Carly Fiorina gets PWND on Fox News

[^_^ 5,021]

Today on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace gave Fiorina a chance to lay out her actual plan. Touting her “tough, bottom-line business executive” motto, Wallace pointed out that Fiorina also wants “to extend all, all the Bush tax cuts which would add $4 trillion dollars to the deficit…where are you going to find $4 trillion dollars to cut?” But when Fiorina retreated to recycled response of government waste and an earmarks ban, a frustrated Wallace begged Fiorina seven times to “name one single entitlement expenditure you’re willing to cut” because “that’s where the money is.” Fiorina’s only response? “You’re asking a typical political question”:

WALLACE: You’re campaigning and you just alluded to it, to your record as a tough, bottom line, former business executive. But you want to extend all the Bush tax cuts which would add 4 trillion to the deficit. You say balance the budget by cutting spending. Question, as a bottom line businesswoman, where are you going to find $4 trillion to cut?

FIORINA: …We don’t know how taxpayer money is spent in Washington, D.C, which is why I think we ought to put every agency budget up on the internet for everyone to see, ban earmarks, and we ought to give citizens the opportunity to desginate up to 10% of their federal income tax toward debt reduction. If we did, that we would reduce our debt by $95 billion a year.

WALLACE: Miss Fiorina, the traditional ways that people talk about non-discretionary – I mean discretionary, non-defense spending is only 16% of the budget. You could cut all of that out, all for education and energy, and for police support and government worker support around the country, it wouldn’t be anywhere close to $4 trillion. Where are you going to get that kind of money if you extend all of the Bush era tax cuts. That only adds to the deficit. It doesn’t even deal with the deficit we already have.

FIORINA: Well, of course, first the thing we need to do, to deal with our debt and our deficit is to both cut spending and grow the economy. That’s fundamentally what we have to do. Those tax cuts are central to growing the economy. Indeed, I would argue there are some additional tax cuts we need to make.[...]

WALLACE: Miss Fiorina, let me ask you a specific question because I still haven’t gotten many specifics on how you will cut $4 trillion and more out of the budget. Back when there was talk about a non-partisan, or a bipartisan deficit, debt commission you blasted that idea in January and said we know all the solutions. We don’t need another commission to study it. Now…you tell me specifically what are you going to do to cut the billions, the trillions of dollars in entitlements?

FIORINA: First, I didn’t blast the commission saying we already had solutions. I blasted the commission because I believed it was a feint for tax increases.[...]

WALLACE: But forgive me, Miss Fiorina, where are you going to cut entitlements? What benefits are you going to cut? What eligibility are you doing..

FIORINA: Chris, I have to say, with all due respect, you’re asking a typical political question.[...]

WALLACE: It may be a typical political question but that’s where the money is. The money is in Medicare and Social Security. We have baby-boomers coming. There will be a huge explosion of entitlement explosion and you call it a political question when I ask you to name one single entitlement you are willing to cut.

FIORINA: Chris, I believe to deal with entitlement reform, which we must deal with, we ought to put every possible solution on the table, except we should be very clear we are not going to cut benefits to those nearing retirement or those nearing retirement or those in retirement.[...]

WALLACE: I’m going to try one last time, and if you don’t want to answer it, Miss Fiorina, you don’t have to.

FIORINA: It’s not a question of not wanting to answer it!

WALLACE: Let me ask the question, if I may, please. You’re not willing to put forward a single benefit – I’m not talking about the people 60 or let alone 65, or 70. I’m talking about people under 55. You’re not willing to say there is a single benefit eligibility for Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security that you are willing to say “Yeah, I would cut that?”

FIORINA: What I think we need to do to engage the American people in a conversation about entitlement reform is to have a bipartisan group of people who come together and put every solution on the table, every alternative on the table. Then we ought to engage in a long conversation with the American people so they understand the choices.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/17/fiorina-spending-flummoxed/

[Heracles 417]

This my friend is why I stopped supporting Repubs. Why would I support someone who, for example, says they are Christian but has no problem with throwing poor babies off a bridge. The fiscal hypocrisy is riddled throughout the Repub party. While I still hate liberal f---s, the Dems get the fiscal aspect better than Repubs. I also do not like being conned, which I feel various leaders with hidden libertarian / Tea-party values are doing.

Palin is the master of this dodging legitimate [specific] questions and never venturing beyond the political slogans and rhetoric.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[^_^ 5,021]

This my friend is why I stopped supporting Repubs. Why would I support someone who, for example, says they are Christian but has no problem with throwing poor babies off a bridge. The fiscal hypocrisy is riddled throughout the Repub party. While I still hate liberal f---s, the Dems get the fiscal aspect better than Repubs.

Palin is the master of this dodging legitimate [specific] questions and never venturing beyond the political slogans and rhetoric.

Speaking of Palin, she warned the GOP establishment in a speech yesterday that if they don't toe the Tea Party line, their time will be up. I wonder how the Tea Party Loonies will react when, in 2012, Obamacare has suffered nothing more than the most minor of judicial tweaks. Third party, maybe?

[Heracles 417]

It's bloody common sense, you need to cut spending on unnecessary spending, like the $1 trillion spent every single year on defense and private contractors. Then increase taxes to pay for the debt, like increasing the tax people who earn over $300K pay to 60%.

A federal VAT/GST should have been implemented yesterday.

[mawilson 2,133]

“to extend all, all the Bush tax cuts which would add $4 trillion dollars to the deficit…where are you going to find $4 trillion dollars to cut?”

The Bush tax cuts for the "wealthy" only cost $70 billion per year, or $700 billion over 10 years.

I'm not sure where he got $4 trillion, but I suspect it's the cost of *all* the Bush tax cuts

over 10 years, including those for the middle class.

Since the Democrats want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, where will they

find $3.3 trillion to cut? That's right, they won't - their plan is to run the tab up even more.

[Heracles 417]

Speaking of Palin, she warned the GOP establishment in a speech yesterday that if they don't toe the Tea Party line, their time will be up. I wonder how the Tea Party Loonies will react when, in 2012, Obamacare has suffered nothing more than the most minor of judicial tweaks. Third party, maybe?

Who knows... I would not know where to start to get into their mindset [or lack of].

They're a group who is nothing more than slogans, cliches and an assumptions that what worked in the 80's and 1800s, naturally still works now. Attempting to illustrate that the world has changed since then, let alone demonstrate which approaches are proven and working in 2010, falls on deaf ears. Followed by socialist! Communist! labels.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Heracles 417]

The Bush tax cuts for the "wealthy" only cost $70 billion per year, or $700 billion over 10 years.

I'm not sure where he got $4 trillion, but I suspect it's the cost of *all* the Bush tax cuts

over 10 years, including those for the middle class.

Since the Democrats want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, where will they

find $3.3 trillion to cut? That's right, they won't - their plan is to run the tab up even more.

$3.7 trillion, which came from the the treasury.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[mawilson 2,133]

Plus I'm not even sure why he thinks we need to cut $4 trillion from the budget.

The Bush tax cuts are in effect today, and the deficit is currently $1.3 trillion.

That's how much we need to cut, maybe a little more than $1.3T to actually start

paying off the debt, but certainly not $4 trillion.

[mawilson 2,133]

$3.7 trillion, which came from the the treasury.

Again, $3.7 trillion over 10 years is the cost of making the tax cuts permanent for *everyone*.

Of that, $3 trillion accounts for the cost of extending them for the vast majority of Americans,

and the remaining $700 billion is the cost of extending them permanently for the high-income earners.

Edited October 20, 2010 by mawilson

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This is what I can't wait to see: the GOP being tasked to legislate and deliver on their agenda. That agenda being cut taxes, stop the deficit and pay down the debt. Mind you, the GOP has not ever delivered on the latter two but actually managed to always make matters worse on that end. I look forward to them pretending to try and square that circle.

[Heracles 417]

Plus I'm not even sure why he thinks we need to cut $4 trillion from the budget.

The Bush tax cuts are in effect today, and the deficit is currently $1.3 trillion.

That's how much we need to cut, maybe a little more than $1.3T to actually start

paying off the debt, but certainly not $4 trillion.

Lets look at it another way, a personal way. Lets assume you have debt right. Can you pay down your debt, let alone faster, by reducing your income? No, you need to increase your income.

Naturally, in combination to increasing your income, you need to stop all unnecessary spending. So increase income while reducing expenses, on things like eating out. The equivalent being closing down bases in Europe and Asia. Stop paying private contractors to piss-fart around and be paid six to seven figure salaries for doing so.

Dems what to increase tax [income] to pay for this debt. This is a no-brainer and is something conservatives in the UK, Aus, have implemented themselves. It's why Australia had a federal budget surplus for eight straight years. Further aided by the implementation of the highly successful federal GST/VAT; which most advanced economies but the United States now use.

While more income is being generated, wastage then needs to be cut back. Wastage as aforementioned above. That thought that cutting income [tax revenue] will pay off debt is just lunacy - idiocy actually. What does every second repub tell someone in debt to do, increase income by getting a third job. Hypocritical and ironic.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[The_Dude 1,142]

Plus I'm not even sure why he thinks we need to cut $4 trillion from the budget.

The Bush tax cuts are in effect today, and the deficit is currently $1.3 trillion.

That's how much we need to cut, maybe a little more than $1.3T to actually start

paying off the debt, but certainly not $4 trillion.

1.3 Trillion? Easy. Just double down the taxes on those who make the highest 2%, and if they come up short, just squeeze the immigrants who didn't qualify for investor visa's even harder

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Plus I'm not even sure why he thinks we need to cut $4 trillion from the budget. The Bush tax cuts are in effect today, and the deficit is currently $1.3 trillion. That's how much we need to cut, maybe a little more than $1.3T to actually start paying off the debt, but certainly not $4 trillion.

The current CBO deficit projections work on exisiting law. That existing law is for those tax cuts to expire at the end of the year. Any extension of any part of these tax cuts beyond 2010 will blow a new hole into the already bad projections. The $4 trillion is the correct figure to work off of.

[Heracles 417]

1.3 Trillion? Easy. Just double down the taxes on those who make the highest 2%, and if they come up short, just squeeze the immigrants who didn't qualify for investor visa's even harder

Agreed, anyone earning over $300K, should pay a 60% tax rate, unless they invest back into America. It might be too much to ask of them to return to the 60s rate of 90%.

Therefore, 98.5% of Americans will not be impacted by this.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Agreed, anyone earning over $300K, should pay a 60% tax rate, unless they invest back into America. It might be too much to ask of them to return to the 60s rate of 90%.

Therefore, 98.5% of Americans will not be impacted by this.

But of course they will be impacted. The good rich won't have enough left to let trickle down. [/tea party idiocy]