Deceptively and Selectively Edited!!!!!!!111!!!
William Jacobson notices that the two YouTube videos representing Romney’s “complete speech” during the fundraiser have an audio break between them. He emailed David Corn of Mother Jones, who responded:
According to the source, the recording device inadvertently turned off. The source noticed this quickly and turned it back one. The source estimates that one to two minutes, maybe less, of recording was missed.
Deceptively and selectively edited!!!!!1!!11!!!
These comments are tongue in cheek, of course. Anyone who followed ACORN knows what I’m talking about.
Jacobson says:
Maybe Romney answer was “inelegant” only because Mother Jones didn’t disclose that part of tape was missing.
Maybe, but I don’t think so. I think he was just being careless in front of people he thought of as friendlies. Mistake made, lesson learned, move on dot org. Recognize that the polls are still close and don’t be gloomy.
And keep hitting the theme. It’s a good theme for us. We aren’t the party of freeloaders.
Hear, oh hear, Amerikkka. Rasmussen has NH to Romany by 4, everyone else even or worse.
China is turning on the Nationalism fire hose versus helpless Japan knocking down dozens of websites and threatening a bond war.
They own something like 4 or 5 months of Bennies’ damp green in J-bills.
SMOD has hit, blowback just circled planet the first time.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/19/2012 @ 7:58 am___________________________________________
We aren’t the party of freeloaders.
But you did say recently that the Republican Party is the one that’s lousy when it comes to the environment. Well, here’s green-earth politics (and a healthy dose of crony capitalism to boot—hi, ethanol industry!) from the context of the other party:
Mark (94ed7f) — 9/19/2012 @ 8:28 amMark–I don’t know why you seem to keep tweaking our host. I really don’t get it. I don’t think Patterico said what you claim he said about the environment and “lousy”.
elissa (f9a102) — 9/19/2012 @ 8:32 amElissa, that is Mark’s thing. I don’t get it either. A “purer than thou” thing?
Patterico, I really enjoyed that video. Johnny Cash, though pretty liberal (as Mark will point out) remains the OG.
I like this, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7auzYgVosJA
You can run on for a long time. Sooner or later, the deficit will cut you down. Right? Ditto the line about backbiters in this campaign!
Who is the bearded fellow at the beginning of the video? I don’t know. But lots of interesting people in the video, all honoring Johnny Cash.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/19/2012 @ 8:36 amHe said his wife is motivated by different issues than he is, and this is one reason she supports democrats.
I do not think Pat appreciates having to discuss his wife’s views. She isn’t entering this conversation, and we should respect that. Plenty of great people have a different view on the environment than I do, supporting high regulation. We’d have to speculate about someone’s view to have this discussion, and it’s a private person’s view that aren’t really any of our business.
Why not move on to something more interesting? I have many loved ones who are liberal democrats. I have many friends who are. I hope you do too. We should understand the ‘other side’ and also recognize that there is so much more to a person than their politics.
With all due respect, Mark, sometimes I get the impression you disagree and even define people by their politics, basically diagnosing liberals as defective. I know you mean no harm, and it’s often amusing and even a little insightful, but hopefully tongue in cheek. There’s not enough respect out there as it is.
Dustin (73fead) — 9/19/2012 @ 8:39 am___________________________________________
I don’t think Patterico said what you claim he said about the environment and “lousy”.
Elissa, the comment I’m referring to is:
^ I’m not dogging him on it, as much as I’m puzzled why anyone thinks that way in the context of today. IOW, I’d understand the “they’re pretty crappy” POV given the situation of environmental matters several decades ago, but not today. BTW, I suspect there are more than a fair share of even Republicans (certainly older ones, and particularly those who reside in blue states like California) who have Patterico’s perceptions.
Mark (94ed7f) — 9/19/2012 @ 8:48 amI stand corrected, Mark. I didn’t see that comment and thought you were referring to another one. (links are helpful in the future).
I think being realistic about our energy needs would lead to clean coal and then much more nuclear power in the long term, and this would be the most environmentally friendly path for this country. I think many democrats and some republicans find that approach unacceptable but do not propose a real alternative, leaving us in the state we are in today (which I think is worse for the environment).
Dustin (73fead) — 9/19/2012 @ 8:52 am________________________________________________
I have many friends who are. I hope you do too.
Actually, Dustin, that’s one reason why I tend to resist using the word “troll” when labeling people in this forum for merely taking a contrarian (or left-leaning) position.
With rare exceptions, I think most of those who disagree with a conservative or moderate opinion are not posting here to create flame wars (which to me fits the definition of “troll”) or to be a contrarian for contrarian’s sake, but because they truly feel and think the way they do. From that standpoint, I almost wish such people really were trolls, since that would suggest they really don’t believe the way they do.
Mark (94ed7f) — 9/19/2012 @ 8:55 amI totally understand where you’re coming from on that one, Mark.
Dustin (73fead) — 9/19/2012 @ 8:57 amTechnical errors? Perhaps Rosemary Woods can explain.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/19/2012 @ 9:07 amOf course, the LA Times’ James Rainey is tweeting like mad that the Romney 47% quote is the biggest news in centuries. You’d think he would be up on the latest news … but no mention by Rainey of the missing part of the tape.
Another egg-on-face-facepalm moment for Rainey? He didn’t want to cut O’keefe a centimeter of slack. What a hack.
LukeHandCool (eb8fe6) — 9/19/2012 @ 9:30 am==Of course, the LA Times’ James Rainey is tweeting like mad that the Romney 47% quote is the biggest news in centuries==.
Apparently Rainey missed that Lindsay Lohan just got arrested for hit and run. Now there’s yer news!
elissa (f9a102) — 9/19/2012 @ 9:37 amWhat is this person’s claim to fame other than that? It seems she gets into some kind of car trouble every few weeks, but I can’t think of any movies or shows she’s been in.
Dustin (73fead) — 9/19/2012 @ 9:40 amWhat is really clear from this tape is that the recording was done by one or more members of the catering staff, not by an attendee.
Not only were no attendees in the immediate area, but the catering staff took pains not to stand in front of the camera, indicating many were involved.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/19/2012 @ 9:47 amWhen we say “we aren’t the party of freeloaders” here, I get that this connects to Reagan’s classic narrative of welfare queens and coasters.
I’ve opposed welfare my whole life, opposed cheating on food stamps, double dipping, etc. But I also oppose corporate welfare, like the annual subsidies given for oil exploration which seem needless in light of record profits. The only difference is the amounts – welfare is welfare, handouts are handouts.
If we are going to look down our noses at the poor for taking ethical shortcuts, how do we square this with corporate loopholes, tax havens in the Caymans or the outright tax fraud so common among the affluent?
What is more wasteful, the welfare rolls, or the payoffs to the Taliban warlords or Muktada al Sadr’s deathsquads to “buy” peace? Paying the Afghan police to murder our troops? How about $3 billion per year now going to the Muslim Brotherhood, or the US kicking in more to fund IDF than Israeils?
The biggest irony of all would be Syria where we have a “non-lethal” support role, meaning we give taxpayer money to tribal factions that include al Qaeda elements. We’ve come full circle.
As a fiscal conservative, I’d rather see us use “tough love” against Mideast extremists than the unemployed back home, our veterans, our seniors, or even our poorest US citizens.
How about some action against Obama’s pals at GE, to close billion dollar loopholes. Poking into the finances of minimum wage families is a low priority compared to these white collar swindlers.
For one thing, food is relatively cheap – aid to the poor has cost benefits like keeping kids in school, healthy and out of prison. The poor spend everything they get, meaning the money has stimulative effect on jobs.
I get that this gets politicized come election time. The Dems like the poor voting in big numbers, the GOP likes their billionaire donors.
Romney has a point in denouncing the hand-out mentality, but his numbers are way off – and so is the perception of harm welfare queens have to our economy when compared to offshoring crony profiteering in taxpayer-funded private industry.
But at least the GOP has been delivering for the rich – the Dems have let down the poor. Their dirty secret is they love Wall Street, big health and defense profiteers too, they love corporate welfare on top of regular welfare, but hey take pride in not being as bad as the GOP because they spread the money around to multimillionaires and not just billionaires.
The composition of the deficit, especially since 2001, shows more went to defense, Medicare part D and unfunded tax cuts than nanny-state giveaways. So my message is let’s stop pretending that either of these parties are acceptable.
What’s troubling is the moment on the tape where the guy points out the tea party and OWS are both protesting pay-for-play and asks Romney if he will investigate Obama era corruption like Solyndra.
Romney damns any public service credibility by saying it’s bad to portray Obama as corrupt when trying to woo his voters. This is also just wrong, there are plenty of former Obama voters who now feel he is protecting the big banks from prosecution and want justice.
So the issues that Obama is most vulnerable on will never see daylight, because the GOP has every intention of expanding corporate freedoms and expanding war (with no endgame).
Mahalia Cab (08e2a4) — 9/19/2012 @ 10:36 amThe source estimates that one to two minutes, maybe less, of recording was missed.
An estimate? You mean there’s no independent proof? Then I would estimate at least 5 minutes,
because Romney’s off on a completely different subject. The video should also give you some clues.
Comment by Kevin M — 9/19/2012 @ 9:47 am
What is really clear from this tape is that the recording was done by one or more members of the catering staff, not by an attendee.
Not only were no attendees in the immediate area, but the catering staff took pains not to stand in front of the camera, indicating many were involved.
By the catering staff? That could explain it. I was thinking maybe a spouse of a contributor, but this makes more sense.
The pause comes at the wrong place for a alter edit, but just at the right time, for someone who was hoping to capture short bursts and might have been afraid, at first of running out of recording time, or of discovery. Both could explain a decision to stop recording precisely at that point. If the break is because of an edit, Romney would have been allowed to finish that sentence, because what’s missing adds nothing, but leaving it in would make the recording seem complete.
An accidental break – I’d more likely believe a deliberate break, followed by a mistaken belief the recording had started again but it hadn’t. It does resume well after maybe an interesting discussion had started. Romney was saying the U.S. spends only twice as much, not ten times as much, on its military as China. (China’s military spending is increasing at over 10% a year compounded annually.)
Empty Wheel discusses missing 2 minutes and thinks it is indeed about 2 minutes
He can’t figure out that statistic about China, either, and thinks it’s wrong. Empty Wheel is agaisnt more military spending and intervention.. Empty Wheel thinks the question was about do we need a military this size.
I’d still go with Person A and Person B although they might be two different members of the catering staff, or one or more might be someone in the family of a member of the catering staff.
If a number of people were in on it, all would have gotten copies of the tape. The motive would have been history mostly.
Sammy Finkelman (eb1481) — 9/19/2012 @ 10:37 amThe tape was clearly edited. This was no technical malfunction. I prove it at Not Yet Europe
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/19/2012 @ 10:38 amMitt Romney seems to think what would keep him From firing and replacing lower level people at federal agencies is the fact that they are unionized, rather than the fact they are covered by Civil service protection!!
They could have made this into another gaffe.
At least if they’d noticed it.
Sammy Finkelman (eb1481) — 9/19/2012 @ 10:42 am“If we are going to look down our noses at the poor for taking ethical shortcuts, how do we square this with corporate loopholes, tax havens in the Caymans or the outright tax fraud so common among the affluent?”
Mahalia Cab – Do you believe tax fraud is more common among the affluent than the less affluent? Do you have any evidence to support that belief other than reading stories about the prosecution of affluent individuals for tax fraud?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/19/2012 @ 10:56 am“The Dems like the poor voting in big numbers, the GOP likes their billionaire donors.”
Mahalia Cab – I think you’ve got it backwards in terms of rich donors. The Dems tend to have more of those.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/19/2012 @ 10:59 am15. Here’s the part where Romney gets questioned on corruption:
<b MALE VOICE: ….I've been around politics. The first campaign I worked in was Barry Goldwater's in 1964. So I think I'm the oldest Republican here (UNINTEL PHRASE).
But– from what I've seen in the last months because of my own personal involvement in the issue is– is the government in Washington right now just is permeated by cronyism, outright corruption. Our– our regulatory agencies that are supposed to protect the public are protecting the people that they're supposed to be regulating.
And– I think people are fed up with that. Doesn't matter whether you're in the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street, people see that the government is working for the powerful interests and the people who are well connected politically and not for the common person. Which threatens that whole idea that we have this great opportunity.
Which we should have and have had that historically in the U.S. for anybody from what background to become successful. One way in which that becomes compromised is when the government is no longer seen as being an honest agent and where our tax dollars are not really-they're being put to work for us but for the people who are plugged in politically (UNINTEL PHRASE). You know, you have– you had cases like Solyndra and the Fullbush (PH), which I talk about (UNINTEL) involved in. You've got Eric Holder, who's probably the most corrupt attorney general that we've had ever in– in– in American history. And– I think it's something that– that– if spun the right way and in simple terms, can actually resonate with the American people.
Obama did not keep his promises. Nancy Pelosi was supposed to give us an honest Congress. Has– has given us just the opposite when she was speaker. And– I think that's a campaign issue that can work well. I'm optimistic that you'll be elected president and my recommendation would be clean house immediately. SEC, the CFBC– are– are– are disaster areas. And– (OVERTALK)
MITT ROMNEY: And what– I wish we weren't unionized so we could go a lot deeper than you're actually allowed to go. But– (MALE VOICE: UNINTEL)
Am I in the way here? Yeah. I– I– I can say this, which– and I'm sure you'll agree with this as well, which is we– we speak with– with voters across the country about their perceptions. Those people I told you, the 5%, to 6% or 7% that we have to sort of bring on– on our side? They all voted for Barack Obama four years ago.
There it is. He thinks his only target is 5-7% of the electorate – AND HE’D HAVE TO GET PRACTICALLY ALL OF THEM! Not switch over 5% or 7% out of he 53% or so Obama got, but 5% or 7% out of a maximum 10% or so.
So– and, by the way, when you– when you say to them, “Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?” they overwhelmingly say, “No.” They like him. But when you say, “Are you disappointed that his policies haven’t worked?” they say, “Yes.” And– and because they voted for him they don’t wanna be told that they were wrong. That he’s a bad guy. That he did bad things. That he’s corrupt.
The– these– those people that we have to get, they want to believe they did the right thing but he just wasn’t up to the task. They love the phrase that he’s over his head.
It played well in focus groups. Not because they think better of themselves, but because it’s a milder criticism.
I think Romney’s in over his head. That’s not always a reason not to vote for someone. Both major candidates have serious flaws. Obama is more cynical and playing political games and cautious about making decisions and stubborn about decisions he’s made, and and incurious and in love with consistency, and with legal “legitimatacy” than he is in over his head.
But if we’re– when we– but, you see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us. And– and these people are people who voted for him and don’t agree with us.
And– and so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them. And the– and the best success I have in speaking with those people is saying, you know, “The president’s been a disappointment. He told you he’d keep unemployment below 8%. Hasn’t been below 8% since.
“50% of kids coming out of school can’t get a job. 50%. 50% of the kids in high school in our 50 largest cities won’t graduate from high school. What are they gonna do?” And the– these are the kinds of things that– that I can– I can say– to– to that audience that– that they nod they head and say, “Yeah, I think you’re right.”
What he’s gonna do, by the way, is try and vilify me as someone who’s been successful. Or who’s– or who’s, you know, closed businesses or laid people off and this is an e– an evil bad guy. And that may work. I– I actually think that right now people are saying, “I want someone who can make things better. That’s what– that’s gonna motivate me. Who can get jobs for my kids and get rising incomes.” And I hope to be able to be the one that wins that battle. Yeah, please.
Sammy Finkelman (eb1481) — 9/19/2012 @ 11:02 amSammy Finkelman,
I am looking forward to the day that you cut and paste “War and Peace” in a thread !
Oy vey.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/19/2012 @ 11:11 amI’m going to do something I usually don’t do.
This may have got lost in among Sammy’s unreadable detail-o-grams, but I think that I can prove this whole thing is VERY FISHY.
The “gap” is NOT AN ACCIDENT, and this can be proved.
Not Yet Europe
Look carefully at the before and after-the-gap pictures from the Mother Jones page. The camera never moved a millimeter as it was “fixed”. Yet other places in the tape it is moving, especially at the beginning.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/19/2012 @ 11:18 am“There it is. He thinks his only target is 5-7% of the electorate – AND HE’D HAVE TO GET PRACTICALLY ALL OF THEM! Not switch over 5% or 7% out of he 53% or so Obama got, but 5% or 7% out of a maximum 10% or so.”
Amazing Sammy Kreskin – I’m not seeing any mention of a maximum of 10% or so. What I am seeing is he has to persuade 5-7% of voters to switch sides from 2008 and suggesting that telling them they were idiots to vote for Obama is not the best way.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/19/2012 @ 11:19 am_____________________________________________
I think Romney’s in over his head…. Obama is more cynical and playing political games…than he is in over his head.
Well, that pretty much clarifies things for me, or gives me a clear awareness of what makes you tick.
I guess the glints of some rational comments that I’ve seen expressed by you over the months led me to believe you couldn’t be easily pigeonholed or certainly weren’t necessarily tilted to the left.
D’oh! to me.
Mark (94ed7f) — 9/19/2012 @ 11:28 amI think people are failing to credit Romney for his brilliant strategy in the runup to the first debate: Lowering his expectations to precisely zero.
3rdPartyPlease (1d1b9e) — 9/19/2012 @ 11:49 am1. When I get to heaven and St. Peter says “You did not use your tags, begone sinner”, I know wretched Rico will be waiting in limbo over his more venial sins.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/19/2012 @ 12:03 pmThe taping was stopped while Mitt went to take a leak.
The John (44da76) — 9/19/2012 @ 12:32 pmNeed more Mitt ads showing the President making some of his apology in Cairo-’09, cutting to the current rioting and burning going on throughout the ME today.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/19/2012 @ 12:44 pmLast I looked at the list of US Billionaires — they are Liberals. Partly their feelings, partly that way they can justify buying the Democratic Party for it benefit.
Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60) — 9/19/2012 @ 1:05 pmMahlia Cab declared open war and genocide on straw people. moby.
JD (318f81) — 9/19/2012 @ 1:50 pmHeh. Michelle Malkin says Democrats should change their mascot from a donkey to a squirrel.
Embassy attacks? Quick, find a squirrel! Warnings ignored? Squirrel! American troops killed by long-plotting jihadis exploiting security weaknesses? Squirrel! Sabotage of the First Amendment by White House officials in the name of political correctness? Squirrel! Chronic joblessness, high gas prices, exploding dependency? Squirrel! Squirrel! Squirrel!
elissa (f9a102) — 9/19/2012 @ 2:03 pmYou think she reads here, Elissa?
JD (dbb735) — 9/19/2012 @ 2:09 pmSPEAKING OF DECEPTION…..
Check out what the one said last night on Letterman. He said he “didn’t know” how much the national debt was, blamed it all on Bush and his two wars (no mention of that little thing called 911), etc.
Over at PowerLine is one place.
If that is all the more honest he can be, perhaps it is a good thing he was on Letterman instead of doing something important.
Fact checkers, fact checkers, where are the fact checkers?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/19/2012 @ 2:10 pmKevinM has an excellent post up about how David Corn is a liar.
JD (dbb735) — 9/19/2012 @ 2:13 pmJD–for the last week this place has been like a branch opening of FURRY DISTRACTIONS-R-US.
elissa (f9a102) — 9/19/2012 @ 2:18 pmThe trial of Barack Obama and the American media begins. Will anyone point out (other than PowerLine and the eight wing nutcases) that the President was too ashamed to tell the truth about the debt on national TV and lied about it?
Can somebody use that clip of Letterman without their permission?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/19/2012 @ 2:25 pmIf not, will there be an issue made if they will not give permission?
You’re tired of the lies?… the narcissism?… the unprecedented incompetence?… the worshipful media?… that smarmy cadence and intonation in his voice?… just the mere sight of him?
Is that what’s troubling you, Bunky?
Then vote the bum 0bama out of office this November 6th.
Colonel Haiku (d22210) — 9/19/2012 @ 3:14 pmyou got yo left hand you got yo right hand, well the left hand diddlin’… while the right hand go to work…
http://t.co/qVrgIaHx
Colonel Haiku (d22210) — 9/19/2012 @ 3:18 pmAnd yet, they don’t have the full speech on record.
You made a reference to ACORN, Patterico, but that was also the defense of Shirley Sherrod.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/19/2012 @ 3:54 pmSPQR – KevinM’s post is pretty convincing that the missing section was edited out.
JD (dbb735) — 9/19/2012 @ 3:59 pmJD, wouldn’t surprise me. The Democrats’ frauds are getting more brazen and less polished by the day.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/19/2012 @ 4:06 pmstraif…straight outta the box midget state prison
pdbuttons (2e58a9) — 9/19/2012 @ 4:07 pmflat headed parched coy thirsty babies wanna know!
do champagne towers make me wanna drink sarah palins pee?
does sarah drinkinfg palins pee make me tuff like yul bryner /50’s tuff guy?if i /u/ sit on a warm spot…u think–as u jump up..pee! who pee’d in my seat? right?unless ur tarinteenio-then u got ur jap teen pee thing going on but..
yellow means ‘caution’
Unofficial Obama Campaign Theme:
Who you goin’ to believe, Me or your lyin’ eyes?
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/19/2012 @ 4:11 pmYes, KevinM’s post is nice work, with several helpful comments in addition.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/19/2012 @ 4:27 pmImportant squirrel update at Taliban thread. Prepare for incoming.
elissa (f9a102) — 9/19/2012 @ 4:34 pmButtons!!!!!!!!
JD (dbb735) — 9/19/2012 @ 4:37 pmpencils/graphite/bum/wooosh!
pdbuttons (2e58a9) — 9/19/2012 @ 5:21 pmWoosh bum graphite!
fawlty towers woosh bum audrey
wooosh but..
honeysuckle rose foyles war
wooosh graphite
adO ANNIE-WOOOSH!
IM JUSRT A GIRTL WHO CAIN’T SAT NOB
IBM IN TURRRLBLE FIX!
IF THE NEX T PURPSON SAYS A HOCKE YPLAYER I WILL SHUT MY THING
pdbuttons (2e58a9) — 9/19/2012 @ 5:24 pmBobby Orr !!!!!!!!!
JD (dbb735) — 9/19/2012 @ 5:31 pmBJORK dna was in cavy cave cave caves..
pdbuttons (2e58a9) — 9/19/2012 @ 5:39 pmiceland volcanos say hi /but they do..!
signor ros wtf!
bjork forgiving quack duck corduroy
pee
pee again
“JD–for the last week this place has been like a branch opening of FURRY DISTRACTIONS-R-US.”
elissa – If you haven’t tried them, furries can be fun. IYKWIMAITTYD. Don’t be dissing them.
Pain in the butt to clean though.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/19/2012 @ 5:39 pmBJORK is evil
JD (dbb735) — 9/19/2012 @ 6:11 pmBjork is Fraggle Rocker.
Colonel Haiku (d22210) — 9/19/2012 @ 6:29 pmI do know what you mean daley. (Not firsthand though) There was a large convention of them at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare earlier this year and a friend whose son is a cop out there had some, uh, interesting stories to tell about the Furries.
Candidly, between this and your previous interest in the pink vulva costumes I’m starting to worry about you a little bit daleyrocks.
elissa (f9a102) — 9/19/2012 @ 6:30 pm“Candidly, between this and your previous interest in the pink vulva costumes I’m starting to worry about you a little bit daleyrocks.”
elissa – Not to worry, but I didn’t think it was anybody’s business what went on regarding that kind of stuff as long as it was between unrelated consulting adults. Plus I would not go near any of those Code Pink vulva wackos even with JD’s you know what.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/19/2012 @ 7:51 pmdaleyrocks, re evidence the rich cheat more on their taxes:
I first heard about it years ago when one study came out saying the rich cheat at a rate of 1 in 5. Here’s a 2008 report about it in Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/21/taxes-irs-wealth-biz-beltway-cz_jn_1021beltway.html
…but if you stop to think about it, the middle class doesn’t even have the opportunity to cheat, or the money.
The income of the average joe can be checked and verified within seconds by a quick glance at a W-2. Payroll taxes are withheld, meaning you have to do fancy footwork to get that back like claiming an extra dependent or using some exotic deduction, (otherwise known as a “red flag”).
For the rich, it’s extremely easy to cheat on taxes, you simply take wealth out of the US and hide it. The biggest open secret in DC is that tens of thousands of Americans including the biggest politicians have secret, illegal Swiss accounts which we do nothing about.
Small cash business can easily cheat, and do, but the numbers show that the vast majority of employed workers don’t. Then we have the quasi-legal, where giant corporations create layers of shell entities, exploit loopholes, lobby for new ones, or design complex accounting structures that can’t be understood by auditors.
There’s also solid research showing that as wealth goes up, ethics and empathy go down: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-wealth-reduces-compassion or http://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/
It’s not hard to imagine that billionaires have some form of pathology. After the first few hundred million accumulated, many would retire, or go into philanthropy. But others have the “never enough” obsession, where they need to dominate the Forbes list – all because some one took away their rattle when they were little.
Gates and Buffet still work hard every day, but have pledged almost all their fortunes to charity. The Kochs, meanwhile are trying to buy elections so they can deregulate their industry to make even more profit.
At some point, it’s fair to compare them to the guys that wash their hands a hundred times a day or eat their eyebrow hair.
If you want to compare rich donors, the Forbes 400 list is here: http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/ but you’ll see right off the bat, the Kochs, Waltons and Bloomberg comprise 7 of the top 10…
Mahalia Cab (a6f7dc) — 9/20/2012 @ 1:03 pmMoby
JD (dbb735) — 9/20/2012 @ 1:06 pmOr maybe they want to support the conservative cause because they believe it is better for this country.
Do you have any basis to say contrary other than demonizing people who support republicans or are successful?
Dustin (73fead) — 9/20/2012 @ 1:07 pmPure lie, the Koch bros are not trying to “buy elections”. They are merely supporting ideas and speech they agree with. Ah, free speech, the Left’s greatest fear today.
SPQR (6f30cb) — 9/20/2012 @ 1:17 pmDemocrats love tax cheats, they keep Rangel and Geitner in office.
SPQR (6f30cb) — 9/20/2012 @ 1:20 pm“…but if you stop to think about it, the middle class doesn’t even have the opportunity to cheat, or the money.”
Mahalia Cab – Sure they do, primarily on the deduction side of the returns, which explains why you are misinterpreting the results of the Forbes study you linked. The Forbes article said the study it cited concluded the the wealthy subgroup examined with income between $500,000-$1,000,000 collectively understated its income and overstated its deductions by 21% in 2001. The similar figure for a lower income group of people studied was 8%. The Forbes article said nothing about study citing the frequency of people in either category fudging their returns, which was the point you were attempting to make and have yet to prove.
The IRS concentrates its enforcement efforts on higher dollar returns because that is where it gets the most bang for its buck, but cheating goes on at all income levels. Just watch people fudge their charitable donations, medical expenses, professional expenses or the like and it would be an eye opener for you.
Warren Buffet is a sanctimonious self-centered buttplug who is purely out for himself. He’s happy to advocate policies which he claims are good for the country, but which are in reality designed to make more money for his companies and himself. Wake up.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/20/2012 @ 1:33 pm“For the rich, it’s extremely easy to cheat on taxes, you simply take wealth out of the US and hide it.”
Mahalia Cab – You know this or have just read about it?
You seem like a very gullible person based upon your comments.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/20/2012 @ 1:39 pm“Taking wealth” in prime farmland or Manhattan real estate out of the US to “hide it” is kind of difficult, no?
elissa (549857) — 9/20/2012 @ 1:45 pmMahalia claimed to be a fiscal conservative. LOL
JD (dbb735) — 9/20/2012 @ 1:54 pmJD, I am an Eisenhower Republican, which means fiscal conservative. Try not to confuse with neo conservative aka spends money we don’t have on wars and tax cuts.
daleyrocks, underreporting income is the same thing as fudging a return. Overstating deductions is also cheating. There is no difference.
The study looked at 45,000 returns where ALL the folks in that rich bracket, averaged together, resulted in 2.5 times the cheating levels of ALL the people in the middle class when averaged together. To get the “frequency”, you only need to look at the proportion of people in each bracket, which we already know – the middle class vastly outnumbers them.
Mahalia Cab (140634) — 9/21/2012 @ 2:08 pmLate afternoon Moby’s rock.
JD (1b45d7) — 9/21/2012 @ 2:10 pmIt would be nice to compare the cheating rates of rich libs vs. rich conservatives.
I don’t remember any of Bush’s Treasury Secretaries being tax cheats.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/21/2012 @ 2:24 pmWarren Buffet is a sanctimonious self-centered buttplug who is purely out for himself. He’s happy to advocate policies which he claims are good for the country, but which are in reality designed to make more money for his companies and himself. Wake up.
Comment by daleyrocks — 9/20/2012 @ 1:33 pm
Thank you, Mr. Obvious. We all thought that Warren Buffet became a multi-billionaire because he was a good a man who wanted to provide second-rate goods and services to people out of the kindness of his heart.
nk (875f57) — 9/21/2012 @ 2:32 pmFrom PowerLine:
For 2011, Romney reported $13,696,951 in income, mostly on investments. He gave $4,020,772 to charity and paid $1,935,708 in federal and state income taxes. Romney actually paid more in federal income taxes than he owed, given his charitable contributions. He did this in order to conform to his statement, made in August, that he has paid at least 13% of his income in taxes each year.
I heard about this on the radio, though the report neglected to say that he happened to give twice as much away as he did pay in taxes of “only” 13%.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/21/2012 @ 2:36 pmWarren Buffet is a lying, cheating, piece of excrement. A snake oil salesman. Who became very rich by selling people garbage.
nk (875f57) — 9/21/2012 @ 2:37 pm“Thank you, Mr. Obvious. We all thought that Warren Buffet became a multi-billionaire because he was a good a man who wanted to provide second-rate goods and services to people out of the kindness of his heart.”
nk – Many people are convinced he is purely objective in his advice to the government.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/21/2012 @ 2:39 pmHe’s old and will die soon. He’s no Carnegie. Or Bill Gates. He won’t let go of a nickel. If he thinks posterity will think kindly of him because he proposes higher taxes …?
nk (875f57) — 9/21/2012 @ 2:39 pmMD – thinkregress is pushing the same meme. He was honest, to avoid lying.
JD (1b45d7) — 9/21/2012 @ 2:40 pmI admit it’s before my time but I am not familiar with the term Eisenhower Republican. I’ve heard people use the short-cut of Reagan Republican or even Goldwater Republican to describe aspects of their own personal economic or foreign policy philosophy. But Eisenhower Republican not so much. I thought after (literally) decades of Roosevelt and Truman that the simple lovely word Republican in the ’52 campaign just meant NOT DEMOCRAT!!!
Mahalia just might could be joshing us about being an Eisenhower Republican I think.
elissa (54b70a) — 9/21/2012 @ 2:44 pm“Who became very rich by selling people garbage.”
nk – He owns a number of very good companies which he typically acquired on terms attractive to him. Some of his companies are not so attractive. He has created a myth surrounding his activities which is at odds with reality.
I don’t know which products you are referring to as second rate or garbage.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/21/2012 @ 2:44 pmFor 2011, Romney reported $13,696,951 in income, mostly on investments. He gave $4,020,772 to charity and paid $1,935,708 in federal and state income taxes.
That sounds like almost $6m to me, MD. About 47%?
Charitable deductions are part of the tax code and basically a diverted tax.
(Depending on which part of the Bible you read, you are not required to give more than 12.5% of your income to the poor.)
nk (875f57) — 9/21/2012 @ 2:48 pmDairy Queen, his startup. Geico, now.
nk (875f57) — 9/21/2012 @ 2:50 pmhttp://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/romney-artificially-inflated-2011-taxes-after-decrying-idea?ref=fpblg
Mitt Romney’s trustee said in a campaign press release that Romney artificially inflated his own effective tax rate so it would remain above 13 percent by deferring $1.75 million in charitable deductions. Romney had previously said that none of his last decade of tax returns dipped below that 13 percent threshold.
In an interview with ABC News in July, however, Romney dismissed the idea that he would ever pay more taxes than legally owed, saying if he did so he wouldn’t be “qualified” to be president.
“I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president,” Romney said. “I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.”
And you wonder about the possibility of deceptive editing why we it’s been confirmed the GOP just did it again
“We aren’t the party of freeloaders.”
sleeeepy (b5f718) — 9/21/2012 @ 3:01 pmI guess that would include all the Republican members of the 47%
I’m reluctant to trust the IRS’ statements on who is “cheating” on their taxes, given that the IRS can’t reliably give out correct tax advice to taxpayers to request it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/21/2012 @ 3:06 pmnk – Dairy Queen started in 1938. Buffet bought it in 1998.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/21/2012 @ 3:11 pm“Mitt Romney’s trustee said in a campaign press release”
sleeeepy – Why don’t they provide the quote or a link to the press release? Doesn’t it say what they claim it does?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/21/2012 @ 3:18 pmsleepy – Here it is:
“The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.
The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions.
The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor’s statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.”
The Romney’s voluntarily limited their deductions to pay more taxes.
You believe this is bad why?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/21/2012 @ 3:24 pmdaleyrocks, sleeeepy thinks its bad because they could have refinanced their house to save money.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/21/2012 @ 3:30 pmHe told the truth to avoid telling a lie. Hairy Reed could not be reached for comment.
JD (1b45d7) — 9/21/2012 @ 3:39 pmIt is so obvious he is hiding something.
JD (1b45d7) — 9/21/2012 @ 3:42 pmIt’s like the Tardis, Jd.
narciso (ee31f1) — 9/21/2012 @ 3:46 pmYou mean Mitt Romney is the type of guy who doesn’t need a Tony Rezko to help facillitate the purchase of his property in a fancy part of town ?
Next thing we’ll find out is that Romney doesn’t even apply the John Forbes Kerry “principled” approach to docking his yacht in another state in order to avoid paying the taxes on it.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/21/2012 @ 3:58 pmI just figured out why he/she is called “sleeeepy”. It’s because he/she always makes such tiresome comments.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/21/2012 @ 4:19 pmElissa, an Eisenhower Republican, to me, means one who values a strong defense through a strong economy.
Read up on how Ike presided over a period of booming economic growth which included 70-90% tax rates for the upper incomes. He eschewed a privatized military, predicting in his 1960 televised farewell speech that we would be pushed into war just to make money for the military industrial complex, a term he coined in the same speech.
He was proven right in just a few years when the American people were falsely told of an attack of a US vessel in the Gulf of Tonkin. 50,000 US troops lost their lives in the ensuing war and the war debt began our shameful federal deficit.
Ike’s punishing tax rates forced the rich to spend more on business expenses, so they did, expanding and hiring. The rich got richer but the middle class grew to a point where one worker could support an entire household in a 40 hour work week, including car payments, college and retirement.
Reaganomics says the rich should get to keep more, and if so, they will voluntarily hire workers, but it has never yielded as much hiring as raising taxes.
Regarding Buffet, he is only one of many US billionaires who have pledged the majority of their fortunes to charity. See http://givingpledge.org/#enter
Mahalia Cab (90ba7a) — 9/24/2012 @ 5:14 amOkay, so you are a drooling idiot.
JD (89e14d) — 9/24/2012 @ 5:23 amMahalia Cab
the 70 to 90% tax rate was for 10 million in income plus which BTW is nearly 50 to 100 million today. Whic would affect just a small handfull of people.
Ike tried to lower taxes but with Senators and congressman swuitching parties every few months the congress was in constant turmoil
Those punishing tax rates were from FDR-Truman
Or as JD said you are a drooling idiot
EPWJ (e83e82) — 9/24/2012 @ 6:34 amComment by Mahalia Cab — 9/24/2012 @ 5:14 am
Read up on how Ike presided over a period of booming economic growth which included 70-90% tax rates for the upper incomes.
Booming economic growth? There were two recessions! No, three. The last in 1960. John F. Kennedy campaigned on the theme of “Let’s Get this country moving gain”
Interest rates started rising from their long term lows, as the federal Reserve Board proceeded to fight inflation. Interestingly, the more they fought it, the worse it got. We were just a little bit too late was the the explanation (then or maybe later)
In 1957, they got the rate of inflation temporarily up to 7% They also got a recession. This was called stagflation – in fact that’s when the term was coined.
The Federal Reserve Board decided that recession was the more important thing, and in January 1958 they started drastically reducing interest rate, and guess, what? The economy started to recover AND inflation went down. Things still were bad enough to elect many Democrats to Congress in November 1958.
Tax rates were high because they were inherited, but this was when the art of converting income into capital gains was perfected, pioneered by the Stephens Brothers in Arkansas, who later helped Bill Clinton.
John F Kennedy proposed and succeeded (after his death)in reducing income tax rates. A speech was rediscovered I think in the 1990s. I heard it one day suddenly being played on the Rush Limbaugh show. I turned on the radio and there was JFK speaking about the virtues of tax cuts.
The 1960s was the time of the boom. It was also the start of the Great Inflation, which began on December 5, 1966, when the Federal Reserve Board raised interest rates “to fight inflation”
Sammy Finkelman (9ef46e) — 9/24/2012 @ 6:53 amComment by EPWJ — 9/24/2012 @ 6:34 am
ke tried to lower taxes but with Senators and congressman swuitching parties every few months the congress was in constant turmoil
I don’t know abut what Ike proposed, but turmoil only existed from about 1948 through 1954. After the 1954 election, Congress remained in Democratic control. There was a recession in 1953-54.
Sammy Finkelman (9ef46e) — 9/24/2012 @ 6:56 amElissa: I am not familiar with the term Eisenhower Republican.
Eisenhower Republican as opposed to [Robert A] Taft Republican.
Not sure what the issues were exactly. I think it supposed to mean they didn’t want to repeal the New Deal.
Sammy Finkelman (9ef46e) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:01 amComment by Mahalia Cab — 9/21/2012 @ 2:08 pm
daleyrocks, underreporting income is the same thing as fudging a return. Overstating deductions is also cheating. There is no difference.
So you think maybe Romney should undergo a criminal investigation for paying too little in taxes??
When was the last time you heard of anyone being indicted for paying too much in taxes?
It’s not the middle class who cheats in taxes – it’s the poor.
Sammy Finkelman (9ef46e) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:05 amSammy, Romney overpaid, which is different from overstating deductions or underreporting income. Romney said himself overpaying should disqualify his White House bid.
The 50s-70s in the US was a period of unrivaled economic power. There were recessions, but there were no deficits, even while the population surged.
It was not just Ike and the Republicans, everyone recognized the high tax rates ON THE RICH create jobs, even when there may not have been demand for them. The act of creating a job, even if just breaks even or takes a loss for the employer has a multiplier effect on the economy. This was called “nationalism” or “Christianity” where the wealthy prioritized the health of the whole economy than their own gravy-sucking OCD.
Even jobs created by the government are preferable to welfare or unemployment because improving infrastructure pays forward to the next generation.
It’s always a good idea to lower taxes on the poor and middle class because their aggregate purchasing drives the economy. This debate is only about encouraging/forcing the ultra rich to reinvest in the US economy, as opposed to extracting wealth from circulation.
If the rich were creating jobs since 2001, they would have proved Reagan right. But they have been offshoring jobs and hoarding money. Let’s not fool ourselves, if you think the President controls these things, he doesn’t – Bush and Obama both bailed out the banks with a gun to their heads.
The rich have always carved up and run this country, the difference was that they agreed in the past to use capital to create jobs because they knew they must have the middle class buying things so they profits. Both parties knew this sustainable cycle was based on interdependency.
Then came neo-conservatism, and the theory that the rich would opt to make jobs if they were given huge tax breaks. Reagan was credited with creating 20 million jobs (if you pretend there wasn’t 3 trillion dollars missing). But Clinton outdid this, – while slowing deficit growth – adding 22 million jobs by tilting the tax code in favor of workers.
You’d think Reaganomics was dead, but then they tried it again in 2001 and 2003. No jobs were created while the deficit exploded. So, should we try Reaganomics some more? I think we should listen to the original fiscal conservatives and use what has already worked in the past.
Mahalia Cab (d45e94) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:33 amMahalia loves to write the word “rich” I think.
elissa (2a7e0c) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:36 amMahalia Cab’s comment is hilarious. She claims that Bush zpplied “Reaganomics” and the deficit “exploded” without gaining jobs. Beyond the factual misrepresentations, what fatuous rhetoric would Cab give us for Obama’s Keynesian deficits? Since “exploded” applied to deficits less than half the size of Bush admin, I’m thinking “nova”.
Democrats’ economic policies, teenage refusal to even make a budget, are orders of magnitude more disasterous and Cab just ignores Obama’s failure.
SPQR (5884a8) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:45 am==Even jobs created by the government are preferable to welfare or unemployment because improving infrastructure pays forward to the next generation==.
Ah, would that “the stimulus” had actually been constructed and used in such a way, Ms. Cab. (Instead of being used for subsidies and payoffs to the Democrats’ pet projects, their cronies, unions, and campaign contributors/bundlers.) We didn’t exactly end up with the equivalent of the interstate highway system this time, did we? Lots of debt though.
elissa (2a7e0c) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:45 amIt’s always a good idea to lower taxes on the poor and middle class because their aggregate purchasing drives the economy.
All that counts is the money supply, and it doesn’t matter, pretty much, who has it.
Keynesism is false. It’s been proven many times false. But politicians like it. Lobbyists like it.
So what you are saying, is, that high taxes cause rich people or corprations to invest money in creating new businesses or jobs because there is nothing else they can do with money except retain it within businesses?
(I assume as long as the corporate tax rate is not too high)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:47 amSammy, Romney overpaid, which is different from overstating deductions or underreporting income.
I think what he did is not claim some charitable deductions in 2011, reserving the right to claim them in 2012, which I don’t know if you can do.
Romney said himself overpaying should disqualify his White House bid.
I don’t think he said something quite like that.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:48 am____________________________________________
Those punishing tax rates were from FDR-Truman
Actually, they started with Herbert Hoover, a Republican who stupidly enough lifted income taxes on the wealthiest Americans from the upper 20-percentile range all the way to the 70s. Roosevelt wanted to increase that rate up to the high 80s. I guess both of those geniuses believed that the huge shock caused by the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929 wasn’t a big enough jolt for investors throughout America.
Simply put, while Hoover has been blamed for turning the Depression of the 1930s into a “great depression,” it’s not for the reason that most liberals (and much of the public in general) assumes to be the case. IOW, he was anything but a laissez-faire, survival-of-the-fittest conservative. He apparently was a fairly typical tax-and-spend politician. Moreover, some of the do-gooder programs that are associated with the legacy of FDR were actually initiated under Hoover.
And all of this occurred and experts still couldn’t figure out a major reason why the Great Depression was so, uh, great?
I won’t even mention that one of the liberal icons of US history, Franklin Roosevelt, while he happily chastised wealthier Americans for not paying more in taxes, had the gall to turn around and claim the higher rates he signed into law didn’t apply to his own lofty income.
Mark (dd745b) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:52 amYou can carry over deductions. Charitables have the most slack. 503(c)s are a very powerful lobbying group with a lot of influence on the tax code.
As I pointed out, in an earlier comment, Romney gave away about half his income in accord with the tax code.
nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:56 amI audited one. It was the PTA of a 180 student elementary school. 😉
nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:59 amMahalia Cab – Can you please describe the mechanism by which high tax rates on the rich create jobs and benefit the economy?
Also, do you understand the difference between the terms “tax rates” and marginal tax rates”?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:10 am