce taxes and regulation on business >>> it will generate economic growth >>> growing the tax base >>> resulting in more money to the treasury.

Democrats and liberals just cannot understand the concept. They just are not capable of that kind of thinking.

jazzmo on October 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I’ve been hearing a very creative but total BS leftist talking point in the past few years: when someone complains about higher taxes, some leftist will jump in and say that “Taxes right now are lower than they were under George Bush!!!!111!!!!11!” I think I’ve even seen some trolls here on HotAir try to make that point.

Of course, what they really mean is tax revenues (which is probably true because of the contraction of the economy), not tax rates. But leftists don’t understand the difference.

Just more proof that your average leftist can’t think for themselves, all they can do is repeat the talking points that they learn from their masters in the MSM and the Democratic Party (redundant, I know).

UltimateBob on October 5, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Honest question: Is the phrase “revenue neutral” really that hard to understand?

SomeCallMeJohn on October 5, 2012 at 1:18 PM

doesn’t matter, dear leader will continue with his 5 trillion lie

cmsinaz on October 5, 2012 at 1:18 PM

johnnybgood on October 5, 2012 at 1:00 PM

it only occurs on the eveing shows

soledad is still a major shill for obama

cmsinaz on October 5, 2012 at 1:20 PM

LOL

rubio just called out cutter admit on andrea’s show

cmsinaz on October 5, 2012 at 1:22 PM

sorry it’s not rubio but sure sounds like him

cmsinaz on October 5, 2012 at 1:23 PM

What has gotten into the water over at CNN?

Mutnodjmet on October 5, 2012 at 1:23 PM

I used to think Stephanie Cutter was kind of hot.

But her inner ugliness and her dishonesty make her a hideous beast.

UltimateBob on October 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM

I felt the same way about Stef, but now when I watch her, she seems to be developing a permasmirk that doesn’t do her face any favors. It’s a horrible tell that she’s lying and I can only wonder how her family must react to this side of her. Sad really, what shills feel forced to do for the team. Call an honest guy a felon. Lie through your teeth when you know you’re lying and then act outrageously outraged that the formerly docile/bought off media are pushing back on your talking points?

CitizenEgg on October 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Good one! She does have a permasmirk, and it makes her face look crooked, twisted, and ugly. It’s a Democrat thing…. they always smirk when asked a serious question or are caught in a lie.

Remember when we made faces as kids and our parents told us our faces would stay that way? They were right, that’s why so many Democrats have PermaSmirks.

UltimateBob on October 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Wtf? Look how often Cutter is blinking. Can we please get a ‘fact check’ on who blinked the most? I’m almost tempted to do it myself, but I don’t have the time. Cutter is in the midst of a total nervous breakdown. Probably yet another casualty of the wildly-over-prescribed anti-depression meds phenomenon. At least, as far as I know, Cutter didn’t go on a school shooting spree, although I wouldn’t put it past her. ‘Cutter’ is probably a stage-name that she adopted on purpose for descriptive reasons.

WhatSlushfund on October 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Give the administration it’s due. Three things it does with panache are lying, protecting diplomats, and gun runing.

burt on October 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Good one! She does have a permasmirk, and it makes her face look crooked, twisted, and ugly. It’s a Democrat thing…. they always smirk when asked a serious question or are caught in a lie.

Remember when we made faces as kids and our parents told us our faces would stay that way? They were right, that’s why so many Democrats have PermaSmirks.

UltimateBob on October 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Every kid heard that! I guess it’s true!

22044 on October 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM

<blockquoteI used to think Stephanie Cutter was kind of hot.

But her inner ugliness and her dishonesty make her a hideous beast.

UltimateBob on October 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Altough not in the same looks league Cutter is cut from the same putrid,lying cloth as SanFraNan&DWS. The mere sound of its voice raises my blood psi.

NY Conservative on October 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Say, where has Debbie Downer gone?

johnnybravo on October 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM

She was sent to Antartica to register voters for Obowma…

Seven Percent Solution on October 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM

OT: October 2 not the Obama’s wedding day? Wedding Picture

AZfederalist on October 5, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Most likely a finger check committed by whom ever uploaded the image file and created the file data.

Would be a fun fact for me though; I too celebrated my 20th WE on the 3rd, and would love to have my wedding day back!

hobbit on October 5, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Every one of these Obama team liars needs to be in prison.

rayra on October 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM

What has gotten into the water over at CNN?

Mutnodjmet on October 5, 2012 at 1:23 PM

1) Concern for ratings
2) Just plain tired of the farts the Dems have been aiming at them.
3) Concern for ratings

Really. At a certain point you have to get out of the studio and take a look around. CNN did that and found that what the Dems were saying just was not so. It takes time and intellectual reflection, but folks can begin to see for themselves. Eventually.
Anderson Cooper has been having this awakening for about two months now.

Jabberwock on October 5, 2012 at 1:33 PM

If I said what I wanted to say I might get banned, so, let’s just say I wouldn’t mind being caught between those two.

jjraines on October 5, 2012 at 1:33 PM

…like that one poster who hasn’t been around a while…would only post……..what a stupid… CUNNING STUNT…!!!

KOOLAID2 on October 5, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Isn’t overall tax revenue $2.2 Trillion per year?

How does one cut $5 trillion from a tax revenue base of $2.2 trillion?

A 20% tax cut is somehow going to result in a NEGATIVE number?

Varchild on October 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Five trillion over 10 years, or $500 billion a year.

For all, here is a link to a pretty decent explanation about where the Obama administration is “getting” [read 'fabricating'] the $5 trillion.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329448/phantom-5-trillion-cut-patrick-brennan#more

To summarize, first, their number really is $4.5 trillion and change, but $5 trillion sounds better so they rounded up. Think about that: Obama avails himself of an 11% ($500B/$4.5T) rounding to make his bogus number look better.

Second, Obama is requiring that Romney’s tax plan account for the revenue lost by repealing the Obamacare taxes, which don’t begin to get imposed until 2013. This is absurd on so many levels, but in all events, the number that they’ve arrived at for this (around $90 billion a year, $900 billion for 10 years) needs to be subtracted from Obama’s bogus number. When you do that, you are at $3.6 trillion (again, $4.5 trillion less $900 billion)–as a starting point. Now keep in mind, that’s a number that’s been scorned statically, not dynamically. If it were scored dynamically, the starting number would be about $3 trillion.

So, before getting to the second part of Romney’s plan, you have to weed out two bogus add-ons (rounding and Obamacare taxes). With the $3.6 trillion (or $3 trillion) figure, you then start negotiating for offsets. Look at a Form 1040 Schedule of itemized deductions. What should be eliminated? How about the state and local income tax deduction? Why should red states underwrite the profligacy of blue states? How about mortgage interest and real property taxes on second homes? For the wealthy, maybe they could give a haircut to mortgage interest and real property taxes on primary residences. Charitable contributions seem (to me) off limits. Why not, in this regard, allow citizens to have the government subsidize charitable giving. These are 501(c)(3) organizations that do many things better than government and things that government doesn’t do. Maybe scrap the miscellaneous itemized deductions altogether.

Other suggestions have been, eliminate the exclusion for tax-exempt interest. Hasn’t this helped to encourage state and local governments to borrow to the hilt? Other provisions relating to individuals could be considered to offset the $3.6 trillion (or $3 trillion) revenue “loss.” But the Obama number doesn’t even consider those offsets, because Romney–and rightfully so–hasn’t committed to any particular provisions. The president and Congress should do that policy making.

BuckeyeSam on October 5, 2012 at 1:38 PM

“Liberalism is lying. That’s just what it is.” -Mark Levin

visions on October 5, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Oh god how pathetic are the “Rock the Vote” ads on these pages.

jazzmo on October 5, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Isn’t overall tax revenue $2.2 Trillion per year?

How does one cut $5 trillion from a tax revenue base of $2.2 trillion?

A 20% tax cut is somehow going to result in a NEGATIVE number?

Varchild on October 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Commies don’t like math…math is RAAAAAAAAACIST!!!!11111eLeVeNtY111!!!!

Strike Hornet on October 5, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Here, CNN’s Erin Burnett takes Obama spokesperson Stephanie Cutter to task for leaving out half of Gov. Mitt Romney’s tax plan in order to claim he’s pitching a $5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy. What he has said is that he would like to lower tax rates for everyone by 20 percent

It’s like that lie the left keeps telling when they call teh Bush tax cuts “the bush tax cuts for the rich”, when in fact they were tax cuts for everyone.

DethMetalCookieMonst on October 5, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Mitt has repeatedly said he wants CONGRESS to work with him to achieve the budget goals he is proposing. Are you for more of the same we are seeing with Reid? Obama does not want to balance a budget therefore he is being accomodated by his senate majority leader.

DanMan on October 5, 2012 at 1:04 PM

That’s a cop out. It’s a standard cop out. But a cop out none-the-less.

You can’t be running for president on a platform of achieving specific goals and not have any specific ideas on how you would achieve those goals. Otherwise, it looks like you’re saying saying you’re going to leave it to Congress to figure out how to do what you want — i.e. you don’t really know how to get it done.

I can understand him wanting to leave room for negotiations. But we’re choosing someone to LEAD our government. Did Reagan say “I can’t really tell you specifically want I want to do, but trust me, I want to do it?” No. He explained what he wanted to do, and why, and then he convinced people to get on board with HIS plans. There was some negotiating and some compromise, sure, but it was HIS plan driving the agenda.

Romney is doing some major dodging by refusing to give any specifics. It makes him look like a weak leader and potentially as someone who is lying about actually having a plan to accomplish what he says he can. It’s time for him to step up to the plate, show some leadership, and explain what it is he wants to do and how he’s going to bring Congress along.

Shump on October 5, 2012 at 2:07 PM

And this is when the talking heads start to realize they will only make matters worse with more bias, and their lifetime of lies is not going to pan out as a good investment.

Another bad debate and watch them scatter like cock roaches.

Polish Rifle on October 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Obama’s sock puppet is lying. Watch her batting her eyes and expression.
She also is beyond your imagination ignorant like Dems are pertaining to taxation and economics.

Obama can lie when he is bullying for attention and has no accountability.

seven on October 5, 2012 at 2:16 PM

The ‘analysts’ all wrong. Woodward will be proven right. A way more damning piece of Obama stupidity will come out soon, way more damaging, and he knew about it on the night of the debate.

Obama, Axelrod and Cutter have looked/acted ashen ever since the night ahead of the debate. It c/b that the Rev. Wright will throw Obama under the bus, or some such.

Schadenfreude on October 5, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Math is a racist dog whistle and should be off limits in this election. /

Ellis on October 5, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Why do I trust a successful CEO/Exec, with a 3.97 MBA – JD holder over a team of ideological hacks when it comes to numbers and a balance sheet?

Odie1941 on October 5, 2012 at 3:13 PM

I can see the commercial now…
(Dates and places under each slice of video, especially Steph AFTER the Down-In-Flames-In-Denver debate)
Obama: He will have to raise taxes on the middle class – it’s the math based on his $5T tax cut for the rich!
Steph: Stipulated – it doesn’t add up to $5T…
Obama: There was this energetic fellow on stage last night who calims he doesn’t remember running around the country promising a $5T tax cut
Steph: Stipulated – it doesn’t add up to $5T…
Obama: Mitt Romney continues to promise tax cuts to the rich, 20$ tax cut for the wealthy, $5T total…
Steph: Stipulated – it doesn’t add up to $5T…
ad infinitum

Why isn’t this running on TV yet? Keep the mo-MITT-tum going!

DublOh7 on October 5, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Washington Nearsider on October 5, 2012 at 1:14 PM

EXACTLY!!! Someone finally said it. Every time tax rates have been reduced, tax revenues have gone UP – because the economy picks up. The problem we always have is the politicians raise their spending even more.

dentarthurdent on October 5, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Where’s yo’ dollah??

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on October 5, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Folks, let’s put these numbers in perspective. The 873K jobs in 150M households is extrapolated from interviewing 60K households. Reversing the extrapolation gives +350 jobs amongst the 60,000 households.

With some simplifying assumptions, the standard deviation is ~171. So the +350 exceeds two stddevs – it is very likely *not* just a fluke.

But ask yourself, how hard would it be to bias the survey? For exmaple, how likely is it that no Dog Eater partisan had access to the phone numbers called that could be compared to campaign lists to come up with 100 or so partisans willing to gin up an extra 350 jobs? Why that sounds impossible doesn’t it? And it’s certainly not the Chicago way!

edshepp on October 5, 2012 at 4:06 PM

If Obama and the Democrats put half as much energy into governing as they do into creating a fake Romney platform to run against, we might have actually had a budget put through sometime in the past 3 years.

talkingpoints on October 5, 2012 at 4:37 PM

how in the hell do they keep all their lies straight? Biden seems to be the only one who slips up and tells the truth from time to time. when you live in a world with that much deceit, it must be hard to sleep at night, or maybe thats the trick to being a liberal, no conscience…

burserker on October 5, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2