No. Erin Burnett, on CNN Tuesday, did not use the word "liar", but she noted one of the prime examples--among many--of Obama as a sociopathic liar who does not even care about the turth. Actually, she cited TWO of the prime examples, since she also again noted (as she recenty has) that the Obama Administratin version of events in Libya keeps being exposed daily as a LIE (again, Burnett not using the word). See my previous article on Libya, th efacts of which Burnett confirmed right down the line. However, the specific example of a CONSSITENT Obama lie, even after his own peole have acknowledged the truth, is what I call the "5 trillion dollar lie": this lie that the Romney "ex plan" calls for a 5 trillion dollar "tax cut" over 10 years. What the Romney plan does, of course, is a from of TAX REFORM, in the Simpson-Bowles model, where tax RATES uld be reduced 20% across the board, while tax "expenditures" (deductions, credits and loopholses) will be ENDED. Romney's idea--ocrreect or not-has ALWAYS been taht that this "tax reform" plan would cost NO REVENUE (as tax "increasess" from ending "tax expenditures" wuld equal the immediate decrease in revnue from lower tax RATES). As I say, this is the main conceopt of the Simpson-Bowles report: Obama's OWN "commissoion" on the subject of taqx reform. I do think it SHULD be part of Ropmney's plan that this kind of TAX REFORM will actaully RAISE tax revenue (to a degree) byeond ending "tax expenditues", by reducing the INCENTIVE for people to EVADE the tax RATES. If you get to keep 3 dollars ut of every fur, then you are much less likely to SPEND MONEY (and create hassle) to AVOID paying the LOWER TAX RATE. Yes, a simple tax system, with lower rates, also will create more ROTH (if we can ever create a PERMANENT, STABBLE such systtem). But our deficit problem is so bad that I don't know that yu can COUNT on any specific amount of "growth" to "offset" the lower tax rates. In short, Roney really should treat the whole subject as a DYNAMIC problem, bsed on the LIE that higher tax rates "raise' their "face value" in revenue, and that lower tax rats diminish tax revenue from them by their "face value".
After the debate, Obama was trying to sell the LIE that Romney lied about his 5 trillion dolar "tax plan". Romney did not--at least in the simplistic way Obama wa s LYING about in CAMPAIGN SPEECHES. Even CnN (beyond Erin Burnett) conncluded that Obama's attempt to suggest that Romney's "ta x plan" would be a 5 trillion dollar "tax cut" was FALSE. In comon language, OBAMA LIED. But it gets far worse. Notice that I am not--for purposes of this article--even making a big point out of the OBAMA LIE that Romney's "tax plan' is for "the rich", and the even BIGGER LIE (that Joe Biden specifically put forward) taht Rmney's tax plan wouuld RAISE taxes on an average middle class family by $2000.00.
What happpened was that Erin Burnett had an OFFICIAL spokeswoman from the Obama campaign on to "exain" Obama's LIE on the 5 trillin dollar tax cut that isn't. It turned out that the spokeswoman ended up having to ADMIT--she even used the wrrd "stiulate" that Romney later picked up in resonse to the desicable Wolf Blitzer--that Romney's tax plan did NOT represent a "net" 5 trillion dollar "tax cut'. Waht the spokeswoman eventualy said--like pulling teeth--was that Romney's numbers did not add up, and that it ws likely that Romney's "extra revenue" would fall at least 1 trillin dolalrs (over twen years) short of "paying for" the cut in tax RATES. This persn did continue the LIE that such a discrepancy meant that Romnbey would "have to "raise taxes" on the middle class: an Orwellian Big Lie. One thing we KNOW is that the GOP--thank Grover Norquist and his "pledge"--will NOT raise NET INCOME TAXES at all especially on the "middle class". That is an absurd allegatiion.
Okay. Do you get the picture. The OBAMA CAMPAIGN has admitted that their own candidate is a LIAR, and that Romney is NOT proposing a "5 trillin dolalr tax cut'. What did Ern Burnett do on Tuesday? She actually did what a real "journalist" might do, and what CNN almsst never does: Ms. Burnett actually compared what Obama CONTINUED TO SAY in his campaign sppeeches with what the Obama campaign hadd told her. Guess waht? Yu guessed it. Obama DID NOT CHANGE his campaign speeches, even after his own campaign spokesman had indicated this 5 trilllion dollar number ws FALSE. In factr, I jsut saw an ad tonight that where Obama "approved" the sAME "5 trillion" dolalr message/lie. Why do I see these ads? Believe it or not, El PaSo is a BATTLEGROUND CITY, although not becuase Texas is in issue. El paso is a big part of the MEDIA MARKET for southern New Mexico (which is a "battlegroundd state"). Thus, El Paso gets these ads.
What can you say about a person (Obama) who gets CALLED on his false statements and contnues to make them? "Liar" is the KINDEST thing you can cal him. Wolf Blitzer, by the way REEPEATED THESE LIES in his interview of Romney, as if Erin Burnett---n his own network--had not exposed the truth. Memo to Wolf Bliter: You are one of the most dishonest, desicable human beings who has ever lived. I hope to someday have the opportunity to say that to yur face.
So I apporve of Mitt Romney on taxes? Not so fast, bison breath (Johnny Carson/Karnak reference). I DON"T. Romney haS not changed, and I have not changed (despite the Obama LIE that Romney has "flip-flopped" trying to seem "moderate"). Way back int he GOP nominatin campaing, this blog had articles saying that Romney was more than willing to BUY INTO OBAMA'S CLASS WARFARE on taxes. Romney kept making the ont that his 'tax plan' was for the "middle class" to get actual tax cuts, and Romney even used the Obama $2000,000-$250,000 numbers. I rad Romney CORRECTly while peole with an agenda read him incorrectly. Now Romney is merely making it more obvius that he is PANDERING to the idea that it is only the "middle class" that matters, and that we shuld NEVER have an actual "tax cut" for the "rich". Romney threw overboard long ago the idea of a SIMPLE tax ystemn that is CONSISTENT. My own goal?: a Regan-type SIMPLE tax system with only TWO tax rates (25% and 12.5%), but where you do not CONCEAL betrayal of this concept by-say---"phasing out" the mortgage deductin for the rich", whikle keeping it for the middle class. I won't go into the questoni here of what it will do o the housing market to fiddle with the housing subsidy deductions. But the point is that Romney is so AFRAID of this label of 'favoring the rich" that he is about as much of a CLASS WARRIOR as Obama. Not quite (as noe one could be), but Romney is unwilling to really defend the PRINCIPLE that the it is DISASTER to keep relying on an ever FEWER number of peole to "support" the REST OF US (what Ayn Rand called 'slavery".). This blog told you all about this MONTHS AGO--although it is evidently news to Obama and the media (mainly because they are all so dishoenst).
Does Obama have a legetimate pont lurking here? Of course he does, but he is usch a LIER that he wants his NARRATIVVE--o matter how UNTRUE it is. Obama's "narrative" is that Romney 'favors the rich", and is out to "get' the middle class. Absurd. Obama shouuld lOSE on this absurdity alone.
What yoou can say about Romney is that he is not SERIOUS abut DEFICIT REDUCTIN. Romney is a Big Government Guy. He probably does not believe in taxes on Obama's level, but Romney's campaign is NOT based on real conservative principles. Romney's campaign--the debate confirmed it for me rather than calling tit into question-is based on the idea that Romney can MANAGE better than Obama. Romney an dRyan (yes, Ryan) have actually proposed NO real reductins in current spending. Thus, is there a suspicion that Romney is willing to BRIBE peole with "tax cuts" for the "middle class" (with the 'rich" maybe getting crumbs) that will really rasie the deficit? Again, I see NO evidence that Romney cares about the deficit. It is jsut one of those thingss he talks about, like Obama. Again, I said that all of this year (not jsut after the debatrte). So Obama COULD accuse Romney's numbers of not adding up, and say that Romney is shwoing himself willing ot make the defict worse.
Problem for Obama (and reason he is going with the LIES): EVERYNE (and I do mean EVERYONE) realizes that OBAMA cares LESS about the deficit than R:omney. Obama, when he mentins it, will SAY that he favors long-term deficit reductin. He and Romney ae not different there. But we KNOW that Obama does not intend to really do naything about the deficit, beyond taxes on the 'rich" (not nearly enough to do anything real about the defict). We all know that Obama wil SPEND more than Romney, even wthouh you should all know that Romney will spend ENOUGH to show taht he is a Big Government Guy as well. You can argue taht Romney will take in less in taxes (if you ignroe the "dynamic" analysis of REVENUE generated by taxes), but Obama can hardly WIN an electin based on caring MORE abut the deficit than Romney. It is a LOSER for Obama. Obama long ago decided to make this elecitn about CLASS WARFARE, and GROUP WARFARE,, and he will NEVEr really change that narrativ. Since the narrative is basically FALSE, especially in its details, Obama is FORCED into LIE after LIE (as he has been in Libya, because of his narrative that his POLICIES had nothing to do with anything, but that it was all about that anti-Muslim video).
I am willing to state bluntly: President Obama is the worst liear to ever be President of the United States. He is wiling to continue to LIE even after he is CAUGHT. That is waht Erin Burnett really exposed on Tuesday.
Notice how much INFLUENCE this blog really has, despite having abutt eh same audience as CNN. This lblog criticized Erin Burnett for being a PARTISAN HACK in articles prior to the past few weeks, and she has IMPROVED. I am not modest. I think it is ME that convinced her she realy was becoming a CNN partisan hack. Ture,. I have not haD that effect on the terribble Wolf Blitzer, but Wolf Btzer was lost to the dark side long ago. Being a dishonest partisan hack is part of the very essence of Wolf Blitzer's being, and here is no hpel that even I can save him how. Erin Burunett is actualy showing some hpe, even though she mainly stil puts forth the CNN party line. It has to take some COURAGE for Erin Burnett to, in effectg, call the Preisdent a liar on more than one occasion (again, not with the word, but in fact). I have to salute here for having that CURAGE on CNN.
Another Romney disappointment: What in the Hell are you donig giving an interview to Wolf Blitzer? Really, Roney bothers me. His whole campaign is about taking two steps forward at the same time he takes two steps back. NO GOP candidate has any business giving an intervie w to Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Soledad O'Grien, or almost any of the DISHOENST PARTISAN HACKS of CNN. Romney keeps donig his best to SAY NOTHING, and be everything to everybody (even such pond scum as Blitzer). I would say Obama has LOST this electin, EXCEPT that I remain convinced that it is ossible for Romney to pull defesat out of the jaws of victory,. Romney raly seems to have concluded that he "on" the debate by just being "moderate", and talking about issues as if he understands them (while Obama clearly does not). This Romney idea that all he as to do is command 'facts", but AVOID ALL PRINCIPLE or definite commitment to any real policies, annoys me no end. He is blessed in his opponent. But Romney is so mired in CAUTION and COWARDICE that his picture is used as an illustratin for both words int he dictioonary. Srue, he MAY win that way. And he might lose, too, for the very reason that he ALWAYS says LESS than he seems to be saying. No, Rmney is not the LIE that Obama has attempted to create. But what he is may be worse, in my own view. Still can't support him, even though the idea of Obama back in the White ouse for fur more years fills me with horror. Again, I balame this PARALYSIS on the media, who hvave dones such a good job of convincing me that being an "independent" is the ultimate virtue.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).