PDA

View Full Version : Rick Perry on Chris Wallace's Sunday show



Soflasnapper
10-31-2011, 10:33 AM
As no fan of Perry's, still I was impressed by his communication skills in the interview he sat for on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.

Far from being halting in his phrasing and answers, he was direct and clear. On that performance, I'd assume he was a better-than-average politician in terms of public presentation, and would never have guessed he'd perform so badly in debates.

It's true the format allowed for a longer response than the debates do, and Wallace did not interrupt him much, even as he did press him after the lengthier answer was allowed when he thought the question hadn't been exactly answered.

Wallace continues to impress me as someone who will ask the tough questions or bring up the inconvenient facts, at least to those who are unfavored by the GOP establishment (e.g., Perry, for one of many).

Here's an astounding fact he confronted Perry with. He quoted studies of the Perry tax plan, that used the assumption that people will take either the status quo tax rates or his new optional rate based on which allows them to pay the least in income taxes (a fair assumption), and said the conclusion was that allowing such an option would reduce federal revenues $4.5 trillion dollars over 6 years from its current baseline.

Perry wasn't bothered at all by that, and said he'd make up the difference by cutting spending, which would require $700 billion a year in spending cuts ($700 b x 6 years = $4.2 trillion). However, THAT'S required just to make up the difference in the red ink FROM BASELINE that Perry's plan causes, without beginning to touch the current baseline deficits and debt increases therefrom.

So although Perry presented this well, very forthwith, unapologetic and strong, basically even Wallace was telling him it's a whacked proposal.

Similarly on Perry's job promise, that he'll create 2.5 million new jobs. Wallace pointed out that it was a de minimus promise, promising a very anemic rate of growth that wouldn't prevent the UE rate from INCREASING just from population growth, and that even the hated economic failure president Carter saw over 10 million jobs created in his 4 years. (Go, Chris!)

Gayle in MD
11-01-2011, 12:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As no fan of Perry's, still I was impressed by his communication skills in the interview he sat for on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.

Far from being halting in his phrasing and answers, he was direct and clear. On that performance, I'd assume he was a better-than-average politician in terms of public presentation, and would never have guessed he'd perform so badly in debates.

It's true the format allowed for a longer response than the debates do, and Wallace did not interrupt him much, even as he did press him after the lengthier answer was allowed when he thought the question hadn't been exactly answered.

Wallace continues to impress me as someone who will ask the tough questions or bring up the inconvenient facts, at least to those who are unfavored by the GOP establishment (e.g., Perry, for one of many).

Here's an astounding fact he confronted Perry with. He quoted studies of the Perry tax plan, that used the assumption that people will take either the status quo tax rates or his new optional rate based on which allows them to pay the least in income taxes (a fair assumption), and said the conclusion was that allowing such an option would reduce federal revenues $4.5 trillion dollars over 6 years from its current baseline.

Perry wasn't bothered at all by that, and said he'd make up the difference by cutting spending, which would require $700 billion a year in spending cuts ($700 b x 6 years = $4.2 trillion). However, THAT'S required just to make up the difference in the red ink FROM BASELINE that Perry's plan causes, without beginning to touch the current baseline deficits and debt increases therefrom.

So although Perry presented this well, very forthwith, unapologetic and strong, basically even Wallace was telling him it's a whacked proposal.

Similarly on Perry's job promise, that he'll create 2.5 million new jobs. Wallace pointed out that it was a de minimus promise, promising a very anemic rate of growth that wouldn't prevent the UE rate from INCREASING just from population growth, and that even the hated economic failure president Carter saw over 10 million jobs created in his 4 years. (Go, Chris!)



</div></div>

Perry is a whacko!
Cain, another Whacko!
Romney? No credibility, at all.
None of their numbers add up...Bachmann? Two hundred and fifty thousand her family took in farm subsidies, while she's out there presenting herself as a small government conservative?

Colossal hypocrites, all of them.

It's going to take a lot more than a decent response, on a friendly network, without any challenges, to impress me, when it comes to these hypocritical porking Repiglican Liars...

Sorry, don't mean to sound difficult, but truly, this bunch of hypocrites takes the cake! They're so damn ignorant, it's hard to listen to any of them, including Ron Paul, who is another hypocritical pork barrelling liar, once you look at his porking history.

Repigs are a total joke!

We need an oink meter... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
G.

Qtec
11-01-2011, 02:02 AM
So basically he presented his crap quite well but its still crap!

Q

Gayle in MD
11-01-2011, 07:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So basically he presented his crap quite well but its still crap!

Q

</div></div>

Precisely! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Soflasnapper
11-01-2011, 08:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So basically he presented his crap quite well but its still crap!

Q

</div></div>

That's about right. No worse than B to B+ on delivery (quite good), but F on content.

I just cannot get my head around the notion that the deficit is all-important, grave, a must-address however painful cuts may be, and these guys who claim this all want to make it twice as large or worse, making the necessary painful cuts twice as large as the draconian cuts that would be required.

It's so difficult that the more sensible but still horrible plans like Paul Ryan's don't even claim to achieve a balanced budget before 2030 or so.

Qtec
11-01-2011, 08:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just cannot get my head around the notion that the deficit is all-important, </div></div>

Its not. This is a diversion.

What I see is a GOP who doesn't care about the millions who are hurting because of the Wall St rip off.
When GW was Pres, I don't remember them bringing Govt to a halt over spending, as he doubled the Nat Debt!!

The plain truth is that they want Obama to fail, and if that means the country fails too, then so be it.

They are now so far gone they are voting against things they previously supported, just because it Obama bringing them.

Q

Gayle in MD
11-01-2011, 12:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just cannot get my head around the notion that the deficit is all-important, </div></div>

Its not. This is a diversion.

What I see is a GOP who doesn't care about the millions who are hurting because of the Wall St rip off.
When GW was Pres, I don't remember them bringing Govt to a halt over spending, as he doubled the Nat Debt!!

The plain truth is that they want Obama to fail, and if that means the country fails too, then so be it.

They are now so far gone they are voting against things they previously supported, just because it Obama bringing them.

Q </div></div>

CROOKS AND LIARS...