More Republican Lies

[wardd]

Ya see I already disagree.This is not what a commentator like Rush or Maddow are supposed to be; really honest in or with their opinions.No bloody difference between them.

is your brain feeling ok?

[Rum_Pirate]

In order that I may be consistant, look to whatever decade you believe our nation was at its best, and let's go back to those tax rates.

Clinton put in place tax rates that worked, but the deficit he inherited is dwarfed by the one Obama inherited, so I think something a little higher would be good. Up to me, I'd go back to the tax rates when we put the man on the moon. The government had the money to do the heavy lifting in the R&D for the space program and today we have many things in our daily lives that stem from that. Billion dollar industries exist today because of the government's role then.

If we want to take pride in our country, if we want to lead the world in good areas, rather than the number of people we have in prison, we need to properly fund our government. We all benefit from a state of the art infrastructure. We can't repair the infrastructure we have today with today's tax rates. Do you think we could have built it with today's tax rates?

When we built the interstate highway system, when we paid off our WWII debt, and funded the GI bill, the top tax rate was 90%. That's how we paid for all that stuff.

If you can settle for a third world country, that government comes a little cheaper.

But isn't the deficit now about double what it was when Mr Obama got into office?

How much lower (roughly) are the taxes now than when Clinton was in office? 10%, 25%, 35% 40% more?

[John Smith]

But isn't the deficit now about double what it was when Mr Obama got into office?

How much lower (roughly) are the taxes now than when Clinton was in office? 10%, 25%, 35% 40% more?

It's larger than the one Clinton had to deal with, I believe. Yes kept growing after Obama got into office. That's because things put in place during Bush's term flowed into Obama's term. TARP and the first auto bailout were under Bush, but some of the money was paid out under Obama. That increased the deficit. The tax cuts were still in place, and are still in place, and they are the largest contributor to the deficit. Obama did compromise to keep them in place, and one can argue this was a mistake or something he needed to do at the time, but they are still adding to the deficit. Simply taking the money for the wars from being off the books to on the books increased no spending, but increased the deficit.

There are charts posted on this forum that show Obama has not been spending like the drunken sailor the right says he has been.

It's short sighted, and less than honest, to blame everything that happens on the guy in office when it happens. Obama passed his healthcare bill which, according to the CBO, will save money over the years. I recall an omnibus bill, left over from the previous congress, had to be passed. He passed the stimulus package. One can argue whether or not that worked as well as expected, but it was less than a trillion dollars.

I would ask you what Obama has initiated that has added to the deficit?

[John P Lebens]

I've been out of the bilge for a while and I see something really positive here. David G. must be healthy! He's kicking some republican rear-end, and why? Because they deserve it.

Not one of the rejoinders from the right side of the spectrum bothers to do a thing but ridicule the post. There's been not one factual rejoinder. Not one attempt to debate on the merits. Ridicule is the main argument.

These right-side posts are the very definition of lazy cynicism.

[John P Lebens]

But isn't the deficit now about double what it was when Mr Obama got into office?

The deficit has certainly climbed under Obama. It has increased from about $12 trillion to about $14 trillion. It's a shockingly high debt.

It's in large part because the Bush Tax cuts, two unfunded wars, the Medicare drug benefit and high spending under Bush. Obama inherited a near-depression and $1.3 Billion annual deficit from Bush. Tax receipts tumbled, safety net costs skyrocketed.

The actual increases in spending under Obama have been moderate compared with most Republican presidents.

What's almost hilarious in all this deficit discussion is 1) Republicans have massively increased debt from less than $1 trillion when Reagan came into office, to more that $11 trillion after Bush 2. 2) No recent Republican budget would do anything except preserve low taxes for the wealthy and run the debt even higher.

I'm a liberal - and I want a lower debt. Stimulate the economy short-term to build economic growth. Then combine cost cuts and tax increases to manage debt in the medium and long-term. Bring back historically low Clinton era tax levels. Simplify the tax system so the rich, corporations and everyone else pays their fair share. Save Social Security by making the higher income people contribute at the same level as everybody else. Drive medical costs down. Cut the military.

It all has to happen for this country to get fiscally fit again.

Obama is the guy to do it.

By the way - David's point is well taken - a lot of what Republicans (and their shills) are saying these days amounts to deceptive propaganda.

[fishrswim]

Ya see I already disagree.This is not what a commentator like Rush or Maddow are supposed to be; really honest in or with their opinions.No bloody difference between them.

None except that one deals in facts, and the other deals in lies. One is educated and the other is remarkably ignorant. One is tolerant, while the other is a bigot and calls college students who testify before congress sluts. Should I go on??

[David G]

More steaming piles of droppings --


This one from the Always Reliable - Allen West:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...was-being-use/

West said in a May 14 newsletter that among examples of "absurdity" in our country was this: "ObamaCare Slush Fund Money Being Use To Spay Stray Dogs And Cats – Counts As An Anti-Obesity Campaign."

Publicity information, news coverage and even the federal government’s own website about the stimulus did suggest that taxpayers paid for pets to get spayed or neutered as part of an effort to help people exercise outdoors free from the threat of stray dogs.

There is a connection between the federal money and the clinics. A program specialist whose salary was paid for through the grant promoted the clinics, and the grant-funded animal control officers were on hand at the clinics. But it’s not accurate to say that the money was used to spay or neuter the animals. And the money did not come from an "Obamacare slush fund" -- it wasn't part of the health care law. Calling it a "slush fund" could lead readers to view it as a secretive stash of money, when in reality Congress approved the stimulus act that included money for community-based prevention. Information about the communities that got the grant is publicly available online.
Finally, by the time West made his claim, The Hill and Congressional Quarterly had both reported that the initial claims were wrong. In fact, PetSmart Charities gave the humane association $35,000 to pay for pet neutering and spaying.
We rate this claim False.

And then there's this PantOnFire stinker from Republican darling Chris Christie:

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey...want-cut-your/

In a speech Wednesday, Christie claimed that Democratic legislators this year "don't want to cut your taxes under any circumstances."

That claim is pure nonsense. The main topic in Trenton has been competing tax cut proposals made by Christie and the Democrats. Christie may disagree with them on how to cut taxes, but there’s no doubt that many Democrats are willing to do just that.

For Christie to suggest otherwise is just ridiculous. Pants on Fire!

[David G]

Now some misleading manipulation of a Bain letter by the Romney campaign - round2:

http://factcheck.org/2012/05/gillesp...-bain-capital/

This is the second time in less than a week in which a top Romney surrogate has misrepresented the Bain letter in defense of Romney.


As we previously reported, former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu wrongly claimed in a campaign conference call with reporters that Bain Capital was “able to save jobs … about 80 percent of the time” at companies in which it had invested. In that case, Sununu completely flubbed the talking point. Bain’s letter said revenue grew at 80 percent of the companies in which it invested. Companies can grow revenues without necessarily saving or creating jobs. Bain’s letter did not provide a net jobs figure. In fact, Bain said “experts agree that calculating net job growth across a portfolio of companies is difficult to do with precision.”

And -- one from Josh Mandel, in his attack ad against Sherrod Brown in Ohio:

http://factcheck.org/2012/05/mandels...nst-sen-brown/

[wardd]

it's not a lie when a republican tells it

[John P Lebens]

it's not a lie when a republican tells it

How true, how true!

[David G]

Romney campaign Solyndra ad... more misleading half-truths:

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys-solar-flareout/

An ad from the Romney campaign strains facts to make its point that federal grants and loans to green-energy companies were improperly steered to Obama’s political backers, and that federal money was wasted on failing companies that are now laying off employees.

• It claims the “inspector general said contracts were steered to ‘friends and family.’ ” But that’s not exactly what the inspector general said. And in the year since he said he was investigating such alleged “schemes,” no public charges have been made, at least not yet.
• The ad highlights the struggles — company losses, nose-diving stock and layoffs — at several companies that received substantial Department of Energy loans and grants. The ad fails to note, however, that most of the layoffs at those companies were overseas, or that the projects backed by DOE are largely moving along as planned. An independent review of the DOE program says its failure rate has been better than anticipated.
• The ad uses an inflated figure from a partisan source to quantify loans and grants that went to Obama donors.

[David G]

A lying (PantsOnFire, no less) Texas Republican? Say it ain't so!

http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...n-two-nationa/

Our ruling

Dewhurst says Cruz, who has said he opposes amnesty, "helps run two national organizations that have been leading the push to give amnesty to illegal immigrants."
That’s weakened from the top because Cruz is on the advisory board for one -- not two -- relevant groups. The HAP Institute favors comprehensive immigration reform, including hurdles that illegal immigrants must clear to qualify for legal residency. It’s at least debatable whether that’s amnesty.
Most significantly, we were struck by the utter lack of evidence for saying the institute has been leading the national push for amnesty. Far as we can tell, it’s not even among the top 20 advocacy groups on immigration policy.

This misrepresentation isn’t just inaccurate; it’s ridiculous. Pants on Fire!

[BETTY-B]

The repeat a lie often enough that it becomes the truth has morphed into just keep telling lies from a certain ideology and they are all truths. Or, as the brainwashed might scream, "We have the right to believe everything we are told!"

Such a strange phenomenon. So many blatant lies, yet so few from that ideological side are even remotely willing to even acknowledge it. It has so proven that the truth really does not matter. And with reason removed, what is left? A very dangerous place.

[John Smith]

The repeat a lie often enough that it becomes the truth has morphed into just keep telling lies from a certain ideology and they are all truths. Or, as the brainwashed might scream, "We have the right to believe everything we are told!"

Such a strange phenomenon. So many blatant lies, yet so few from that ideological side are even remotely willing to even acknowledge it. It has so proven that the truth really does not matter. And with reason removed, what is left? A very dangerous place.

We like to think we have the right to know, but if we are getting information from those with no obligation to tell the truth.......it is pointless.

For the past few years I've been a disturbingly lonesome voice is trying to require our politicians, their designees, and our "news" media to have a legal requirement to get their matters of fact correct. Seems my fellow Americans have convinced themselves that lying is protected speech.

I just wrote my federal reps that I don't care how much money is spent on ads, and I don't care who approves them. I want a statement certifying they are factually correct and that nothing has been taken out of context.

[SMARTINSEN]

From the Dish which has more charts comparing the R's and D's

[David G]

Romney double standard:

http://www.upworthy.com/this-is-how-...ath-class?rc=i

[Ian McColgin]

Too true. Too long. Too boring.

In a world where even "independents" care less about facts than about images, this piece appeals only to policy wonks who can think in whole paragraphs. It's not a compelling story to the people who need to understand how a plutocracy is funding right wing extremists and manipulating honest conservatives for the simple goal of transferring more wealth to fewer people.

[David G]

How many times have we heard Republicans complain about Solyndra? They portray it as government ineptitude, Obama cronyism, and an overall good example of what government should NOT be doing. Last week, Mitt Romney said an inspector general "looked at this investment and concluded that the administration had steered money to friends and family." That appears to be a lie. Now... truthfully, it's not a story I followed closely. And I may not have the total picture yet. But here is an article that puts a bit different perspective on the thing. A bit of of what Paul Harvey would call 'the rest of the story' --

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/06/tech...source=cnn_bin

[David G]

Romney Mittrepresentation about his jobs record and qualifications:

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys...best-or-worst/

A campaign ad that praises Mitt Romney’s performance as governor of Massachusetts presents a slanted view of his record on jobs, unemployment and taxes. To every claim, there is a “yes, but” qualifier.

More Republican jobs BS from Michelle Backman... and she ain't the only one:

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/bachman...s-jobs-report/

In a mailer to her constituents, Michele Bachmann incorrectly claims a new trade agreement with South Korea – which she supported — will “create almost 1,000 jobs” in her Minnesota congressional district.
Bachmann misreads a report produced by the Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs. The report states that 1,001 jobs in Bachmann’s district already exist because of merchandise exports to South Korea. The association does not predict how many jobs the new pact will add, although the group supports the agreement and expects employment gains.

[John Smith]

I think we make all of this overly complex.

Romney opposed Obama's auto loan, and now takes credit for the idea. He wouldn't have looked for Bin Laden, but would have killed him the same way Obama did.

The facts get pretty simple. Let's not let them get lost in the fog of campaigns.

[fishrswim]

I think we make all of this overly complex.

Romney opposed Obama's auto loan, and now takes credit for the idea. He wouldn't have looked for Bin Laden, but would have killed him the same way Obama did.

The facts get pretty simple. Let's not let them get lost in the fog of campaigns.

X2!!

[David G]

Local Republican denies what is common knowledge at the capital:

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...regon_hou.html

Rep. Matt Wingard, R-Wilsonville, resigned from a GOP leadership post Wednesday after a former aide accused him of misconduct.

Wingard's former aide told investigators for the state Department of Justice and the Clackamas County sheriff that she was pressured into sending sexually oriented texts to Wingard and then into a sexual relationship. She also said he furnished alcohol to her and others when they were under 21. At one point she alleged he had drugged her

[Ian McColgin]

I don't much favor making a partisan issue out of some politician's personal scandal, whether it's financial or sexual. Especially with sexual scandals, they are, like more overtly violent rape, abuses of power but it's still personal. It should be a bipartisan goal to rid public life of people who bring such personal corruption to the political life.

There are various forms of corruption that are absolutely partisan political issues - subversion of free elections, suborning the legislative process through bribery (campaign contributions funneled through lobbeyists, influence peddling jobs after electoral life, etc.), etc. are legitimate examples of a party (or part of a party with silent consent of the rest) becoming corrupt as a party and needing a bit of self-purification.

But it's not really a partisan issue when a legislator cannot keep his overanxious and overexcited penis under control. That's just rape in the extended, if not the criminal law, sense.

[John Smith]

I don't much favor making a partisan issue out of some politician's personal scandal, whether it's financial or sexual. Especially with sexual scandals, they are, like more overtly violent rape, abuses of power but it's still personal. It should be a bipartisan goal to rid public life of people who bring such personal corruption to the political life.

There are various forms of corruption that are absolutely partisan political issues - subversion of free elections, suborning the legislative process through bribery (campaign contributions funneled through lobbeyists, influence peddling jobs after electoral life, etc.), etc. are legitimate examples of a party (or part of a party with silent consent of the rest) becoming corrupt as a party and needing a bit of self-purification.

But it's not really a partisan issue when a legislator cannot keep his overanxious and overexcited penis under control. That's just rape in the extended, if not the criminal law, sense.

I agree. It says something about our mixed up priorities. Anything involving sex gets more attention paid to it, so it gets more coverage.

We have a large chunk of our population today who think it is more important to prevent same sex marriage than to keep their health insurance. It's more important to keep women from using contraceptives or getting abortions, that making sure our children get the best education we can give them.

[David G]

I don't much favor making a partisan issue out of some politician's personal scandal, whether it's financial or sexual. Especially with sexual scandals, they are, like more overtly violent rape, abuses of power but it's still personal. It should be a bipartisan goal to rid public life of people who bring such personal corruption to the political life.

There are various forms of corruption that are absolutely partisan political issues - subversion of free elections, suborning the legislative process through bribery (campaign contributions funneled through lobbeyists, influence peddling jobs after electoral life, etc.), etc. are legitimate examples of a party (or part of a party with silent consent of the rest) becoming corrupt as a party and needing a bit of self-purification.

But it's not really a partisan issue when a legislator cannot keep his overanxious and overexcited penis under control. That's just rape in the extended, if not the criminal law, sense.

On the face of it... I'd agree.

But I believe there's something more subtle going on. I call it a Republican Lie - rather than a general human failing/foible - because of the sociological/politican/economic phenomenon that we're in the midst of. That is - the concentration of wealth and power at the top, the perverse propaganda machine that supports it, and the types of folks that are drawn to this effort.

If you notice the news reports, both Democrats and Republicans are exhibiting - and have always exhibited - the traits associated with power-based corruption: crony capitalism; bribery; unequal-power/almost-rape relationships; decrying an unpopular behavior while engaging in it; etc. But as the power concentration heightens... it's the party that supports this dynamic that has increasingly been in the forefront of such aberrant behaviors.

So, yes, we could view it simply as a broadly distributed human failing... but I believe it's more than that. It's a symptom of the larger, and core, disease of our times... perpetrated and perpetuated by those damaged people who are drawn to this seductively perverse concentration of power.

[David G]

Romney is once again showing his true colors. Taking a statement from Obama entirely out of context, spinning it to mean something Obama never said nor meant to imply, and making it a centerpiece of his campaign:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Mitt Romney says Barack Obama doesn't think entrepreneurs built their businesses. The problem is that's not what the president said.


Romney and his allies continue to hammer Obama for comments taken wildly out of context, pummeling the president as a government-obsessed figure who thinks Washington gets the credit for the success of small businesses.
That was not Obama's point when he spoke in Virginia on July 13 about the government's supportive role in providing a stable environment in which businesses can thrive. Nor was it Romney's point when he used similar phrasing in 2002 about Olympic athletes who benefited from supportive parents and coaches.
But in a campaign that makes facts secondary to a good attack, the context doesn't seem to matter.


Taken as a whole, Obama's remarks aren't that different from Romney's comments in 2002 to Olympic athletes.
"You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power," Romney said after congratulating the athletes. "For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them."

[David G]

And... more absurd mis-statements from Romeny:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...x9W_story.html

There have been many mendacious moments in this presidential campaign, but it will be hard to top what Mitt Romney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars conference this week.

President Obama is seeking “an arbitrary, across-the-board budget reduction that would saddle the military with $1 trillion in cuts,” the Republican said. “Strategy is not driving the president’s massive defense cuts. In fact, his own secretary of defense warned that these reductions would be devastating, and he’s right. . . . This is no time for the president’s radical cuts in our military.”

Come again?

Romney is referring to the automatic spending cuts, or “sequestration,” required by the Budget Control Act of 2011. For those suffering memory loss of the sort afflicting Romney, that legislation came about when Republicans threatened to throw the country into default unless Democrats agreed to automatic budget cuts if a “supercommittee” couldn’t reach a bipartisan agreement (which it couldn’t, naturally).


If the defense cuts are Obama’s, they are also John Boehner’s, Eric Cantor’s, Mitch McConnell’s and Jon Kyl’s. The bill passed with the votes of a majority of House and Senate Republicans and the encouragement of — wait for it — Mitt Romney. A Romney spokeswoman at the time said he applauded Boehner’s negotiating prowess.


Romney may have been able to retire from Bain Capital retroactively, but he won’t find it so easy to hold his applause retroactively. That’s because his party continues to choose tax cuts over defense spending.


The automatic defense cuts came about largely because Republicans on the supercommittee refused any tax increase. By coincidence, the choice between tax cuts and defense spending came to the Senate floor again on Wednesday — and Republicans again chose the cuts.

[John Smith]

The libs believe them more often.They are like lemmings thinking they won't drown,if their leaders tell them they will be just fine.

Personally, I do some fact checking. If you'd like to list lies the dems are telling, please feel free.

[John Smith]

About what I hear from the dems. No difference at all.

Examples, please.

[John Smith]

Hey man, political ads are not suppose to be non-biased.

It was a politically motivated ad, not a Supreme Court ruling.

I have no problem with bias: I have a problem with non fact facts. I don't care who runs the ad, I want the facts presented to be accurate and any quotes not to be taken out of context.

[Rum_Pirate]

Clinton put in place tax rates that worked, but the deficit he inherited is dwarfed by the one Obama inherited, . . .

Erm, the deficit that Mr Obama inherited appears to have been ballooned out of all proportion by Mr Obama.

Care to comment?

If you can settle for a third world country, that government comes a little cheaper.

The government parole might actually be a little cheaper but you have to factor in the blatant (and not so blatant) stealing you the PM and caninet(etc) members.






.

[John Smith]

speaking of 'painted pictures', I remember Dan Rather declaring, by innuendo, that the US lost the Tet Offensive... was that a lie?

of 'other' lies... I remember the last presidential campaign... were those lies?
Obama implied he would emmediately take us out of the Middle East... did he lie?

David, you cannot have it both ways

I can go back and find many Democrats lying.

The question is who's lying within this time frame: from Reagan forward.

[John Smith]

From the dems regarding lies.

A red X?

[John Smith]

i often see maddow self correct

Me too. She admits she got something wrong and makes the correction and apologizes.

[wardd]

Me too. She admits she got something wrong and makes the correction and apologizes.

she learned that from watching fox

[John Smith]

Maybe you should listen to Maddow instead of listening to FOX and the other conservative media looking for errors.Maddow is good at giving a truthful tidbit and than she injects her opinion on the one or two facts she uses daily. I listen to her once in a while but turn her off almost immediately.

But her tidbit is truthful. Fox's tidbits are not.

[wardd]

Maybe you should listen to Maddow instead of listening to FOX and the other conservative media looking for errors.Maddow is good at giving a truthful tidbit and than she injects her opinion on the one or two facts she uses daily. I listen to her once in a while but turn her off almost immediately.

it's her show, it's an opinion show, she makes no bones about it

[John Smith]

But isn't the deficit now about double what it was when Mr Obama got into office?

How much lower (roughly) are the taxes now than when Clinton was in office? 10%, 25%, 35% 40% more?

Yes, and it's growing. The Bush tax cuts are still in place and still adding to the deficit, and Obama cannot let them expire because Congress won't. The Medicare prescription drug bill is still adding to the deficit, as are the wars. So what's your point?

Taxes today are lower than they've been in many, many years.

The deficit/debt Obama inherited dwarfs what Clinton inherited, and I don't think the Clinton tax rates will work now.

This country worked extremely well with the tax rates we had when we had an active space program and put men on the moon.

The top rate then was 65%. When Ike was president it was 90%. The wealthy still kept many mulitples of what the average worker made and had their summer homes, big cars, and big boats.

This country began its downhill path when Reagan dramatically cut tax rates; then had to raise them numerous times in an effort to make up the losses. Outsourcing, under those tax cuts, went on at breakneck speed, proving that the lower tax rates didn't keep jobs in this country.

Why would you oppose simply going back to rates that worked so well as those in the 60's?

[John Smith]

Erm, the deficit that Mr Obama inherited appears to have been ballooned out of all proportion by Mr Obama.

Care to comment?








The government parole might actually be a little cheaper but you have to factor in the blatant (and not so blatant) stealing you the PM and caninet(etc) members.






.

The key word here is "appears". It is true the deficit has gone up under his presidency. That does not mean it has gone up because of his policies. If you follow Republican math, he added $700 billion with his stimulus. He's also cut $500 billion from Medicare. That's only a net of $200 billion that HE has added to the deficit.

Let us remember among his first order of business was to put the two wars ON BUDGET. BUSH HAD KEPT THEM OFF BUDGET. This didn't spend any more money, but this borrowed money was now reflected in the deficit. He also signed an omnibus bill left from the previous congress that he either signed or shut the government down; that spent some money.

The CBO scores the healthcare bill as saving money.

I don't know how many people here have to explain this so you will understand it, but the Bush tax cuts which Obama has not been able to let expire are still adding to the deficit, as are the two wars: now one war.

You tell me what Obama policies have made it through congress and how much they've added to the deficit. Take that as a challenge.

[Rum_Pirate]

The key word here is "appears". It is true the deficit has gone up under his presidency. That does not mean it has gone up because of his policies. If you follow Republican math, he added $700 billion with his stimulus. He's also cut $500 billion from Medicare. That's only a net of $200 billion that HE has added to the deficit.

Let us remember among his first order of business was to put the two wars ON BUDGET. BUSH HAD KEPT THEM OFF BUDGET. This didn't spend any more money, but this borrowed money was now reflected in the deficit. He also signed an omnibus bill left from the previous congress that he either signed or shut the government down; that spent some money.

The CBO scores the healthcare bill as saving money.

I don't know how many people here have to explain this so you will understand it, but the Bush tax cuts which Obama has not been able to let expire are still adding to the deficit, as are the two wars: now one war.

You tell me what Obama policies have made it through congress and how much they've added to the deficit. Take that as a challenge.

You did not comment on 'Ballooned'

What about this?

[wardd]

Yes, and it's growing. The Bush tax cuts are still in place and still adding to the deficit, and Obama cannot let them expire because Congress won't. The Medicare prescription drug bill is still adding to the deficit, as are the wars. So what's your point?

Taxes today are lower than they've been in many, many years.

The deficit/debt Obama inherited dwarfs what Clinton inherited, and I don't think the Clinton tax rates will work now.

This country worked extremely well with the tax rates we had when we had an active space program and put men on the moon.

The top rate then was 65%. When Ike was president it was 90%. The wealthy still kept many mulitples of what the average worker made and had their summer homes, big cars, and big boats.

This country began its downhill path when Reagan dramatically cut tax rates; then had to raise them numerous times in an effort to make up the losses. Outsourcing, under those tax cuts, went on at breakneck speed, proving that the lower tax rates didn't keep jobs in this country.

Why would you oppose simply going back to rates that worked so well as those in the 60's?

not to mention reagan broke the back of the union movement

[wardd]

You did not comment on 'Ballooned'

What about this?

that's not an answer to the question

[Rum_Pirate]

that's not an answer to the question

That is my original query which you have not answered.

When you finish answering mine I shall attempt (after some research) to answer yours (what Obama policies have made it through congress and how much they've added to the deficit).

Should I include expenses that are caused by Executive Directives?

[John Smith]

That is my original query which you have not answered.

When you finish answering mine I shall attempt (after some research) to answer yours (what Obama policies have made it through congress and how much they've added to the deficit).

Should I include expenses that are caused by Executive Directives?

Include what you wish. The CBO scores ACA as saving money. The omnibus bill was left over from the previous congress and he had little choice but to sign it. He did pass a stimulus. My governor is now taking credit for jobs in my state that stimulus stimulated.

I don't think it is more than simple math here. Bill Clinton left a growing surplus when he left office. That surplus continued to grow until the Bush tax cut/s. They alone blew the deficit and they created a revenue problem.. Then he added two wars on borrowed money and the prescription drug bill, on borrowed money.

Just like Clinton's policies were still in place the day Bush was sworn in, the Bush policies were still in place when Obama was sworn in. They are STILL in place, bcause the Republicans in congress blocked changing them. One war is ended. The other is still going. Still on borrowed money and still adding to the deficit. As are the Bush tax cuts.

Add what you wish, but an honest man would admit that Obama's policies have done little to add to the growth of the deficit.

Meanwhile, and I apologize if I missed it, I'm waiting for your response to my answer on tax rates. I would go back to the rates in place when we put men on the moon. The country did fine under those rates.

The middle class is the tide that lifts all boats. Give them decent pay and they don't mind paying taxes. Those who have become wealthy in this country should be more than willing to pay a decent tax rate. Today's tax rates are simply too low.

[David G]

Another goodie from the Republican Misinformation Machine about the AHCA:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...+cooking+books

Did you get the chain email that claims the health care law will institute a new tax on home sales?

Here’s the email many readers have forwarded to us:

"Under the new health care bill — did you know that all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax? The bulk of these new taxes don’t kick in until 2013 (presumably after Obama’s re-election). You can thank Nancy, Harry and Barack and your local Democrat Congressman for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Is this Hope & Change great or what? …

"Oh, you weren’t aware this was in the Obamacare bill? Guess what, you aren’t alone. There are more than a few members of Congress that aren’t aware of it either (result of clandestine midnight voting for huge bills they’ve never read). AND, there are a few other surprises lurking."

The email’s claims are wrong, but that hasn’t stopped people from pressing the forward button. We’ve received copies of this email regularly since 2010. We’ve debunked it before, but since it’s still out there, we’re going to review the facts again now.



In general, if you sell your own home, individuals are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit and married couples are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit. Again, that’s profit, not the sales price.

If you’re wealthy and sell your home at a substantial profit, it’s possible you might get hit with the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income. Most Americans won’t have to worry about this, though.

The chain email doesn’t acknowledge any of those pesky facts. It says that a 3.8 percent tax applies to all real estate transactions as a sales tax. That is not the case. The email seems intended to scare people, particularly older Americans thinking of downsizing. For that, we award this chain email a Pants on Fire!

[David G]

More lies - this time about the debt:

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey...chain-e-mail-/

A chain e-mail circulating in New Jersey claims Obama "doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year."

There’s no doubt that the national debt has increased significantly since Obama took office, but it’s outrageous to claim it doubled in one year.

Starting with his inauguration, the largest over-the-year increase in either form of national debt was about 24 percent. Even after roughly three and-a-half years into his presidency, both forms of debt still have not doubled.

We’re just left with three words to describe this claim: Pants on Fire!

[David G]

Here's a cute one from the Texas attorney general regarding voter fraud. He claims that Texas proved that over 200 'dead' people voted in their last election:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...-voters-Texas/

Turns out he has a bit of a problem distinguishing the difference between 'suspected' and 'proved'.

Our ruling

Abbott said the recent trial proved that more than 200 dead people voted in the latest elections, the May 2012 party primaries.

But the trial was less conclusive. To recap: An elections official testified that after comparing a list of 50,000 dead registered voters -- where’s that headline? -- to records of voters in the recent primaries, "we believe" that 239 "folks voted in the recent election after passing away," meaning 239 voters cast ballots using voter registrations of dead Texans. According to his testimony, the state then took the best matches and sought death certificates "for as many of those as we could round up in a short time." Ten death certificates came back and, the official testified, four names, birth dates and Social Security numbers completely aligned on the lists and death certificates.

We can see how this information might raise flags, but we do not see that it proves there were more than 200 dead voters, so to speak. That's because there’s a difference between suspecting fraud and proving it. After all, Abbott's office has been handed the 200-plus matches to investigate.
His claim rates Mostly False.

Don't you Republicans ever get tired of supprting this mob?

[Rum_Pirate]

More lies - this time about the debt:

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey...chain-e-mail-/

A chain e-mail circulating in New Jersey claims Obama "doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year."

There’s no doubt that the national debt has increased significantly since Obama took office, but it’s outrageous to claim it doubled in one year.

Starting with his inauguration, the largest over-the-year increase in either form of national debt was about 24 percent. Even after roughly three and-a-half years into his presidency, both forms of debt still have not doubled.

We’re just left with three words to describe this claim: Pants on Fire!

That article me be misleading but what about the cartoon that was posted believe it was suggested that the debt was larger in one TERM than the 43 Presidents combined.

Using your post, the calculations (look up the actual percentages and do the math) would appear to bear out the doubling or there about in ONE TERM.

Year 1 +24% = 124%

Year 2 +(say) 22% = 151%

Year 3 +(say) 20% = 181%

Plus a half year say( 12%) = 203.32%

Have salaries, inflation prices, taxes etc cone up at those rates?

[David G]

That article me be misleading but what about the cartoon that was posted believe it was suggested that the debt was larger in one TERM than the 43 Presidents combined.

Using your post, the calculations (look up the actual percentages and do the math) would appear to bear out the doubling or there about in ONE TERM.

Year 1 +24% = 124%

Year 2 +(say) 22% = 151%

Year 3 +(say) 20% = 181%

Plus a half year say( 12%) = 203.32%

Have salaries, inflation prices, taxes etc cone up at those rates?

The topic of this thread is lies. Specifically, Republican lies (not that I can really keep up, but I do like to offer up a sampling).

The lie here was -- "A chain e-mail circulating in New Jersey claims Obama "doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year." The facts don't support that claim. Not even close. Results: Pants On Fire. If you want to start a separate thread discussing the actual economics of our nation - and the history behind our present predicament, and what the Obama administration could/should do differently - feel free. I might even contribute.

[David G]

Now it's Mike Huckabee. He sifts thru the White House's recently released salary list and wastes no time in telling the nation about one comparison that makes no sense to him. Is this one a deliberate lie... or just overweening idiocy? I can't tell. What do you think? At the very least - I'd say he's more interested in attacking Obama than in getting the facts straight.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...rity-director/

Huckabee, a former presidential candidate and now a talk show host, wrote on on his Facebook page, "If you want a good job, you should’ve gone into government." He noted that the total White House payroll went up $700,000 from the year before; it now stands at $37.8 million. Then, commenting on the timing of the administration’s data dump -- late on a Friday afternoon -- he wrote, "Maybe they just didn’t want to explain their priorities, considering that we now know the White House has three staff calligraphers making between $86,000 and 97,000 dollars each, and just one National Security Director. She makes $55,000."


There is, however, an important issue about the job description for the National Security Director. Through Huckabee’s website we asked what he thought the National Security Director did. We did not get a response.

We did get a description from the White House. The National Security Director basically helps with human resources for the national security staff. The person in that job is Kinsey Casey. Casey makes sure that open positions are filled, which includes vetting and interviewing applicants. She helps new staffers transition and generally takes care of the details of personnel management. In short, she does administrative work.

Huckabee might have confused the National Security Director with the National Security Adviser. This is a high-profile position currently held by Thomas Donilon, a lawyer who was once chief of staff to Secretary of State Warren Christopher in the Clinton administration. Donilon helps shape strategy on major international issues such as the civil war in Syria, Iran’s nuclear program, and North Korea. He is part of a trio of advisers, one of whom focuses on preventing violent extremism in the U.S., and the other who deals with international economics.

All three advisers make $172,200 a year, nearly twice the salaries of the calligraphers.

Before the Huckabee Facebook post, we hadn’t given much thought to the White House calligraphers. It turns out they’ve been part of the staff for decades. They design and handletter the menus, invitations, and ceremonial declarations for formal events. C-SPAN profiled them in 2008.