The Liar-In-Chief Hits New Height in Hypocrisy

  Bookmark and Share  When it comes attempts to define President Obama’s debate related claim that Mitt Romney is a liar, my first reaction is tell you that the claim is the best case of the pot calling the kettle black that one could ever imagine.  But that would be characterized by the left as blatantly racists.  So here’s how I would explain President Obama’s charge.

Ever since President Obama lost last week’s debate, the left became apoplectic and tried to work through a series of emotions that ranged from fear over losing the election and anger over the President’s ineptness, to disappointment with his performance and embarrassment over his inability to defend his record. Once their shock wore off and they were able to collect themselves they quickly offered up an endless array of excuses for the President’s truly disastrous debate performance.  Some suggested that he was preoccupied by an unfolding international crisis that was yet unknown to the general public or possibly even a personal crisis.  Others like Al Gore suggested altitude poisoning was to blame. But by the time morning came, the President’s campaign released their own excuse for his embarrassing performance in a talking points memo that went out to the leading liberal spinmeisters and the left immediately fell in line to spread the word.

According to the President and the left-wing propaganda machine, President Obama failed to beat Romney in the debate because he was thrown off by the lies Romney was telling throughout the debate.  According to the President and his people, Mitt Romney lied about his own record and plans for America as well as the President’s record and plans for the nation.

The problems with that excuse is that President Obama was the one who was clearly trying to lie his own way through the debate.  With a clear inability to defend his own horrific record against Mitt Romney, President Obama tried his best to continue waging the class warfare reelection strategy that has successfully energized his base.  Part of that strategy was to try and describe Mitt Romney’s economic proposals as a $5 trillion tax cut, mainly for the rich.

But as attested to in the latest Romney ad seen below this post, the only liar on stage in Denver last week was President Obama.

When it comes to Mitt Romney’s tax plan, what President Obama neglected to mention was that when he made the charge that Romney’s tax plan cut taxes by $5 trillion, he was actually lying by taking skewed numbers from a scoring by the Tax Policy Center.  That analysis claimed  the Romney plan shifted $86 billion in taxes from the well-off to the middle class. But the problem with that particular assumption is that it relies on a false narrative which contends the reduce rates would not spur economic growth and generate new tax revenue.   Dynamic scoring of the same Romney plan  concludes the economic growth generated by those reduced tax rates would fill $53 billion of that $86 billion hole.  As for the remaining gap, Romney’s plan  to eliminate exemptions on state and local bonds and life insurance policies, would would raise an additional $45 billion.   That means that by eliminating exemptions and prompting new growth, Romney’s plan is likely to actually lower top rates and still raise more revenue.

Making President Obama’s claims even more unreliable is that the author of the initial study that Obama was misinterpreting is  now admitting, that “under those conditions and policies, Romney’s plan “would be revenue neutral.”

But with all these numbers being discussed and explained you are probably still confused with where President Obama’s $5 trillion figure came from.  Well the truth is that it is a figure which he practically pulled straight out of his ass.

Obama took the Tax Policy Center study  which neglected to  figure in the ensuing economic growth that would make Romney’s plan revenue neutral and erroneously concluded that the plan would lead to $480 billion in lost revenues by 2015.  The Obama campaign then took that incorrect figure and multiplied it by a decade.  That left them with $4.8 trillion, which they then rounded up to $5 trillion.

So that explains the lie behind the man who was really trying to deceive voters… Barack Obama.

But that wasn’t the only lie President Obama tried to muddle through the first debate with.

President Obama claimed that Romney’s plan would raise taxes on middle class families yet this flies in the face of what The Associated Press and other studies concluded which is that Romney’s  plans would not raise taxes on anyone.

Our President also used the debate to claim that  Obamacare would make health care premiums more affordable.  According to him,  “when Obamacare is fully implemented, we are going to be in a position to show that costs are going down. Over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it is true — but they have gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. We are already seeing progress.

But Factcheck.org found;

“Obama wrongly said that over the last two years, health care premiums have ‘gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.’”

Meanwhile, The Associated Press noted ;

“In 2011, premiums jumped by 9 percent” and “this year’s 4 percent increase was more manageable, but the price tag for family coverage stands at $15,745, with employees paying more than $4,300 of that.”

On the issue of Social Security the President stated during the debate that;

“Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker — Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill. But the basic structure is sound.”

Yet contrary to his claim, the Congressional Budget Office concludes that Social Security will run into financial deficits. Clearly that is not a structurally sound program.

So it would seem that President Obama dedicated his first debate in the 2012 election to doing exactly what he is trying to claim Mitt Romney did… lie.  Now where I come from, that is called hypocrisy.  It’s something that even liberals would normally shun in their leaders.  But something tells me that the left will handle this the same way they have with everything else Barack Obama has ever said and done.   They will refuse to hold him accountable.

Meanwhile, congressional investigations are now taking place as we try to uncover exactly what was behind the Obama lies surrounding the terrorist attack that killed our Libyan Ambassador and three other Americans.  But if all of that still isn’t enough to convince you that Barack Obama is our Liar-In-Chief, I suggest you see watch the video below.  It’s an original,  un-narrated documentary that looks at Obama and his first term with regards to transparency, healthcare, taxes, fairness, energy, and the national debt through his own words

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

Romney Tax Plan Deserves an F

If we wanted a Liberal, we would just vote for Obama.  That should be the clear response from Conservatives after Romney followed up  his pledge to raise the minimum wage with a tax plan only a Liberal could love.

At first, Romney’s tax plan sounds pretty good.  Cut every bracket by 20%, including the top brackets.  Who could argue with that?  Of course, it doesn’t solve the complexity of taxes or cut into the billions of dollars America spends preparing taxes like Newt’s Flat Tax would, but it does lower taxes across the board, right?

No.  Romney went on to say that his tax plan would be revenue neutral, meaning overall it would not be a tax cut.  He would pay for the plan by limiting deductions for the top 1%.  According to Bankrate.com, that means that Romney would effectively raise taxes on every American who makes more than $343,000.  His populism perpetuates his timidity and presents us with a consumerism driven plan that will not grow the economy any more than Obama’s stimulus packages, or Obama’s own tax plans.  Romney appears to be appealing to the “99”.

Romney may think he will score points by taking shots at the top 1%, but here is the real problem. Deductions are already limited for the mega-rich like Romney.  Romney’s tax plan will create a donut hole tax hike on upper income earners that will become basically irrelevant to someone who makes as much as Romney. His tax plan would result in a 3% tax hike for himself, assuming he targets charitable contributions as one of the deductions he limits.

Based on average itemized deductions for individuals who make more than $250,000, someone just over the top 1% threshhold of $343,000 could end up trading a tax cut of $24,000 from the reduced rates for a tax hike of up to $25,000 from losing their deductions.

In order to make this tax plan more effective in raising taxes on the mega-rich to pay for it instead of small business owners, Romney will have to target deductions that are not already currently limited.  For example, you can only claim a deduction for mortgage interest on the first $1.1 million in debt principle.  That means that someone with a $5 million dollar home won’t be affected as negatively by Romney’s tax plan as someone with a $1 million home.  However, if he decided to limit deductions on charitable giving, that could result in the mega-rich paying for Romney’s tax plan instead of small business owners.  Is that something Romney is prepared to do?

Romney’s plan is a timid one because it does not seek to decrease taxes and spending, it simply seeks to move money around from business owners and investors to consumers.  That is Liberal Taxation 101.  Romney’s plan follows the same Liberal analogy of taking buckets of water from the deep end of the pool and pouring them in the shallow end in order to fill it up.  It may win some moderates and independents, but it will not win over conservatives who want to see lower taxes all around and lower government spending to pay for it.  We also don’t want to see more money being taken from economic producers and being put towards government waste instead.

Romney’s plan does nothing to simplify taxes, and in fact will make it much worse for upper income earners.  He is adding another level of complexity to how deductions are calculated and making it more difficult for economic producers to plan for the future.

Romney has yet to issue substantive details, but for now I give his tax plan an F.

 

 

A Comparison of the Republican Presidential Candidate’s Economic Plans

Bookmark and Share    As Republicans try to figure out who will be the best candidate to run against President Obama, the economy remains the number one issue affecting voter opinion in the general election for president.  And with projections of unemployment reamining high, long into 2012, combined with a way too slow rate of economic growth, rising prices and debt, low consumer confidence, and a host of other negative economic indicators that offer little hope for a turnaround, it looks like the economy will remain the top issues in 2012. 

As such, White House 2012 has prepared a chart that compares each of the Republican presidential candidate’s econmic plans to one another. 

In the chart you will see exactly where each candidate stands on such things as the personal and corporate rates, repatriation of corporate profits made overseas, Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, capital gains and death taxes, spending, and more. 

Hopefully this comparison will serve as a quick and handy summation of the similarities and differences between the candidates.  But no matter how helpful it may be, there is no substitution for knowing exactly what each candidate is proposing.  They say the devil is in the details and that is the truth.  While summaries are nice, knowing precisely what is involved is far better.  That is why in addition to our summary comparison chart, White House 2012 is also providing you with the links to each candidate’s actual economic plan.  Some are more detailed than others and in that area, the most comprehensive plan of all out there is the plan outlined in Mitt Romney’s “Believe in America” proposal. 

While the details that Romney offer are commendable, there is also a commendable trend toward to simplicity that is being offered in the 2012 cycle. Each of the candidates are proposes a flatter” tax code with less brackets, and several are proposing an all out flat tax. Such simplification is welcome but they also involve more than just one single tax for all. So I advise you to take a good look at each candidate’s individual plan. Decide for yourself who has the best command of this most important issue and who has the best plan to deal with it.  Below the chart, you will find links to the most detailed information on their economic plans made available by their campaigns.

Click on the name of each candidate to review the details of their economic plans

Michele Bachmann

Herman Cain

Newt Gingrich

Jon Huntsman

Ron Paul

Rick Perry

Mitt Romney

Rick Santorum

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: