Chris Wallace, you're starting to make your dad proud with a touch of accountability in your questioning. Well done.

When I say "redistribution" I mean he's going to shift the burden onto the middle class, and the wealthy will ultimately pay less. That's the irony of all that GOP's redistribution rhetoric. The real class warfare is the 1% trying to get everyone else to cover a higher proportion of the bill.>> ^bareboards2:

Yeah, @kniveout, but Rmoney keeps saying that the wealthy won't pay any less. And I thought it was the wealthy who are the job creators.
It just doesn't make sense. And the more they say it, the less sense it makes.

@KnivesOut

>> ^bareboards2:

Yeah, @kniveout, but Rmoney keeps saying that the wealthy won't pay any less. And I thought it was the wealthy who are the job creators.
It just doesn't make sense. And the more they say it, the less sense it makes.

It's all about redistribution, it's the only explanation. It's a game to shift the burden around.>> ^bareboards2:

The big question is -- if you cut deductions while cutting the tax rate, how does that promote growth? It is tax neutral.

The argument is exactly that. Rich folk tend to invest. You put money in their pocket, and they'll typically invest it in equity or bonds. Both of these things bring down the cost of corporate borrowing either directly (through bond buying) or indirectly (through supporting the share price, and thus the equity available to borrow against). The hypothesis is that this will lead to more hiring, job retention, or capital investment.

My main issue with it is that in a global economy it doesn't provide any guarantees those jobs happen here. Further, if you don't support demand, there is no real incentive to grow the firm. That's why I think considering the supply side is backwards.

>> ^TheFreak:

Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

Apparently Chris Wallace, like the AEI, doesn't always say things that are helpful to the Republican party.

Your video, Wallace Dresses Down Gillespie Over Romney's 20% Tax Cut, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by NetRunner.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Wallace-Dresses-Down-Gillespie-Over-Romneys-20-Tax-Cut

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by radx. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupe sorry NR http://videosift.com/video/Wallace-Dresses-Down-Gillespie-Over-Romneys-20-Tax-Cut

>> ^nanrod:

What I got out of that is that Romney/Ryan are proposing to increase the tax burden on the rich. The math is actually simple. There will be a revenue neutral 20 % across the board tax cut with neutrality achieved thru closing loopholes and the middle class will benefit from the cuts. If the overall package is revenue neutral and the middle class benefits then someone, presumably the upper classes must be paying more under this scenario. It's simple algebra.


LOL That was awesome.

You forgot your "sarcasm" tag though.

> Chris Wallace Nails Paul Ryan to the Wall
Does he dagger him?

Wallace is one of the few people at Fox who thankfully seems to frequently forget he works at Fox. I don't watch Fox (or TV at all), but FWIW I don't remember seeing any clips of him saying anything particularly Faux/"Malinforming".>> ^fritzo9602:

Did Chris Wallace forget he's with FOX now? He's supposed to say things like "Republicans rock! Yer AWESOME!" He might get fired if Bill hears about this.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
It does feel like they are trying to distance themselves from Romney's stank, but they are also playing up Romney as an underdog victim of a liberal media. I've never known FOX to throw in the towel, so this must be part of some bigger strategy. October surprise?
>> ^Yogi:
Looks like Fox is preparing for when it has to say "Look these candidates sucked, we need better ones!"
Pretty interesting how this election is going to affect the Republican party going forward.


It seems to me that Fox would play the long game. They're not gonna put too many chips anywhere, they're here for keeps.


This would imply that truth, consistency and accuracy really mattered to FOX. Romney goes into the memory hole the day he loses. Bush was president for 8 fucking years and they've manage to wipe all records of his existence at FOX.