Yes, I saw parts of President Obama's press conference (all I could stannd), and heard about other parts. One of the parts I heard was this outrageous lie that Obama has repeated time and aagin:
"The rich are paying less taxes now than they have ever paid."
This was a more blatant, intentional lie than Michele Bachman has ever told. And Obama even made it clear he was intending to refer to ALL of the "rich"--referencing "hdege fund managers", CEOs, Barack Obama and Harry Reid.
Hacker Boy (hacking into this disgraceful blog again): "No, Obama idd not reference himself or Hrry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or any other rich Democrat. That is just Skip's sarcasm."
We did not even have an income tax until 1913, or thereabouts. Obviously, Obama was making a very deliberate lie, intended to be an overstatemet that Obama thinks sounds good. No, the "rich" are not paying a lower percentage of total income taxes now, either. The top 5% of income earners are paying towards 50% of the total income taxes. The bottom 40% of income are paying NO income tax. The bottom 50% are paying maybe 3% of the total income taxes. It should actually disturb you that so few people are bearing most of the tax burden for everyone else. It makes Ayn Rand seem propetic, when she suggested that the parasit majority was going to make SLAVES of the exceptionally talented (eventually , of course, leading the exceptionally talented to rebel). Now Ayn Rand (believe it or not) is too extreme for me, but it is amazing how "Atlas Shrugged" seems to be coming true. Even Ayn Rand is said to have thought she was exaggerating. I digress, as this article is about the OBVIOUS lie told by Obama.
Where are the "fact checkers" when you need them? Forget it. I know where they are. They are checking every word Michele Bachmann has said, to see if they can catch her in some minor untruth. In the meantime, our Liar-in-Chief is telling BLATANT lie, intentionally, and he is doing it based on left wing propaganda (as Michele Bachmann is alleged to sometimes use questionable sources for some things she has said). But Obama keeps rEPEATING the same lie, because the media won't call him on it. Meanwhile, poor Bachmann gets called on every minor factual mistake she has ever made. And Fox is srtill out theere (boycott Fox News) suggesting that this is so pervasive and UNFAIR (while Fox participates in the unfairness) that it makees it hard for Bachmann to win. Yep. Fox is suggeting you fight evil by joining it.
If you read this blog, this partrticular lie is not new to you. I wwote an article about it more than a month ago. Fox (Cavuto) just discvoered this LIE (by Obama) TODAY. Yes, they are incompetent, in addition to being fellow travellers in evil. And Fox (Cavuto) still got it WRONG. What Cavuto suggested was the Obama "mispoke", or maye deliberately overstated, and was really referring to capital gain tax rates (which may be as low as they have been since World War II). This is not correct, and this blog have you the correct story. For months, the LEFT has been circulating this propaganda that the "reich", or people in general (it vaires from leftist to leftist), are paying less income taxes now than at any time since World War II. As stated, that is a transparent LIE, because there is no such person known as the "rich", and tax RATES are higher now than under either President Reagan or the first President Bush. How can the left, and Obama, tell an obvious lie like this? Sleight of hand, and deliberate glossing over of talking about "the rich" as if he or she were a single person. Income taxes, as a percentage of GDP, AS COLLECTED, or a lesser percentage now than at tany time since about World War II. However, that is mainly because so many lower income people are paying NO income tax at all. Now what the left has done is extrapolage from this "percentage of GDP data, AND try to GUESS at some kind of "rfeal" tax rate for the "rich", after figuring in "captial gains", and all of the other tax "breaks" that the "rich" get. Problem: the "rich" donot ALL get tax "breaks". For example, Obama has given his FAVORED "rich" people all kinds of tax, and other "breaks" including waivers from ObamaCare and "green" tax credits". It is simply an outrageous lie to say that "the rich" are paying less in taxes now than ever ("ever" being since World War II). You simply can't make that overgeneralization. Now you could say, as Obama does say (without qualifying his lie) that we have too many special tax "breaks' in our tax code. But many of those tax 'brakes" are OBAMA FAVORED. That meanns all of these "green" tax credits, educational tax credits, and tax credits for almost anything else a good Democrat might want to favor. This is not a matter of "the rich" (the central Obama lie), but a matter of CONGRESS choosing winners and losers. Meanwhile, the "rich" pay an ever increasing share of the income taxes. No one ever talks, by the way, about the "rich" who have CAPITAL LOSSES (which they can't even fullly take off of their income tax, being limited to $3,000 a year)?
No. This is a blatant LIE--whether from Obama or his far left "sources". You simply cannot say that "the rich" are paing less taxes now than under Ronad Reagan (which I have seen directly said from left wing sources). SOME of the "rich" may be paying less, because of their ability to manipulate a tax system that Obama wants to further COMPLICATE. Most of the "rich" did not pay that 90% top tax rate in effectg until the JFK tax cuts. All high tax rates do is make tax avoidance more universal . It is funny. Obama is sugesting that a non-existent statistic (the overall percentage of their total income that the "rich" pay in taxes) be used to justify a higher tax RATE, at the same time Obama is saying that "the rich" DO NOT PAY the nominal taxrate. Further, at the same time Obama is suggesting MORE complication of the tax code with further TAX CREDITS in the areas Obama wants to favor.
To me, the Obama press conference was a particularly weak one. Obama came across as a petualnt child (despite the AP/Yahoo--boyctoo Yahoo, too--headlines about Obama lecturng the Congress and the GOP). While Obama was purporting to tell Congresss and the GOP to "get it done" (Ap/Yahoo headline), EVERYONE could see that Obama was making it HARDER to "get it done', with his class warfare language and lies. And he gave strange answers. His answer on the NLRB/Boeing/South Carolina plant especailly wandered all over the map, to the point that Obala seemed totally to lose himself. He ended up saying (sor of, and I could never make this up): "Copanies have to follow the law. The NLRB is an independent board, and I can't really comment. But we are better off moving jobs withing the United States--like to Sought Carolina?--rather than having them move overseas. What a mess I have lput myself in (no, before Hacker Boy jumps, in, he did not really say that). Wat really need to be done is that labor and management need to WORK TOGETHER to solve these things, rather than against one anotehr." I kid you not. That last sentence is NOT Skip sarcasm. That is where Obama ended up. "Can't we all just get along?" (Rodney King). And who, exactly is it who is ecnouraging labor to pick these UNPRESCENDENTED fights with "management"? Right. It is OBMA'S ADMINISTRATION, including the people he appinted to the NLRB (including a "recess appointment" to avoid scrutiny by Congress).
Again Michele Bachmann could NEVER be THIS dishonest. I could pick out 18 statements in Obama's press conference that were deliberate LIES (not mere "misstatements"). I am referring to that "fact check" that 18 statements Bachmann made were allegedly false. Yes, Obama keeps repeating the ridiculous lie that we are not engaged in "hostilities" in Libya. And he claims to have "consulted" with Congrss. because panels of Congress have held hearings (OVER HIS OBSTGRUCTION--it being news to Congress that Obama has "consulted" with them)". What is the meaning of "is"--or, in this case, "consulted". I don't have the time or energy--not having a staff--to list all 18 lies here. Take my word for it. Notice how much BIGGER the Obama lies are than the "faffes" alleged as to Bachmann. Then notice which lies get all of the coverage.
We truly do have a "liar-in-Chif.". The man overstates every single thing he says, and dow it deliberately. What can you say about somone who still insists he is for "deficit reduction", and "living within our means", evn while lthe only SPECIFIC things he advocated in teh press conference were SPENDING for high speed rail and other transportation projects, and extending the payroll tax reduction that is gonig to expire--that is, besides RAISING TAXES. Exactly where is the reductin in spedning? That is the biggest LIE of all. Obama and the Democrats intend NO reduction in spedning. They want an INCREASE in both spending and the deficit (except to the extent they can add taxes and/or cut the military budget). The rest is all a SHAM. Just like in the prevgious budget talks (for the yyear about to end--remember when the government almost shut donw), Obama and the Democrats plan to do some sort of massive legistlation where all of the spending "cuts" are either illlusions or so far in the future that the Democtats expect they will never happen. As Obama again made clear, Democrats pan on RAISING spedning, and increasing the deficti, for this next year (including with that "stimulus" of a welfare pyament known as that "payroll tax cut").
Yes. I want to weep. I write articles (like the one on Obama's previoiusly repeated lie about the rich paying less taxes now than they ever have). They disappear into the void. In the meantime, both media peiople and politicians seem more interested n gong along with the SHAM. You have heard that there is already agreement on "1.3 trillioin" dollars in "cuts", and Republicans are demanding 1.3trillion more. Howgwsh. We would not NEED to raise the debt ceiling if we cut 2.5 trillion dollars from the spending for NEXT YEAR. The debt ceiling will ony be good for about two years (just past the election). the supposed spending "cuts" willl be ove TEN YEARS. That, alone, is an outrageous lie (that cutting spending over 1 years, even if it happens, makes nay dent on the CURRENT DEFICTI POBLEM). And you can bet any spending cuts will be weighted toward the END of those ten years, with little likelihood they will ever be implemented (especially as now written, although we may well have a REAL "crisis" requiring Greece-like "austerity" well before 10 years).
I jsut can't stand the DECEPTION. That is why I promised to really lower the boom on Republicans if they enter into another sham dea. And what about the appropriatons bills? IF Repubicans end up agreeing to some sort of omnibus "continuing resoluton", they can forget about me. I will be their ENEMY forever. That is why I suggeted that Repubicans simply do a short term extension of the debt ceiling to bring us up to the beginning of the fiscal year (October 1) when the government will shut down (without funding). Then wokrk on APPROPIATIONS BILLS for next year to CUT SPENDING for next year. ONLY THEN worry about "the future'. The spending "cuts" that MATTER are CURRENT CUTS. "The future" is in the future, and a lot of things can happen by then. Do something about Medicaid NOW. Cut next year's spending NOW. Then worry about restructuring Medicare and the far future, when Republicans don't have the votes to do what they want on Medicare anyway. Warning to Repubilcans: Next year's spending, which should already be dtermined by Appropriations Bills (about 17 of them) is ALL I am really looking at. Another one of your "sham" "rand" "compromises" is just going to make me MAD at you . Madder than I have ever been, and that is sayig a lot. Yes, I am confident Meichele Bachmann will votge against all of this, which is one of the reasons I am supporting her. But the Republicans who vote for this stuff will be in real trouble. Further, I am not really impresssed with these GAMES where some Republicans get to vote against a deal, so long as enough Republicans support the deal to squeak it by. Michele Bachmann has earned my trust. The Republican Party has not. I will BLAME the whole Republican Party for another sham dea. And I will BLAME the whole Republican Prty for yet another SHAM TAX CUT like that "payroll tax reductio")--merely a "simullus" bribe to voters.
P.S. no proofreadin or spell checking (bad eyesight)..