Bill O'Reilly and Charles Krauthammer discuss Rand's tax plan (video added)

[rich34]

It didn't say Rand was going to be on there, but should be interesting nonetheless.



update:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvuJVg62pMg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvuJVg62pMg

[Warlord]

can someone tube this please?

[CaptUSA]

Not expecting much here, but I am surprised they're giving it any attention at all.

If this were Ron's plan, it would be completely ignored.

Expect O'Really to scare people about it and then flippantly end the segment with, "well, we'll see how this turns out."

[jaymur]

From what I've heard, Krauthammer was a doctor and seems to be a FoxNews resource for foreign affairs. I wonder what he knows about the tax code. Maybe he'll agree with it.


Not expecting much here, but I am surprised they're giving it any attention at all.

If this were Ron's plan, it would be completely ignored.

Expect O'Really to scare people about it and then flippantly end the segment with, "well, we'll see how this turns out."

[jct74]

tube



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvuJVg62pMg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvuJVg62pMg

[tangent4ronpaul]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjYmrNGwX0U

it's quick, but he says gvmt needs to be involved in education, so I guess Dept of Edu is going to stay?
he also seems to want to kill the USPS.

-t

[Crashland]

I think Krauthammer is right in the sense that a two-tiered tax is more realistic and more likely to be popular than Rand's flat tax as it stands now. I would easily compromise with blowing up the code, putting in 15% over $50000, 25% over $250000, and reduce or remove the mortgage deduction. Rand's plan is fine for the GOP nomination, but for the general it could use some amending.

[Brian4Liberty]

Well, in a debate of ideas, Krauthammer is clearly going to beat that dimwit O'Really.

I agree with Krauthammer about the mortgage deduction. Or should I say he agrees with me? He made O'Really look pretty bad on that.


Mortgage? Banking interests already have an exemption? This is why flat and simple always devolves into what we have today. More and more exceptions for powerful special interests.

And over at the New York Times, they are already screaming that they need more deductions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/upshot/rand-paul-and-the-vat-that-dare-not-speak-its-name.html

Is Krauthammer reading the forum? ;)

[Brett85]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjYmrNGwX0U

it's quick, but he says gvmt needs to be involved in education, so I guess Dept of Edu is going to stay?

No, he didn't say anything at all about supporting federal involvement in education. He just said that education is something the government should be involved in, but he's made it clear in the past that he views education as being a state and local issue.

[Sola_Fide]

Who can watch these two morons?

[Rudeman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjYmrNGwX0U

it's quick, but he says gvmt needs to be involved in education, so I guess Dept of Edu is going to stay?
he also seems to want to kill the USPS.

-t

Don't remember which interview it was in but he mentioned that the Dept of Edu would be something he would cut to reduce spending.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Yeah, Rand's plan was gaining too much traction, so they had to throw some cold water on it by implying it's not "realistic" and poking holes in the details. :rolleyes: Any plan a president puts forward is a starting point for negotiation. No one expects it to pass in its initial form.

[Crashland]

Yeah, Rand's plan was gaining too much traction, so they had to throw some cold water on it by implying it's not "realistic" and poking holes in the details. :rolleyes: Any plan a president puts forward is a starting point for negotiation. No one expects it to pass in its initial form.

I don't really expect journalists and commentators not to throw cold water on a plan that truly *isn't* realistic and has openings for criticism in the details, even if no one expects it to pass in its initial form. It's exactly what they should do. But they will pretty much all be attacking from the left which is what Rand wants.

[Brett85]

A 19% flat tax like O'Reilly wants would be far worse than what we have now. That would basically amount to a massive tax increase on the vast majority of Americans. Rand's plan is great as it simplifies the tax code and cuts taxes for everyone.

[Schifference]

With current interest rates the mortgage deduction is worth less than ever before.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

But they will pretty much all be attacking from the left which is what Rand wants.Typical O'Reilly viewers and other low-info Republican voters don't realize which direction the attacks are coming from. All they know is Bill and Krauthammer don't like it, so it must be bad. You give these people too much credit.

[timosman]

With current interest rates the mortgage deduction is worth less than ever before.

How so ? It still inflates housing by the tax writeoff. Eliminating it would make half the homeowners go under water again.

Dear homeowner,

we are sorry but we had no choice but to **** you.
We hope it does not affect the overall experience in the slave camp.

yours truly,

Fed

[Brett85]

Typical O'Reilly viewers and other low-info Republican voters don't realize which direction the attacks are coming from. All they know is Bill and Krauthammer don't like it, so it must be bad. You give these people too much credit.

Did you watch the interview? O'Reilly and Krauthammer were actually pretty fair to Rand for once.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Did you watch the interview? O'Reilly and Krauthammer were actually pretty fair to Rand for once.Of course I watched it. They smeared him on foreign policy right at the beginning. How was that fair?

[orenbus]

Interestingly on the Fox News blog the article is entitled: "O'Reilly Agrees with Rand Paul: 'America Needs a Flat Tax'"

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/22/bill-oreilly-talking-points-memo-rand-paul-right-america-needs-flat-tax

[timosman]

Of course I watched it. They smeared him on foreign policy right at the beginning. How was that fair?

How people can be so blind and not see it ? This was not endorsement. This was a hit piece made to look like a neutral story.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

How people can be so blind and not see it ? This was not endorsement. This was a hit piece made to look like a neutral story.Yep. O'Reilly implied this plan was some kind of desperate ploy because he was "slipping in the polls".

[timosman]

Yep. O'Reilly implied this plan was some kind of desperate ploy because he was "slipping in the polls".

Yup, they are fucking with him already. He needs to do something about it. He can't let them get away with this like his father did. One clever video could do them in. Just make sure Jessie is not involved.

[chronicaust]

Considering it's Bill O'Reilly, I think this is night and day with the way he treated Ron. I think most Republicans will watch and think "It's a good plan, not perfect, but I would definitely support something like this." That being said, the fact they mentioned Rand "slipping in the polls due to his controversial foreign policy" was pretty uncalled for. It's not like he's lost much support. Personally, I think Rand needs some new talking points for tv. I feel like he says the same things over and over. I know it's because he wants to seem clear and concise. I think that's why he's starting to push the idea he is going to "shake things up" in the debates.

[Rudeman]

Well you kind of need to look at it from a Bill O'Reilly scale, it could have been a lot worse. I mean a Bill and Krauthammer combo usually spells non-stop trashing of a Paul. So the fact that they both agreed that a flat tax was the way to go and agreed with scraping the current tax code was a positive and they also think it's viable enough to be the Republican position (with a few difference like O'Reilly with a higher rate and Krauthammer wanting to abolish the mortgage deduction).


So was it 100% positive? No, but it wasn't bad for a piece on the Bill O'Reilly show. It would be akin to Rubin not writing an outright hit-piece on Rand, while it probably wouldn't be a good article, it still would be a positive compared to what she normally writes.

[timosman]

Considering it's Bill O'Reilly, I think this is night and day with the way he treated Ron. I think most Republicans will watch and think "It's a good plan, not perfect, but I would definitely support something like this." That being said, the fact they mentioned Rand "slipping in the polls due to his controversial foreign policy" was pretty uncalled for. It's not like he's lost much support. Personally, I think Rand needs some new talking points for tv. I feel like he says the same things over and over. I know it's because he wants to seem clear and concise. I think that's why he's starting to push the idea he is going to "shake things up" in the debates.

Hmm, maybe ....

[chronicaust]

People do not think. The negative signals they get in this segment will be imprinted in their empty skulls. Rand Paul ? Aaaaa... that guy .... noooo... he did not seem kosher ....

You do realize your negativity has a detrimental impact on the vibe of these forums, don't you? You're killing the mood.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Well you kind of need to look at it from a Bill O'Reilly scale, it could have been a lot worse. I mean a Bill and Krauthammer combo usually spells non-stop trashing of a Paul. So the fact that they both agreed that a flat tax was the way to go and agreed with scraping the current tax code was a positive and they also think it's viable enough to be the Republican position (with a few difference like O'Reilly with a higher rate and Krauthammer wanting to abolish the mortgage deduction).


So was it 100% positive? No, but it wasn't bad for a piece on the Bill O'Reilly show. It would be akin to Rubin not writing an outright hit-piece on Rand, while it probably wouldn't be a good article, it still would be a positive compared to what she normally writes.They had to be more subtle in their criticism, since this is something popular among Republicans. They would've set off alarms if they blatantly shot down a tax reform plan.

Also, note the clever message behind the "platform" point: "this is a good idea for the real GOP candidates to steal."

[Rudeman]

They had to be more subtle in their criticism, since this is something popular among Republicans. They would've set off alarms if they blatantly shot down a tax reform plan.

Also, note the clever message behind the "platform" point: "this is a good idea for the real GOP candidates to steal."

Yes I know, but consider the source. I never expect a positive piece from Bill O'Reilly's show, so the fact that he even bothered to discuss it and more than just a footnote, was a positive. Even if it wasn't entirely positive his audience was exposed to Rand's plan (when maybe they haven't heard it before) and both of them did agree with aspects of it.

[randomname]

O'Reilly also read from the prompter: "Rand Paul wants to get rid of the payroll tax, which funds social security and medicare" (he walked that back later).

Expecting to hear that bit of misinformation more often...

[NaturalMystic]

Don't take the bait Rand, he needs you to come on the show

[Brett85]

Of course I watched it. They smeared him on foreign policy right at the beginning. How was that fair?

I said "pretty fair," compared to how they normally treat him. It certainly wasn't a total hit piece like people were claiming it was going to be.