CNN, The Liar Network: The Wort TV Liars To Ever Exist (Analysis of Deficits and Taxes)

What about MSNBC? Ah, that depends on how you look at it. MSNBC is POENLY PARTISAN, and basicaly admits that it si promoting leftist ideology in this country. Sure, MSNBC pays "lip service" to the idea that it is a "news' organization, without obvious bias, but everyone knows that is not true. And they do not really hide it. They seem to basically use lthis as a TAUNT to conservatives: "See, we can CALAIM to be unbiased 'journalists', even though we, and everone else, know that we are an openly partisan left wing outfit." The "taunt" has been that MSNBC is not FORCED to be treated as a left wing PAC (which is what they are). Thus, MSNBC is dishonest, but mainly in the sense that Barack Obama is dishonest. They are open partisans.


The sanctimonious hypocrites of CNN, on the otehr hand, sem to MEAN it when they keep asserting that they are a "neutral" "news" organizatoin. Yet, they are really just as partisan in supporting left wing ideology as MSNBC--just not QUITE so obvious about it (like running a CAMPAIGN for the Wisconsisn recall elections, which MSNBC did). Thus, I regard CNN peole as the greater LIARS, even whough they are probably not quite a bad "journalists" as the people of MSNBC. This hardly makes much difference, since NONE of them are really "journalists" in any real sense of the term. Enough on the headline. What is this article ABOUT?


Read the previous articles on the supercommittee, and the medai PROPAGANDA push for a "deal" involving increased taxes. No. Spending cuts are hardly mentioned on CNN, which is one of the many LIES in this propaganda. The whole PARTISAN idea here is to FORCE the GOP to accept the idea that the main way to "lower" the deficit is higher TAXES (especailly on "the rich"). You don't see CNN doing an "analysis" of how SPENIDNG has risen, or about how OBAMA has INCREASED the deficits and debt. CNN ignores the FAILED Obama "stimulous" CNN ignores the Obama/Democrat 25% INCREASE in discretionary spending. For CNN it is all about taxes, which "happens" to be (lol) the left wing/Democrat/media PROPAGANDA push in connectin with this "deficit deal" the supercommittee is supposed to arrive at. Never doubt me on this, and thi sis the point of this article.


I saw TODY'S CNN report on the possible failure to arrive at any "deficit deal". What was the main focus, over and over agai? Just ask yourself what you would do if you were one of the biggest LIARS to ever appear on a TV "news' show? Would yo unot put yup a CHART? How better to LIE than with a SELECTIVE chart (giving visual support to a lie) . What "chart" did CNN use, time and time again, to say what the "problem" is? This is whre the lies go nuclear. No, CNN did NOT use a "chart" of deficits under Bush and Obama. CNN did NOT use a chart of SPENDING over the last 50 years. CNN did NOT use a "chart" of what percentage has been added to the deficit under Obama, as compared with prior Presidents. Now, of course, you can ARUGE whether any such "chart" as I have suggested fails to give a complete picture. But CNN did not give any of those charts for a different view of teh "problem". Nope. Waht cNN did was do a "chart" of the contributons of our deficit from the 'Bush tax cuts", wars, and the "economic downturn".


That is, CNN took the deficits since 2003 or so, since that is when the Bush tax cuts were fully effective (CNN may have used 2001, for all I know or care, as the "Bush tax cuts" were started around then). No, CNN did not mention waht the deficits were in 2007, or that they were then DECLINING (before all of this spending as Obama the Democrats AND Bush tired to SPEND us out of this). The hwole idea here was to "balme" the majority of the deficits on the BUSH TAX CUTS. Oh, so many LIES from The Liar Network and the worst liars to ever claim to be "journalists" on TV. Let me trly to itemize them for you:


1. The "bush tax cuts" primarily benefitted the MIDDLE CLASS and "poorer" taxpayers. Obama,, along with alomost every other Democrat, is NOT calling for the repeal of ALL of the "Bush tax cuts". Over the next ten years, the Bush tax cuts" (if we ignore that repealking the tax cuts would COST a lot of tax revenue because of decreased economic growth), will "cost" about 4 TRILLION in Federal Government revenue (sort of invoking the CNN assumption that ALL of our money bleongs to the government, and they are only letting you keep it). However, 3.3 TRILLINO of those dollars would NOT come from those making $200,000 or more a year. Rather 3.3 TRILLION of those dollars would come from the MIDDLE CALSS and poorer. "Only" 700 BILLION (not trillion) dollars would come from peole making more than $200,000. In other words, it is a media/left wing/Democrat LIE that the "Bush tax cuts' mainly "benefitted the rich". But look deeper into this, as the LIARS at CNN will never do. 700 billion dollars is "only" 70 biillion dollars a year. Obama is propsing a temporary Social Secuirty Tax "cut" (really just a welfare payment to BIRVBE the "middle class) for next year of 100 BILLION dollars (right out of the funding for Social Seucrity--which is why it is now known as the "payroll tax" instead of the former "Social Secuirty Tax" name). The deficit INCREASING "deal" that the GOP accepted at the end of 2010 ADDED that same more than 100 BILLIN dollars to the defict the GOP was "promising" to CUT. Note that these INCREASES in the deficit, for a GIMMICK that has already proven not to "add" any jobs, are MORE than the 70 billion being "added" by the tax rate "break" for "the rich" (a tax "break" LESS than the PERCENTAGE "benefit" received by a whole lot of people under the Bush tax cuts, including people who now pay NO income taxes), Meanwhile, the CURRENT deficit is somewhere around 1.5 TRILLION dollars. Notice how LITTLE difference 70 billin makes in that deficit--even assuming that the INCREASED TAXES would not SLOW the economy (a false assumption). You just can't LIE any worse than CNN LIED in that chart!!!!!


2. The CNN assumption--statistically fals, and I have a mathematics minor from New Mexico State--is that ou can ISOLATE the "deficits", and amount of "decreased tax revenue" from the Bush tax cuts", and say that the "tax cuts' were the "cause" fo the deficts. Taht is a LIE. It is false. How to explain this? If you re a leftist, from CNN, you are not intelligent enough to understand this. Say you were spending 20% TOO MUCH. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that we were spending 1 TRILLION dollars on a combination of foreign aid and and Presidential travels (like those Barack Obama is constantly involved in). Now we know this assumptoiin is not quite ture, as we know that the CNN "chart" assujpptoins are not true. But let us assume that government expenditures are that RIDICULOUS (as manyof us think much of them are). Now say that George Bush and the GOP "cut" taxes (for everyone who paid taxes) , but FAILED to cut the RIDICULOUS spending? Well, you MIGHT say that the GOP was PARTLY responsible for the deficits (as they were and are). But it would be FALSE to say that the TAX CUTS were the "cazuse" of the deficits. The CAUSE of the deficits would be the RIDICULOUS SPENIDNG. Or sdoes CNN say that taxpayers "should" be foreced to FUND spending that we shold not be doing? Do you see the LIE here? You can't simply ISOLATE tases, and say that "not enough taxes" are "responsbile" for the deficit. In fact, this is to look at things the exact opposite of the OBVIOUS way they should be looked at. If we are spending more money than our income, then we have two choices: (1) We can INCREASE our revenue or (2) we can REDUCE OUR SPENDING. Which should we do? That boviously depends on WHAT WE GET FOR THE SPENDING, and how much increased tax revenue for the government HURTS US> Neither of those things has ANYTHING to do with whether the George W. Bush Congress cut taxes. What we erally SHOULD do is determnine how much in taxes ANYONE should pay, and then limite our spending to that. But even if you don't loo at it that way, it is FALSE to suggest that the "Bush tax cuts" "caused" deficits. What "caused" deficits is SPENDING more than we took in. And that tell syou NOTHING abut whther we were spending too mcuh. It is a LIE to say otherwise. Sure, you can ARGUE taht taxes should be RAISED, but that is the SAME arguemtn ANY TIME. IN othe words--and again CNN is LYING to say otherwise--it makes NO DIFFERENCE whether the "Bsh tax cuts" are responsible for our present tax rates, or whether we were talking aobut RAISING (or lowering) tax rates that have been in effect for 50 yeas. The principle is the SAME. Whether a "tax cut" has occurfred ten years ago or not is IRRELEVANT to a propoer view of this "isseue". The issue is whether we SHOULD spend less, tax more or less, or not do either (doing NOTHING alwasy being an option, although most of us would say that is a BAD option with thise kind of deficit). It is simply FALSE to carve out "taxes", and 'blame" a deficit on a long ago tacx cut. It is just as valid, or invalid, to "blame" the deficit on SPECIFIC spending (such as increases in Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security). Remember, Medicare DID NOT EXIST until about 1965, and MEDICAID is even more recent. Could CNN do a CHART showing how much of the deficit we now have is attributable to the President and Congrfess how PASSED MEDICARE AND MEDICAID? Sure, yo could do that. But it is not the ISSUE. The issue is whether Medicare and Medicaid are WORTH twhat the Federal Government is TAXiING you to spend, and whether there are BETTER wasys to accomplsih the same "benefit" without so much cost. The AMOUNT Medicare and Medicaid are "contributing " to the deicit is IRRELEVANT to this argument, EXCPET that you can see from an analyis that we MUST do something about Medicare and Medicaid, or there are not enough "rich" people around to pay for them.


3. Obama likes to FALSELY say that "all economists' agree with whatever economic absuridity he is asserting, or that "even GOP economicsts (usally CNN GOP economicsts) agree with him on something. Well, ALL econmists agree that HIGHTER TAXES decrease economic growth. That means that they DECREASE government revenue. The only questin is whether a particular tax increase INCREASES government revenue more than it DECREASES government revenue. Many of us (including me) think that raising the tax rates to eliminate the "Buish tax cuts" would ultimately DECREASE Federal Government revenue. But it is not a LIE to diagreee with that. In fact, you may think that is an absurd position on my part. However, it IS a LIE to say that a tax increase will necessarily increase government REVENUE by the amount you would expect by calculating the new tax rate baseed on the OLD growth assumptions. If the economy grows LESS because of the HIGHER TAXES (as ALL economic theory says it will-the debate being over HOW MUCH), then it is a LIE to say that the "Bush tax cuts' have "cot" an amount of revenue that assumes that the economic growth would have been the SMAE with highter taxes. That is simp not ture. And it is a LIE to say it is true. We may not KNOW who mcuch governemnt revenue higher taxes COST, but we KNOW that they cost government revenue. It is jsut a quesiton of HOW MUCH, and whether the revenue form the higher TAX RATE is enough higher than the LOST REVENUE to make the higher tax worthwhile. That is not all. We also KNOW that higher TAX RATES cause people to TAKE ACTION to AVOID the higher tax rate (including, att he extreme, leaving the country). Again, we KNOW that this happens (making it a lIE to say that higher taes will necessariy bring in any certain EXTRA amount of government revenue). What we don't know, and really cannot know for sure, is HOW MUUCH (at any given time) higher tax rates will cause peole to AVOID the tax. For exmaple, people in Greece notoriously just don't pay their nominal taxes. And the taxes are not enforced. That makes the TAX RATE totally IRRELEVANT. W are not as bad as Greece, but it is a LIE to say that the same thing does not happen here (pushing people to "tax shelters", "loopholes", and simple tax avoidance, although perhaps mainly LEGAL tax aviodance.).


4. Oh, Hell. I could go on. There are more. But I will leave that as an exercise for the reader. I will merely mention what I have already mentioned, which is that CNN deliberately IGNORED other "chrts" which would purport to show a much different situation than the chart CNN used (such as that chrat on how much of the deifict is due to passing Medicare and Medicaid programs that we perhaps cannot AFFORD, and did without for almost 200 years). As stated, there are less obviusly biased charts simply charting spending and defiicts that would CONDEMN Obama (if taken at face value, as to which there is problaby MORE reason to do than with the chart CNN actually used). If ou don't understand how a SELECITVE chart cariving out ONE "factor" (of many) is a LIE, then there is nothing I can say to help you. Yo ushold apply to work at CNN. I will quitre here, lest I not get any sleep tonight.


Q.E.D. CNN is The Liar Network, and CNN peoiple are the worst LIARS to ever exist on TV (okay, I will admit this last is soemting of a matter of oopinion, and not really provable, but there is no doubt CNN is full of LIARS--again the only questin being whether they are really liars to this extreme extent).


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). You will note how numbered items 1. 2. and 3. above gave you a high levell--maybe even a doctorate level--dissertation on THREE different statistical and/or economic subjects (in terms of analysis). You just can't get that anywhere else. Is that not owrth the agggravationi of no proofrading? DO NOT ANSWER THAT. Hey, I can be like CNN and the GOP. I can prefer FANTASY to REALILTY jsut like them.