See teh last few paragraphs of teh previous article, and then realize that I wrote that before seeing the "explanation" of teh LIE form the unfair and unablanced network. Here is the headline that explains the LIE:
"White House launches '$40 payroll tax cut' cut campaign" (from something called the "White House Dossier, a linked in a BANNER hedline now on drudgereoport.com: "40 Tax Cut".)
The point is that the unfair and unbalanced nework was PUSHING this OBAMA PROPAGANDA this very morning. I hear it. And it is a LIE.
Forget that the House GOPproposes a ONE YEAR 'payroll tax cut", inssteadof teh Senate passed two month politcal gAME. Here are the facts:
1. The tax holidaly (not tax "cut", since it was supposed to be a one time "stimulus" that FAILED this past year) in questin is a 2% "cut" or "rebate" in the worker porton of the Social Seucrity tax (meaning it would CUT Social Security funding, if it were not a dishonest GAME in the first place to BRIBE the middle class with 'free money").
2. The MAXIMUM "benefit" from this "tax cut" is $40 per week. But that amount will be "received' oNY by peole earning $100,000 a year and more. Yes, this IS a "tax cut for the rich", in the same sense that the "Bush tax cut" was a tax cut for the rich, in that the 'rich" receive the most benefit.. This is the LIE: to take the MAXIMUM amount that may be received by people who can easliy AFFORD IT, and suggest taht 160 milion Americans will lose $40 per week. Multiply 2% by $100,000, and then divide by 52. You get approximately $40 a week.
3. The AVERAGE icnome of workers is ABOUT $50,0000 per year. If yo are going to use a figure, and not boviously LIE (whch is what our Liar-in-Chie does, along with the unfair and unbalanced network), then ou shoud use this AVERAGE figure. Multiple $50,000 by .02 (2%), and you get $1000. That is the YEARLY "tax cut" from the "payroll tax cut". The Seante two month bill would "gfive" a two month (1/6 of a year) extensioin, or a whole $166 (dividing $1000 by 6). If you don't see the LIE here, in the $40 a week claim, then you rare hopeless.
4. There is something a little wrong with the stand Obama/media claim taht the 'payroll tax cut' will add $1000 to the paychecks of 160 millionn Americans. First, that is only an AVERAGE. Many Americns will receive much less--as little as ONE DOLLAR or less per week. Still, it is not totally unfreaosnable to use the AVERAGE. Problem: !60 Americans multipled by $1000 is 160 BILLON DOALLRTS. No, we can't afford it, and it was supposed to be a ONE TIME "simulus" passed last December in another one of thsese end of the year fiascoes. But is this RIGHT? Id the "payroll tax cut" part of this bill $160 BILLION dollars? or does ntaht include the extended unemolyment benefits paying people not to work? Is this another LIE (albeit a relatively small one) . Will 160 million Americans really seee an AVERGE of 1000 extra dollars over a year--$166 over two months--costing 160 BILLION dolalrs? That is NOT the figure used last December (160 BILLLION dollars). The media is uninterested in the FACTS, and therefore you should nto look to them.
5. If llyo earn $20,000 a year, lyu wil get bribed "only" $400 per year (.02 times $20,000). Divide by 52. That is less than $8 per week (again illustrating the LIE by our Lir-in-Chief, and by the unfair and unbalanced network).
Escept for treh editorial comments, the above 5 items are NOT matttters of opinion. They ar absolute FACTS.
Then you have the unfair and unbalanced network (see earlier articles today), which was USHING this morning the OBAMA PROPAGANDA about $40 per week. I did not know when I heard it whre the unfair and unbalanced network was getting this LIE. Now I do. It is OBAMA PROPAGANDA< and the unfair and unbalanced network is rpesenting it jsut like they were CNN or MSNBC. BOYCOTT the unfair and unbalanced network--I beg you.
Is this a BRIBE (whther $8 a week or $40 a wek), as I claim? Just look at thow this is being SOLD!!!!! It is being SOLD as FREEMONEY, even though it is sopposedly coming out of the funding for Social Secuirty. Again, we are being TOLD that this is a "one time" thing, that we can "pay for" (lol) over TEN YERS. Uh-huh. What is gong to cause the BRIBE to STOP? If this bribe is not EXTENDED NEXT YEAR, are we not gong to see the same $40, or $20, or $8 come out of the "paychecks" of 160 million Americans, including the "rich'? I see no different this year than the next. That is why i call this a 1.5 TRLLION dollar additon to the debt, which we will have to add to geh DEBT CEILING. There is no doubt that we will have to add $160 BILLION dolalars to the NEXT debt ceiling raise, and that the GOP cannot claim hat they ar not VOTING to raise the debt ceiling with this bill, because the fraudulent "pay for" provisions will only take place (if at all) over the next TEN YEARS> But what about NEXT YER, and the year after that, and the year after that. WHEN does the bribe stop? And WHY would it stop, when the sam "arguments" about takng "$40 a week" away from people can be made EVERY YEAR.
What I find most INSULTING is the propaganda that Americans not only CAN be BRIBED for $40 a week and less to DESTROY their country, but that they WANT this bribe so baldy that they will not even listen to why it is an ATTACK on Social Secuirty funding, and to why we can't afford it. I find that INSULTING, and I find the GOP/unfiar and unbalanced network--along with some "conservative" commentators--most INSULTNG of all They are saying that even though this is BAD policy, that you can never exlan to the American people why this one time "stimulus" (BRIBE) shold be "taken away" from them. If that is ture, then this cuntry is doomed, and the GOP is politically doomed.
The GOP,of curse, is acccomlishing its political doom without even fiing a shot. It is like John Paul Jones saying: "I usrrender", indstead of "I have not yeat begun to fight." If lthe GOP cannot even convince peole about the isane "payroll tax cut", and then can't even convince people why yet antoher "supercommittee" compromise for two months is insane, then the GOP is NEVER going to convince the American peole of anything. Oh, they might sitll win some elections because OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS convince peoele not to vote for them, for an electin or two. But the GOP can never GOVERN, if they con't even beleive the American peole are OPEN to GOP argumetns, but have to be DECEIVED by politcal BRiBES (bribes that will cost everyone MORE in the end than this "free money').
As readers of this blog know, this has ben a defining moment for me (talkong aoubt this entire "payroll tax cut" sham, beginning in December of 2010). If theGOP is going to go down this road, and this blog predicted they would MONTHS AGO, then the GOP and I have parted company FOREVER. As I ahve stated, I will NEVER vote for Mitt Romney for Preisdent (the most likely nominee, although hardly guaranteed, as the GOP estalbishment puts n the full court press to nominate Romney). More importantly, I ma THOURGH with the GOP forever. I no longer look to it with any hope at all. I wil support AnY reasonable thrid party I advocate DEFEATTING most GOP incumbents. Now all of this was parlty ture beofre this 'payroll tax cut" betrayl. But this debacle has pushed me over lthe edge. RonPau RUN as a thrid party candidate. I will support up. Donald Trump: RUN as a thrid party candidate. I will support you. Tea Party (who I am also prepared to abandon for betrayals): FORM a third paryt. I will SUPPORT YU then, although NOT if you are so in love wihth power that you go along with these GOP betrayals. Now I don't dlude myself that losng MYU suport is gong to kill the GOP. But I htink the GOIPO totllay underestimates how many peole are coming around to my pont of view on this. The GO is now TOTALLY relying on Obama and lefitst Democrats to give them POWER (all they want). That will obviusly "work" only in isolated elections, as the GOP has no consistent message they are providing to peole.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). And no, I CaNNOT suport Obama, but I am not AFRAID of Obama. Sure, Obama will destory the country in another term (destory it as we know it). But so will the GOP, and perhaps WORSE. IF the GOP were in complete control, they MIGHT destory the country SOWE THAN OBAMA. Hoever,t he GOP will NOT be in "complete control". Democrats will still have a presence. As with Bush, lefitist Democrts MAY get more done with a GOP President, even as a minority in Congress, than they can with Obama as Presidneet. That is because the GOP will FIGHT Obama, if ony for political reasonas. As with Bush, the GOP members of Congress will NOT "fight' a GOP Preisdent. that is how tings can be WROSE under a GOPresident than under Obama. "Skiip, does that mean you acutally LIKE gridlock?" Ah, you have finally gotten it. The reaons I hav abandoned the GOP is taht they can't even do gridlock right.