Obama and Taxes: Liar-in-Chief Keeps Telling Orwellian Big Lie on Taxes

It has become a "1984" (George Orwell) style Big Lie for Obama, leftist Democrats and leftist media to say that the "tax burden" on "the rich" is at a post-World War II low--lower than under Ronald Reagan. On its surfce, this is a LIE (since the upper bracket tax rate is obviously, and significantnly, higher now than after the Reagan tax cuts (and tax simplification). Beneath the surface, it is still a LIE. You will remember what an Orwellian Big LIie is: It is an outraeous, obvious lie which continuous propaganda and continous repetiton is supposed to make people accept as the "truth".


Since the top tax bracket is HIGHER now than under Reagan, what justification is there for President Obama (in his role as Liar-in-Chief) to keep saying that the "tax burden" on "the rich" is significantly LESS now than under Ronald Reagan? No, there is no real "justification" for Obama's lie. It even lies about lthe entire basis of the Reagan revolution, which had nothing to do with a mythical "tax burden" on the mythical "rich",. Reagan's genius was to realize that high TAX RATES did NOT mean more revenue (supposedly the goal, but not really the goal of leftists--or not the only goal). Reagan's goal was NOT to reduce the "tax burden" on the rich, but to encourage economic growth and tax fairness by simple, fair tax RATES that removed the incentive for people to base their actiions on the tax system instead of economic reality. However, even Obama SOMETIMES has to have an asserted "justification" for what he says. What is the "justification" for this Big Lie--the basis of the repetitive propaganda.


Well, leftist Democrats made it up. There is NO such thing as a STATISTIC as to the "tax burden" on "the rich". That "statistic" does not exist, just as there never has been a statistic as to "jobs saved". Obama and leftist Democrats made that up too. There is not even a DEFINTION as to either "tax burden" or "the rich". What is ture is both that SPENINDG is at a post-World War II high (as a percentage of GDP), and income tax REVENUES are at a post-World War II low (as a percentage of GDP).


You can see why this has created a DEBT and DEFICIT problem. Our Liar-in-Chief keeps saying that we have to "live within our means, like normal familites", and keeps making it obvious that he LIES when he says that (that is, lies when he says he considers that important). If your revenue goes way down, you can't vastly INCREASE your spending, over YEARS, with no end in sight, without creating a fiscal crisis. Yet, that is exactly what we did--gettting little economic "improvement" for it--resulting in the predictable debt crisis we now have. But if tax revenues, as a percentage of GDP, have gone down, does that not mean that the "tax burden" (if not necessarily on "the rich") has gone down on "the people" in general?


No. This is a lie--an obviously incorrect way of looking at it. That is why Reagan was a genius. He looked at it correctly. There is no such thing as the "tax burden on the people in general". There are only INDIVIDUALS, and the way TAX RATES affect their conduct. Some individuals will end up paying HIGH tax rates. Other individuals (smarter?--maybe) will figure out ways to EVADE high tax rates--both legally and illegally. Plus, the recession puts pressure on people to earn money other than with wage-earning, traditioinal jobs with W-2 tax withholding. In other words, an UNDERGROUND ECONOMY becomes more important. Federal government spending, as a perdcentage of GDP, is a REAL number (in other words, has significance). But income tax revenues, as a percentage of GDP, is a MISLEADING number. The GDP number has nothing to do with the "tax burden" on law abiding citizens, because there is no ACCURATE way of determining how much of the GDP number is even lawfully REPORTED as revenue for tax purposes. That has nothing to do with the "tax burden" on LAWFUL citizens--the kind who create jobs and engage in lawful jobs with W-2 withholding. As stated above, to talk about the "tax burden" on "people in general" OR "the rich in general" is a LIE--especially when you are using this kind of propaganda (meaningless "statistics") to support the Big Lie.


Now there IS a group--misleading as it is to lulmp people in groups--whoase "tax burden" has gone DOWN since Reagan. That is the LOWER INCOME people. We have not only created a LOWER 10% rate at the very bottom of the income scale, but we keep DROPPING people off of the income tax roles at the bottom of the income scale. Therefore, some 40% of wage earners/inco pay NO income tax at all. The lower 50% in income pay no more than 3% of the income taxes. In contrast, the top 10% in income pay 40-50% of the income taxes, meaning "the rich" pay much MORE than their share. You can see that the MIDDLE 40-50% pay about 50% of the income taxes--a much lesser level than "the rich", although a much bigger share than "the poor". You can ssee another reason here that TAX REVENUES would be down: 50% of the country is paying almost no income tax. 10% of the country is bearing "the burden" of almost half of the income taxes.


Okay, say that Obama is using some MADE UP statistic (the mainstream media being uninterested in a cCRITICAL examinatiion of this Big Lie) that actually purports to examine the percentage of taxes paid by "the rich" (using a percentage of GDP as the measure), now as compared with the end of the Reagan years. I have already explained to you how that is a LIE, because there is no way to know what is in the GDP numbers (what tax EVASION--including illegal tax evasion--is concealed in the GDP number. But you should be able to see how IMPOSSIBLE it is to come up with an ACCURATE statement of the "tax burden" on "the rich", unless you use TAX RATES. Certainly, you can't just take the income taxes paid by people earning over $200,000 per year, because there may be FEWER of those people now (in percentage terms, due to the recessioin). Inn fact, the recession may distorth this supposed measur of the "tax burden" on "the rich" in many ways. In fact, probably the best measure of the "tax burden" (mythical) on "the rich" (mythical), is the percentage of income tax revenue bein actually PAID by "the rich" As stated, that number has gone UP.


Okya, you say (reeling, but game, fool that your are), the numbers are evey difficulut to compare. But isn't it possible that "experts" have done a STUDY on the income taxes paid by high income beople as a percentage of GROSS INCOME (not GDP), and have determined that the "real" "tax burden" on "the rich" has fallen to a new low because of tax breaks that many of them are able to use? That would be quite a "study", since the data does not really exist. You have various terms here that are reported on tax returns (maybe), and may or may not be collated accurately in government figures. You have "gross income". Then you have "adjusted gorss income"--after deductions Congress has approved, including the mortgage/housing deduction which is the only thing now standing in the way of a TOTAL housing collapse. And you can't use gross dollars. As stated, if you end up comparing whatever number byou get with GDP, you are engaged in a LIE. No, it is impossible to imagine an ACCURATE measure of the "tax burden" on "the rich", apart fromm the tax RATE. Yes, part of the Reagan genius was realizing that people don't actually PAY the official tax "rate", but that does not mean there is a way to accurately MEASURE the "real" tax rate.


But say I am wrong (hard as that is to believe, as I am never wrong). Say that "experts" have "accuratelyl" figured what "the rich", AS A GROUP, are really paying in income taxes as a percentage of their "real" income? If you can even read that sentence and not laugh at how ridiculous it is, you have more tolerance for the ridiculous than I have. But let us assume it anyway. Let us assume that "the rich" (AS A GROUP) are paying only 15% of their "real' income now, while they paid 18% under Reagan (lol). So what? What does that MEAN (even if true). There is NO PERSON out there named "The Rich". Many of "the rich" are paying basically the full tax RATE. My lawyer daughters, for example, are pretty much paying the full tax rate (though not "rich", my daughters being in the high tax bracket). Thus, the "tax burden" on SOME of "the rich" is HIGH, while others may have figured out how to EVADE taxes by USING tax breaks provided by Congress (often as signed by President Obama, or voted for as a member of Congress). In other words, IF there s actaully a basis for saying that high income people, "in general", are not paying what they should be paying i in income taxes, it does NOT mean that the "tax burden" on "the rich" in general is LOW. It merely means that the tax system is UNFAIR, because Congress and the President have USED the tax system to encourage the conduct they want encouraged. Those people whose conduct conforms to what CONGRESS wants, win. Others LOSE, as our government determines winners and loseers, and people adjust their conduct to the TAX CODE. That is exactly what Reagan tried to prevent, with SIMPLE, low rates that people could rely upon. Thank you, Obama, you have proven Regan's point (albeit with; made-up statistics).


Doubt me? Oh, you can't doubt this one. You see it all around you. What about all of those Obama "investments" in "alternative energy"? Don't those mainly benefit "the rich"? Sure they do. That is, they benefit those of the rich whose CONDUCT fits what Obama wants it to be (or who have figured out how to "game" the system without really adding to "alternative energy" at all). Obama' sDebt Commission came up with all kinds of "tax expenditures"--I ahve this feeling they even left out things like "alternative energy". The Debt Commission recommended simplifying the tax system by eliminating thses special "tax breaks", and LOWERING the tax RATES. President Obama has FAILED to adopt the recommendations of his own Commission--the one he appointed with great fanfare. No, Repubicans have not jumped on board totally either, but they have shown more inclination to at least look in that direction (including reforming "entitlements"). Obama, and leftist Democrats, are obsessed with TAX RATES (even as Obama is saying that people don't actually pay the tax rates), and DISFAVORED "tax breaks". Obama and leftist Democrats faovr INCREASING FAVORED TAX BREAKS as part of their philosophy that the government should dominate people's lives and decisions.


Whyy is our "Liar-in-Chief" repeating tis Big Lie about the "tax burden" on "the rich"? It is to justify raising the TAX RATE on "the rich". Yet, at best, what Obama is aying about the "tax brden" only has relevance to the UNFAIRNESS of the Tax Code. You should see just how much of a Big Lie the left is trying to push on us, with mainstream media help. Obama is making an argument which, at besst, suggests that we should REFORM the Tax Code. Instead, he is using it as a "justification" for increasing the TAX RATE that he, himself, is saying is irrelevant. In fact, it will INCREASE the UNFAIRNESS, as some people have to pay the high tax rate while others--the ones the goevernment, especailly Obama, faovr--are able to EVADE the high tax rate. The satistics are a lie. The principle is ound, because it is the Reagan principle. People AVOID high tax rates. They do not pay them. Higher tax rates often do not even reult in hiigher tax revenue, and can even result in lower tax revenue (especailly over time). Obama and the left are making Regan's case, and don't even seem to realize it. You can't be sure they don't realize it, because they may be relying on the Big Lie to convince the public that black is white.


What about companies like GE (an affirmatively evil compnay), which made billions last yeear without paying any income taxes? Well, it shows how statistics can be misleading, since GE lost money the previous year. But GE is just another example of ECONOMIC FASCISM ("parnership" between Big Business and Big Government to run people's lives--"socialims with a capitalist veneer"). The CEO of GE is a BUDDY of Obama (along with so many other big business people). The GE CEO was appointed by Obama as the head of Obama's "Council on Economic Competitiveness", or some such thing. Again, GE has figured out how to "game" the system (including getting bailed out), as GE did in avoiding restrictins on doing business with our ENEMY , Iran. But Obama is not proposing to prohibit his BUDDIES from "gaming" the system. Rather, he gives waivers on ObamaCare, and otherwise aids and abets such gaming of the system by his BUDDIES (and faovred groups and industries).; What Obama does is SELECTIVELY attack and villify certain businesses, and target selected tax "breaks" for the disfavored (while leaving an unfair tax code). Ethanol? Obama is for you. Wnat to build a $100 million dollar "wind farm"? Obama will SHOWER you with money. No, I don't faovr tax breaks for oil companies. But neither do I faovr tax breaks for "alternative energy". ALL such special tax breaks DISTORT the market, and disguise the real costs.


That is the real Big Lie involved in Obama repeating this lie about the "tax burden" being less now on "the rich" than under Reagan. The Big Lie (biggest of the lies) is that UNFAIRNESS to INDIVIDUALS in okay, so long as you can villify a GROUP (not even a real group, but a statistical "group" made up for purposes of the progaganda). This is really evil stuff, and the mainstream media is complicit in it. Worse, Repubicans seem unwilling to point out these Big Lies.


When President Obama says something that is simply NOT TURE, Repubicans need to say so. If lthey continuye not to say so, and DEFEND what they say, then they do not deserve to win anything. To many Republican politicins, of course, want government to control your life. They just want it done their way, with them in control.


Sad bottom line: Most politicians are sociopathic liars; but we have a President who is the worst sociopathic liar I have ever seen. He wll say absolutely anything that sounds good, without at all caring whether it is even close to the turth, or caring whether he said the oposite yesterday. Yes, this is true of the left in general. But we have a President how has taken it to a new level, relying on a politically partisan mainstream media to aid, abet and cover for him.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).


P.P.S. Yes, the MAIN defect of the President's Debt Commission was their recommendation to eliminate the mortgage deduction. Yes, I am aware of the theoretical attraction of this idea. WHY should home owners be favored over renters (for example). Actaully, there are reasons, but are they good enough? I don't know. I am open to the THEORETICAL idea. In practice, however, this is the absolutely WRONG time to talk about eliminating the mortgage deductin, even if you don't have it take place until sometime in the futre (a particular cowardice that is really beginning to bother me--tis being the SHAM Obama intends to rly upon for a SHAM deal with the Republicans on debt reduction). The housing industry is IN TROUBLE> Any present tinkering with the mortgage deduction,--even for the future--will KILL the housing industry for probably dECADES. I am amazed the Debt Commission was so tone deaf on this one, and it does make you wonder about their other recommendations. Still, I hink eliminating special taqx "breaks"--including hose pet ones of President Obama--is a fundamentally sound idea, if we can somehow get to the pont of implemeninting it. Bottom line: You do NOT want people making decisions based on the Tax Code. You want people making decisions based on economic realiy. Obama, by the way, has MESSED UP the housing industry with fAILED progaram after failed lprogram, and is STILL repeating the same mistake (the Einstein definitioin of insanity). The latest idea is to use that "blank check" TARP money (bank bailout money) to und a REDUCTION IN PRINCIPAL for "qualified" home owners. The Obama Administraton is simply determined to kill off the housing industry, and they are doing a damn good job of it.