Gingrich Concedes Romney Wasn’t Honest About His Tax Plan During Debate

[kpete]

Source: Think Progress



Oct 7, 2012 at 9:51 am

This morning on Meet The Press, Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs confronted Newt Gingrich on a fundamental inconsistency in Romney’s description of his tax plan. During the primary debates, Romney insisted that everyone in America would get a 20% tax cut, including the 1%. But last week’s during his debate with Obama, Romney insisted that his tax cut would not reduce taxes at all for wealthy Americans.

Gingrich acknowledged the clear inconsistency, saying “I think it’s clear he changed.” He described the change as “good politics.”

&feature=player_embedded

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/07/972301/gingrich-concedes-romney-misled-about-his-tax-plan-during-debates/

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/07/972301/gingrich-concedes-romney-misled-about-his-tax-plan-during-debates/

[dotymed]

1. Rmoney..(yuck), when he lies in a Gingrich debate, he is a liar.

When he lies while debating President Obama, Gingrich says that it is clear that rmoney has changed...how can these scum claim to represent America?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. Romney is not fit to be president

he is not worthy

[BlueStreak]

2. WTF is wrong with all these Obama people? Romney never said he dropped his 20% program

Jesus freaking Christ. Why can't you Obama spokespeople pay just a little attention and then respond in kind?

Romney never said he was dropping his 20% cut plan. All he said is that he would never pass a tax plan that didn't break even. He was just bobbing and weaving on the same old plan. It is exactly the same thing he did a few days earlier with Chris Wallace. Until Romney says otherwise, his plan is a 20% cut to all rates (and actually a lot more than that for corporations). Make him own that. All you have to do is keep repeating one line.

Tell the American people the deductions that you will eliminate to pay for that tax cut.

Don't get into all these other esoteric arguments. Simply say "You are planning to cut all rates by 20% or more. Tell us what deductions you will eliminate to pay for that. If you won't do that, you are reckless, and asking the American public to buy a pig in a poke."

[SunSeeker]

11. Thank you! Now will you please go to work for the Obama campaign?

I can't believe they are not getting this point acrosss.

[BlueStreak]

13. The KISS principle. They are making this way harder than it needs to be.

On Medicare, all you have to say is

"The Social Security system is solid, and by the way Governor, people who paid into Social Security their whole lives are not 'takers'. With several very minor and simple tweaks, just like we did in 1992, the Social Security program will be solvent for another 75 years. We simply don't have to kill the system or privatize it the way Governor Romney wants to do."

Use Romney's vagueness against him. He may not have said that he absolutely would privatize the system, but he sure never said he would work to keep the current system in place and healthy. Make him own it. Don't try to agree with him on everything. Geez.

The problem with the first debate was not Obama's energy level or his "professorial" tone. The problem is that he didn't make Romney own anything.


Obama, you tries to compromise with these bastards for 4 years. The debates are not about more compromise. The debates are about showing clear lines of distinction. The lines are all right there. You just have to use them.

[karynnj]

12. Excellent-

One thing really nice about your suggestion is that it is the rare time where we have the easy straight forward position - and they do not have an easy answer.

The fact is that Romney speaks of how his tax cut will stimulate the economy and create jobs. However, if it is really revenue neutral, some people pay more while others pay less. Stimulation is greatest if the shift is to the richest paying more as it is unlikely that they cut consumption because of tax cuts the size spoken of. The poor and lower middle class will increase consumption.

[BlueStreak]

14. When some people pay more and others pay less, that is called:

REDISTRIBUTION.

At least that's what I thought the word meant.

Obama can smoke Romney out on that position by asserting more directly (no soft-peddling it) that the whole purpose for this tax idea is to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the middle class to the wealthy. And when Romney claims that everybody will pay the same thing, then the response is:

"Well, then why do it at all if everybody ends up paying the exact same thing? Don't you think we have other problems we should be dealing with, such as rebuilding our infrastructure and getting our people and industries competitive for a 21st century economy?"

[karynnj]

16. Good - and because they call redistribution evil -

a change that has no redistribution and is revenue neutral - is NO CHANGE AT ALL. Therefore it has absolutely no change on anything.

[BlueStreak]

17. Exactly, you can't have it both ways

If you are arguing you need tax cuts to stimulate the economy, that is REDISTRIBUTION, and it creates a deficit problem.

If you are arguing that there is actually no change to anybody, then why do it at all?

[asjr]

3. I will never understand why the networks and cable people

continue to have Gingrich, Guiliani, Santorum, etc. on these programs. They have become utterly useless and their ideas have not and will never change. It must be that there are no educated Republicans still alive. Meet the Press and other programs like it have become nothing but he said she said encounters. I stopped MTP ages ago when David Gregory became chief executioner with his smartass questions.

[reformist2]

4. Romney's tax reform plan is nonsense - it isn't even a plan.

Just getting out there are promising a huge tax cut, then basically saying "trust me" as to how he'll pay for it... this is total, unadulterated BS. Romney needs to tell us which deductions and loopholes he will eliminate to pay for his ridiculous new tax cut. But he won't do it.

This isn't a plan, it's a snow job.

[Iliyah]

6. Shit, Mittens wasn't honest about

most of the things he spouted out. It was an performance based on non-substance, showing his insane base that he is as crazy as they are. When people have to resort to this type of tactic, they are losing big time.

[Zambero]

7. Newt may not be finished with Romney just yet

Gingrich we was savaged in the primaries by relentless negative ads from the Romney campaign. Newt called Romney and liar and clearly meant it. So is all forgiven? I'm not convinced. The fact that Gingrich is going out of his way to campaign for extremist Todd Akin suggests that fat is being thrown on the fire, furthering the (correct) notion that the GOP is way out of touch, which certainly does not help the front-runner. And now Gingrich suggests that Romney is indeed truth-challenged by his recent debate comments. Would a sincere political surrogate utter something like this during a close race, unless there was a motivation to harm his own party's candidate, for perhaps personal reasons? Just wonderin'!

[littlemissmartypants]

8. .

[MADem]

9. Newt is thinking he'll go up against Santorum, again, in four years' time perhaps? nt

[Ikonoklast]

18. Nah. Both those guys are finished, and they know it.

They're cashing in now as talking heads, which is far more lucrative and way less work.

[ywcachieve]

10. Romney thinks he can lie and bully his way into the White House.

BUT, he won't.

Gingrich already said Romney is a liar.

[Berlum]

15. Liar Romney (R) being called out by his own Cronies (R)