Read the previous article on Social Security, and then consider one of the main DISHONEST "talking points"/mantras of CNN: I have specifically seen it with Erin Burnett and Gloria Borger, but I am absolutely certain that it is a CNN Big Lie (see Orwell's "1984"). It is "pure' propoaganda, REPEATED overr and over again with the idea people will beging to believe it. I aam talking about his FALSE assertin that Mitt Romney was referring to epole on SOCIAL SEUCURITY when he made that off-hnad comment about the "47%" of Americans who do not pay taxes, and are dependent on government "benefits".
CNN (Borger, Burnett, et. al.) first makes the FALSE assumption that Social Security is an ordinary government BENEFIT program, that peopole have not PAID FOR. See the rpevius article. That is a FALSE assumption, asSocial Security (unlike food stamps, Medicaid, Medicarfe, earned income tax crfedit, etc.) is supposed to be a SELF-FUNDING program. If lpeole paid as much money--as much money as MOST of them have paid--into a real retirement plan, whith personal accounts where the money was INVESTED for them (as in counties that have rEJECTEd Social Seucirty), peole would getr MORE than they get in "benefits" from Social Secuirty. Thus, is is a Big Lie to suggest that peole who recieve money from Social Secuirty are GENEARLLY receiving "government benefits". They are receiving RETIREMENT BENEFITS for which they have PAID (even if their payments have not gone into a vested retirement account for them but have been used for CuRRENT RETIREES in a classic Ponzi scheme manner). Trying to make Social Seucirty nito a goverfnent WELFARE progrram is what CNN DESIRES (see previous article again), but it is so far mainly FALSE.
Are there not SOME peole who receive Social Security who have paid in NOTHING (or very little)? Of course,. As I said in the previous article, there are relatively MINOR "welath redstributin" elements in Social Seucrity, but it is peole like Obama (and those of CNN) ho want to make Social Security into a MASSIVE WEALTH REDISTRIBUTIN PROTRAM, insstead of the self-funding RETIREMENT PROGRAM it is supposed to be (even if it was set up wrong). Now there ARE peole who are TAKING ADVANTAGE of Social Secrity (such as the explosion in DISABILITY payments, which should not even be part of Social Seucirty UNLESS Social Security were made into a REAL retiremnt/disability plan with INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS. that are VESTED). Then there are immigrants who come into this country AT RETIREMENT AGE, and become qualified for Social Security benefits witthout ever paying into the system. Thus, thre are some elements of Social Seucrity that come within the problem of peole taking advantage of benefits to which they should not be entitled. Romney, by the way, did NOT say that there everyone who did not pay income taxes was "imoral", or a bad person. He jsut said that the "47%" were not really very receptive to his MESSAGE on cutting income taxes, since they don't pay income taxes anyway. Rmney SHOULD have said that--missing an opportunity, as usual) that he does have a challenge getting thrugh to those in the 47% who think they are "benefitting" from government "reebies", not eralizing that dependency on government is COSTING them more than they can possibly afford. But that is another issue. The porblem here is that it is a bald-faced LIE that Romney meant to say that "peole on Social Security" are "not receptive' to his message.
Nope. IT is ABSURD to suggest that Romney "meant" to WRITE OFF peole "on Social Security" (like me) when he referred to that 47%. NO ONE--not even Gloria Borger, Erin Burnett and the others at CNN--coululd possiblyl be so STuPID as to believe that Romney meant to say that people on Social Security are "dependent" on the government",, and look at themselves that way. Do peole who have PAID INTO Social Security look at themselves as getting "welfare" from the government? Don't be absurd, and it is IMOSSIBLE that Romney meant that. This means taht Gloria Borger, Erin Burnett and CNN are DISHONEST, rather than jsut stupid. Sure,m you can argue that the 47% is NOT A REAL NUMBER, to the extent it includes RETIRED people (from AGE, not "disability" retirement). But CNN is so DISHONESTLY PARRTISAN that they insist on REPEATEDLY saying that Romney was referencing Social Secirty retirees, instead of people receiving WELFARE-type benefits (food stamps, Medicaid, even Medicare--although not entirely welfare, obviusly, actual welfare, etc.). Does Romney's "ponit' depend on the "47%" number being totally ACCURATGE? Of course not . TOO MANY peoople are being BRIBED byt he government, INCLUDING peole in the middle class. And we cannot keep having FEWER and FEWER people FINANCING our entire government (including welath transfers to other peole form the peole financing the government).
You doubt me (abut CNN diishonesty)? Never do that. It just make s you look like a fool. What does CNN (includng Borger and Burnett) do whenever OBAMA makes a statemetn that CAN be construed as stupid and overbroad?? Right. CNN ALWAYS says that you can't take Obama "out of contexts", or constuere him literally when what he MEANT is something obviusly different. Thus, CNN constantly referred to the IN CONTEXT statement of Obama that "you did not build tat" (referring to a successful small businessman who built a business) as "out of context", and constantly dennied that Obama cululd really have meant what he appeared to say (partially true, of course, as Obama clearly did not mean it to SOUND that way, e even if it is how Obama looks at things). Then there is Obama' srecent statement that "you cannot chaNge Washington from the inside; you caN only chaNge it from thte outside." Again, CNN was QUICK to saY that Obama obviusly did not mean that HE wasincapable of changing thigs from the inside, and that you should elect someone frfomt he OUTSIDE (like, say, Romney). Again, ti iscerftainly true that Obama surely did not mean to say that you should VOTE FOR ROMNEY, as a perosn from the "outside", but that is vrituallyl waht Obama SAID. Waht I am saying in this article is that yo can criticize Romney for "writing off" people, and for overstatemetn, but you are DISHOENST if you are GORIAL BORGER, ERIN BURNETT or the others of CNN: purporting to believe that it is OBVIUS taht Romney was referring to peole on Social Seucirty. What is OBVIOUS, of courfse, is that Romney was NOT referring to RETIREES fro ANY retirement program, including Social Secuirty. You may not lie Romney (I don't, POLITICALLY, although he seems like a perfectly good human being), but it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to believe he is INSANE, or really was saying that he is "writing off" everhone over age 565. That is the "gotcha" "interpretatino" of tghe MOST DISHOENST PEOLE WHO HAVE EVER LIVED, and the WORST HYPOCRITES who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. Gloria Borger and Erin Burnett, this means YOU (and you others at CNN).
Now the headline I did non my previous article about the LIES of Erin Burnett had a "question mark" at the end. Whey did I leave the questin mark off this time? Well, to be honest, I go back and forth. I really should, I supose, simply erfer to these people of NN as AMONG the msot dishonest who have ever lived, and leave it at that. In that previus article, I concluded that Erin Burnett was NOT as dishoenst as Bernie Madoff (to use one example) . But I have RETHOUGHT this conclusion. yes. It is true that Erin Burnett is not as dishonest in a CRIMINAL manner as peole like Bernie Madoff, or (say) Jesse James. However, is this the ony way to look at dishoensty? I don't think so. Do Erin Burnett, Gloria Borger, and CNN do MORFe DAMAGE tto MORE PEOLE than Bernie Madoff, Jesse James, and AlL of tgh e rest? Is tehe CNN dishonesty more PERVASIVE, and affect MORE PEOLE (inclduing KILLING Americans overseas with things like overhyping this anti-Muslim movie). I hink so, even though CN has the RATINGS of a TEST PATTERN. This mainstream media dishoensty, as to which I use CNN as a POSTGER CHILD, really does more damage to more people thann any 'historical" CRIMINAL I caN think of. As I say, I go back and forth on this. Thus, you may still see me do this headline again with a questin mark, where I settle for merely sayiong tCNN peole are SOME of the most dishoenst peole who have ever livbed (safer, and probably mroe correct). But this "Scoial Seucirty" stuff, and OVERHYPE of this "candid video", annoys me so mcuh that I am willing to do without the wimpy caveats.
Gloria Borger has been FEATURED in this very same capacity (as a LIAR, and DISHOENST) time and time again. That is another reason the queston mark ws left off the hedline. Borger is a SERIOAL LIAR. No shame at all, and not turht at all in her. For example, she insisted gthat this "candid tape" of Romney was "important' (it is not) because it shows Romney saing one thing in private and another in ublic. FALSE. That is exaclty what the tape does NOT do Oh, the tae shoe Romney saying thihngs eh would probably nto say in a prpared remarks (unlike Obama, who makes many of HIS GAGGES in public seettings, although there havve also been SOME l"private" recordings). But Romney has not said wildly DIFFERFENT things in pubic. He has said SiMILAR things: just not as "off the cuff" and BLUNT--as you would expect in a "private' setting). No. Goria Borger IS at least equal to the most DIISHOENST peole who have ever lived. She ins incapable of telling the truth. Often, she is probably so STUPID as to not have any idea of what the truth is. But that is not the case here, and often not the case. EvenGloria Borger, as stated, is not THIS TUPID. No, but hse IS this DISHOENST>
P.S. No proofreading or spell cehecking (bad eyesight).