Is Erin Burnett the worst liar who has ever lived, and one of the worst political hacks pretending to be a "journalist"? This blog has actually been examining this burning questin for several months, even if you perceived the articles to be jsut unrelated articlees on individual ll"journalistic" atrocities of Erin Burnett. The questin was agin bought front and center by the first FEW MINUJTES of the Erin Burnett program this evening (all I could stan; all I can ever stand even as I relax my vow--as the electin comes closer--never to watch bad peole like Anderson Cooper, John King, Erin Burnett and Wolf Blitzer). HORROR is the only apporpirate reactin to Erin Burnett, and her crimes agaisnt both "journalistsm" and inteligence.
Facts? I have facts. First, Burnett just sort of offhand said tonight that Social Seucrity is a from of REDISTRIBUTIN OF THE WEATH. Now thqat is what Erin Burnett, Obama and other SOCIALISTS wnat it to be, but that is NOT how it was sold to the American peoole by FDR (my mother's hero, partly because of things like that and oppositinn to public employee unionis and making peole WORK for what they got). What Erin Burnett and OTHER leftist Democrats WANT Social Secuirty to be is a WELFARE SYSTEM funded by the RICH. Now THAT would definitely be a program of REDISTRIBU:TION OF WEALTH.
As it is now, and a it was set up by FDR, Social Seucrity is supposed to be a SELF_FUNDING program where ALL WORKERS contibute to a program to FUND their retirement. Thus, Soical Security taxes are NOT "progressive". Indded, the LEFFT (obama and other lproponents of redistribution of wwalth) often refer to Scial Seucrity FUNDING as a "regressive tax. ALL wage earners pay the SAME percentate of tehir watges to Social Secuirty fundin (that fictional 'trust fund"), and peole earning over $100,000 a year (or thereabouts) do not have to contniue to pay "extra" taxes on earnings above that level. Again, the original idea was NOT to do a program of CLASS WARFARE redistriubting the wealth, but to do a program in which EVERyONE particippates on apporximately an equal basis, and EVERyONE shares in the retirement benefits. Again it is supposed to be a SELF-FUNDING RETIREMENT PROGRAM, and NOT a REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH program.
Again, what is WRONG with this picture? What is WRONG is that NO part of your Social Securfity funding payments--which should NOT be regarded as a "gneral revenue tax", do NOT go into your RETIREMENT ACCOUNT. You hav NO "retirement account" with Social Seucrity, whre MONEY is set aside in an ACCOUNT forf YOU 9as with, say a 401(k). This was WRONG, and may ultimately kILL Social Security. That is because Social Security--as Rick Perry said--was set up as a PONZI SCHEME, where YOUR Social Seucrity funding payments go to pay for the RETIREMENT OF PRFESENT RETIREES--not for your own retirement account. This delibherate perversin of a supposed "retirement program" into a "government program"--where what you pay in has no graranteed relationship to what you take out or what you "own"--leaves Social Seucrity OPEN to being converted into totally a WELFARE, wealth redistribution program by peole like Erin Burnett and President Obama (leftist Democrats).
N, Erin Burnett. You are a LIAR. Social Seucrity is NOT YET a true "wealth redistributin" program, even if there are SOME "wealth redistributin" elements in it, Itg was definitely not SOLD as a wealth redistribution program--either by FDR or later Democats until modern "lefts' like Erin Burnett decide to discard al PRETENSE as to what they WANT.
Yes. ONe of the reasons I VOWED never to votge for AnY GOP politician who supported that FRADULENT "payroll tax cutt" is that that was solely a WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION MEASURE. It ATTACKS the funding of Social Seucirty, by DISCARDING the idea of Social Security as a SELF-FUNDING system in favor of the idea of Social Seucirty as a WELFARE SYSTME "funded" by the "wealthy". Myb borther, the accountant, lsays I fail to really appreciate that Social Secusrity is ALREADY a FRAUD. But that is not ture. I do allppreciate that. I jsut think we discard even the IDEA of peole lpaying for their OWN RETIREMENT if we silmly go down the lpath Erin Burnett advoc ates, and treat Social Seuciryt as jsut another government REDISTRIBUTIN progaram used to "transfer money from one person to another " (as described by Mitt Romney). I don't think our COUNTRY can survive that kind of thinking, even if Social Security was botched from day one. I digess (not really). Erin Burnett? Again there was this obvious Democrfat Talking Point LIE about Social Seucrity being a "redistribution" program (in concept other than the relatively minor payments to the original "retirees" who did not contribute to the system). SOME retirees receive minimum Social Security paymetns despite NOT contirbuting much to the systemn, or nothing at all, and then there is the DISABLITY problem (which should NOT be undre Social Secuirty at all). Still. Erin Burnett and the other leftists are LIARS. Social Security was SOLD as a RETIREMENT POROGRAM, self--funding, and--to a degree--it is that (as evidenced by the "regressvie" nature of the 'tax'). It is the LEFT (Erin Burnett, e. al.) who NOW wnat to say that Social Secuirty is jsut AnOTHEaR government WELFARE program. Can you thiknk of a better way to ultimatelyl KILL Social Security, an dprobably this country? l I can't.
But Erin Burnett LIES did NOT stop with Social Security. That was jsut a "passig" LIE to show that she truly is a patholoical liar and leftist political hack. Nope. What Ms. Burnett did was start with theFIRST refuge of a LIAR: the dictionary. You know the "dictioinary". That is that semi-useful bok that gives you an IDEA of the meaning of words, unless lyou are trying to USE it to TWIST and LIE (as Erin Burnett wa tonight). Thus, leftist wil go to the "dictionary" (the one they want, and the "definition" they want) to "define" words like "socialism and "redistribution". Then a person like Erin Burnett will TWIST a PART of tht "definition for her LIE. I am not making this up. Tjhat is exaclty what she did tonight, as she went to the "dictionary" for "redistribuition". While admitting that there are MANY kinds and degrees of redistributin, Ms. Burnett promptly IGNORED that caveat and manfufactured her Orwellian Big Lie. Yep. Erin Brunett could apply to work for the "Big Brotehr news agency" in "1984". What am I saying? Erin Burnettt DOES work for The Liar Network, which puts out propaganda jsut as blatant as any in "984". Look what Ms. Burnett did with 'redistributin".
A simple definition of "redistributin of wealth" IS what Romney stated: "government taking money from one personm, or guorp of peole, and giving it to another person, or group of peole.' That is where Burnett inserted her LIE about Social Security being a "redistribution of wealth". But Burnett went fruther,. She found a "dictioinary" definition that referred to teh "progressive tax systemn.' What is tghe Big LIe that Burnett was selling: leftist political HACK that she is? The Big Lie is that Romney is jsut as much in favor of "redistributin" as sObama, becaluse he favors a "progressive " tax systemn almost the same as obama. Is it possible to LIE anyu worse lthan this. Oh, as with any Big Lie, there is some smalll element of truth here. Romney is NOT a "conservative', and is NOT "bod" enough tin FIGHTING "redistributino"--look at the payroll tax cut. But Burnett's propositon was ABSURD, and she knows it. It was jsut a deliberate, SMUG attempt att GIGGING Romney by TISTING definitins to try to show how "clever" Burnett is. She is, of course, NOT "cleve". She is STuPID.
Is the progressive income tax redistribution". Burnett ended up DEFINING 'redistributin" TOTALLY by means of the progressive income tax. That is a LIE. What is obviusly true is that the progressive income tax has ELEMENTS of "redistribution" of welath inherent in it. That is why so many favor a "flat tax". However, even conservatives (and Romney is NOT one, although Erin Burnett would probably LIE about that) say that there are PROPER functins of governmetn. You know. Theris DEFENSE. There is LAW ENFORCEMENT. You can go down a long list, and arguue over what is a "proper" functin of the FederalGovernment and what is not. But SOMEONE has to "pay for"--except wwe are NOT--wkhat the government does. Sure, thre are DIRECTG "rfedistributin" items, such as MDICAID and the EARNED INCOME TA CEDIT. But the idea remainss inarguabel that SOMEONE has to "pay for' teh GOVERNMENT (whatever the government should do). The reason that the "progressive" tax system CANNOT be used as a "defining" aspect of "redistributin" is that it does NOT say what government SHOULD do. llFor Erin Burnett to suggest otherwise is a BIG LIE. You can even argue that the progressvie income tax is not NECESSARILY "redistribution" at all. Is it "redistributin" for the government to say that peole who can best AFFORD it should pay MORe of a percentage of the "bill' for NATINAL DEFENSE? I thik it IS a from of "redistributin", but hardly the ESSSENCE of the concept. In other words, the "progressive income tax" as a "redistributio of wealth" is only an ELEMENT of redistribution of wealth, and NOT a "definition". Adn LIAR Burnett KNOWS this. It is CONSRVATIVES who have long attacked tghe "progressive income tax" as a "redistributin of wealth", and LEFTISTS (like Burnett) who have said that is not taure: taht the progressive income tax is merely putting the "burden" of financing the PROPER functions of government on the peole wo can best afford it. But Burnettt was not done with her LIES. The wrost were yeat to come.
Burnett tried to "prove'--using the SAME leftist "tax policy" group that ALWEAYS attacks any GOP plan--that the Romney tax plan is about as "progressive' ("redistributive") as Obama's. Thus, Romney proposes a 20% REDUCTION in ALL individual tax rates (leaving too complex a structure, because Romney is NOT a conservative and not brave enogh to be accused of "favoring the rich"). To keep his plan 'revenue neutral", Romney would take away DEDUCTINS and TAX CREDITS. Now Burnett does not know the detials of this any more than I do, but she MADE THME UP (with the "help" of this leftiset group WILLING to MAKE THESE THINGS UP). Burnett's conclustion: "The difference gbetween the "top and bottom" rates, after taking in to account the loss of DEDUCTINS, is close to the same for Romney as ofor Obama (again, MAKING UP an INACCURATE view of what Obama proposes). Do you see the Big Le here: the reason Erin Burnett proved hersefl one of the worst liars to EVER live?
Do you see it? Tell me you do I have to have some HOPE that some peole understand these lies. So Romney favors SOME elements of "redistributin", and refuses to be BOLD enough to propose doing away with teh progressive income tax (Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan). Can you, with a straight face, say that President Obama does not believ ve in MORE redistribution of the wealth than Mitt Ropmney? Come on. NO ONE IS LTHAT DUMB, NOT EVEN ERIN BURNETT. The problem is that Preisdent Obama' sfirst reactn is ALWAYS class warfarfe and redistributin of the wealth. This is actually a BIG problem with Romey's porposal Ronald REagan, you will remember, TRADED low TAX RATES for elminating LOOPHOSES that the RICH were using. The iea was that we needed SIMPLE, lOW tax RATES, rather than peole making ECONOMIC deicisons based on "benefits" in the TAX CODE. Reagan was right. But what happened? Romney is proposing to reduce the tax RATE for the highest icome peole to the SAME as REagan, but Erin Burnett is right about one thing: Rmney would TAKE AWAY deudtions that EFFECTIVELy raise the rates of a LOT of high income peole (maybe the mortgage deductin, although iit is hard to imagine that getting done). And rates on the "rich" have been RAIWSED by MORe than others. Thus, AFTER Rmney's proposed "reductin" in tax rates, the "rich' will be paying considerably MORE than they were paying under Reagan's reforms, and lamost HALF of the coutry wil pay almost NO income taxes at all. Waht borught this about is the OBAMA ATTITUDE (which the GOP too often will go laong with); REDISTRIBUTION.
Say Romney's plan PASSES. But say we NEED MONEY, and the deficit is OUT OF CONTORL under a Rmney Presidency (more than possible). What will happen, even under Rmney RHETORIC about favoring the "middle class'? There wil be a lPUSH to RAISE TACXES ON THE RICH. That is what happened AFTER the Reagan tax cuts. The "rich" lost their DEDUCTIN, but then the RDISTRIBUTIN people RAISED THEIR RATES AGIAN (luckily not back up to the ridiculous level they once were at, and which NO ONE paid). Then the Buhs tax cuts againt caused MORE and MORE peole to pay NO income taxes at all, or very little, whiel the "rich" received a relatively samll PERCENTAGE reduction. The result has beeen that the TOP 10% of income tax payers pay some 60^ of the total incoeme taxes individual s pay. IF Romney were to get his 'plan", the "rich' will LOAW even ore "dedutins". But is the TEMPTATIN not gong to be to TAKE AWAY the part of the "deal" which BENEFITS the "rich", while keeping the parts of the deal which RAISE taxes ont he rich? I hink so But I am a pessimmist.
Look, howver, atg Erin Burnett!!!!! She is tryin got SELLL the idea that Obama will not proopose MORE "redistribution". That is ABSURD. He has ALREADY done it. Waht Burnett did not seem to realize is taht Obama's plan doews NOT jsut raise income tax RATES on people earning more than $125,000 a year ($250,000 per couple). Obama and the Democrats propose a SURTAX on "millinaires" (the "Buffett tax"). And that is not all. What is the Obama/Democrat reacint to where to get the mney to "pay for' their "rdsitributin" government programs? Right. They want to TAX THE RICH.
This is the Big Lie i what Burnett said today: thke assumptin that Obama does nto want to REDISRIBUTE MORE THAN HE NOW SAYS HE WANTS TO REDISTRIBUTE. Does Erin Burnett really belive there is any LIMIT as to how much Obama is willing to propose the "rich" pay in a progressive tax system? Erin Burnett KNOWS that there is NO LIMIT on how much TAX Obama is willing to suggest that the "rich' pay, IF Obama thinks he can get away with it.
Romney is CORRECT ont his one, aNd it does not matter whether Romney (not, again, a conservative) favors things with "restributive" elements. Obama BELIEVES in REDISTRIBUTION: "taking money form some poele and giving it to others.' That means Obama will ALWAYS PROOPOSE MORE REDISTRIBUTIN It is how hee is. For Erin Burnett to FALSE suggest that she "proved" otherwise is a Big Lie. The SURTAX on millionaires proves that.
Have I answered my quetin? Is Erin Burnett the WORST LIAR who haS ever lived? I do think she is in contentin, as are most of the other "journalists" of CNN. I honesty, however, I jsut can't see that Erin Burnett has risen to the STAR QUALITY of some of the most famous liars of hsotry. Is she really, for example, a worse liar than Bernie Madoff? If I were Erin Burnett, and willing to tell a Big Lie, I would say that Erin Burnett IS the worst liear who ever lived. But it would nto be true. She does not QUITE rise to that level.
However, Erin Burnett is a LIAR: ONE of the worst around (along with the rest of The Liar Network). She is also a leftist political hack putting out pure propaganda, rather than "news". But oyou already knew that. I will keep monitoring to see if, in good conscience, I can ELEVATE Erin Burnett into the class of the very WROST LIARS who have ever lied. She may make it yet.
P.S No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesight). Why is Erin Burnet SUPID/ Do you really BELIEVE that ANYONE--even peole , like me, who cannot support Romney--will do antying but LAUGH at the idea that Romney and Obama want to REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH to essentially the same degree? Now I don't believe Romney will STOP the Big Government express, but Obama WANTS to REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH. You know it. I know it. Erin Burnett knows it. Erin Burnett is trying to be too clever my way more than half, and that is STUPID. It jst highlights how BAD Obama is. STUPID. One STUPID woman. Yes, I am tired and the typos are probably bad. But I am not going to worry about it with Erin Burnett. She is not worth it. Al I can do is do this "stream of consciousness stuff and HOPE you can read enoguh of it for it to make sense. Maybe quite a bit of effort for nothihng. Al lI can do is the best I can reasonably do. It, at least, keeps MY MIND relatively sharp, even if it messes up YOURS. No sympathy for you, as I have often stated. As my female friend, Sylvia tellsme, ABUT HER: "you are LUCKY I even talk to you.' That is how I look at it; You peole out there are lUCKY to have me, and to have whatever samll part of what I write that I do not garble.