Wash. Examiner falsely claims Obama wants to "raise everybody's taxes"
A Washington Examiner editorial falsely claimed that President Obama is "determin[ed]" to "raise everybody's taxes by allowing the Bush [tax] cuts ... to expire" and advanced the falsehood that the stimulus bill "failed to create jobs." In fact, Obama has proposed rolling back the Bush tax cuts only on American families making more than $250,000 a year, and many analysts agree that stimulus spending significantly raised employment over what would have happened without it.
Wash. Examiner: "Time to admit Obamanomics has failed"
Wash. Examiner falsehood: Obama is "determin[ed]" to "raise everybody's taxes by allowing the Bush [tax] cuts ... to expire." In an August 8 editorial, titled, "Time to admit Obamanomics has failed," The Washington Examiner falsely claimed that Obama was "determin[ed] to raise everybody's taxes by allowing the Bush cuts from 2001 and 2003 to expire Jan. 1, 2011." From the editorial:
As Romer fades back to her teaching post at Berkeley, Obama is adding to the economic misery by creating an environment of regulatory uncertainty. The Wall Street reform law Obama recently signed potentially requires 533 new regulations, 60 studies and 93 reports, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Obama's Environmental Protection Agency has 29 active rulemakings, and there are 100 new rules on the Labor Department's agenda and 26 at the Transportation Department.
Add Obama's determination to raise everybody's taxes by allowing the Bush cuts from 2001 and 2003 to expire Jan. 1, 2011, and it's easy to why [sic] banks, businesses and consumers are hoarding trillions of dollars that could otherwise spur economic growth.
Wash. Examiner falsehood: "[T]he stimulus bill has proven to be an extraordinary waste of borrowed money that has failed to create jobs." The Washington Examiner also falsely claimed that the stimulus bill "failed to create jobs." From the editorial:
Predictably, the stimulus bill has proven to be an extraordinary waste of borrowed money that has failed to create jobs, generate economic growth or do much of anything other than line the pockets of White House political allies. That and give $308 million in subsidies to BP before the Gulf oil spill disaster, and subsidize a study on what happens when monkeys snort coke.
[...]
The economy is stalling, unemployment seems stuck at European levels of idleness, the federal deficit and the national debt are at historic highs, public confidence in Congress is at its lowest-ever level and big majorities of Mainstream Americans say Obama has the country on the wrong path. Obamanomics has failed miserably and it's time for everybody in this town to admit it so we can move on.
In fact, Obama's proposed budget will only increase taxes on wealthiest Americans
Obama's proposed FY 2011 budget calls for only allowing the tax cuts that affect families earning more than $250,000 a year to expire. From the proposal:
In addition to closing loopholes that allow wealthy investment managers to not pay income taxes on their earnings and ending subsidies for big oil, gas, and coal companies, the Budget eliminates the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year and devotes those resources instead to reducing the deficit. Our Nation could not afford these tax cuts when they passed, and it cannot afford them now.
And, independent and private analysts agree stimulus significantly raised employment
CEA: Recovery Act has raised employment "by between 2.5 and 3.6 million." In its fourth quarterly report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) stated: "The CEA estimates that as of the second quarter of 2010, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.5 and 3.6 million. These estimates are broadly consistent with the direct recipient reporting data available for 2010:Q1."
Independent analysts agree that Recovery Act significantly raised employment. In its quarterly report, CEA included figures from independent analyses that also credited the Recovery Act with increasing employment:
Economists also say stimulus helped economic recovery
Wall Street Journal: 70 percent of economists surveyed said stimulus helped. The Wall Street Journal reported on March 12 that 38 of the 54 economists it surveyed "said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act boosted growth and mitigated job losses, while six said the legislation had a net negative effect."
ABC News: Most on panel of economists "think the economy would be worse" without the stimulus. ABC News reported on February 18 that "most" of the economists on its panel "think the economy would be worse today without the big aid package, which totaled $787 billion and was signed into law by President Obama on Feb. 17, 2009."
NABE: 83 percent say stimulus raised GDP. A February survey of 203 members of the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) found that "[e]ighty-three percent believe that GDP is currently higher than it would have been without the 2009 stimulus package (ARRA)."
USA Today: Surveyed economists said "stimulus package saved jobs." USA Today reported on January 25:
President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs -- but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists.
Unemployment would have hit 10.8% -- higher than December's 10% rate -- without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs.
The Troglodytes will keep spreading their lie through Hate Radio and FOX, so that at least half of Americans will believe that their taxes are going up. They also believe that taxes are being raised on most small businesses.
We need to discuss when and how those taxes will be raised, not whether or not they will be.
It is time this country grew up and acted like adults instead of spoiled children.
BUT the media still should at leat TRY to tell the truth. It's asking a lot, I know, but still. The fact is:
OBAMA IS LOWERING TAXES. Period. Good or bad, necessary or not, that's the truth. Relative the law that REPUBLICANS WROTE and GEORGE BUSH SIGNED - IOW, relative to what the tax rate would be next year if he did NOTHING AT ALL, taxes will be LOWER for EVERYONE. (Becuase of the progressive taxation brackets, they'll even be lower for that top 2%, but don't expect Fred Thompson to explain that to anyone!)
But you're absolutley right. And to put into a 10-second soundbite that 98% of America should be able to get their heads wrapped around I propose putting it this way:
With any tax increases we'll start at the top and work our way down; With any tax breaks we'll start at the bottom and work our way up.
Done. Problem solved.
---------------------------------------------
IMHO
Also, as we get out of the recession, taxes can go up more to bring down the debt. I think the idea is to work down the debt during good times so you can spend and borrow more during bad times.
Clinton was working on the debt during a strong economy. It was the republicans that cut taxes during good times with the result being that we are seriously in debt during these bad times.
When republicans complain that we can't spend money to help people during the recession, they should remind everyone that their tax cuts for the wealthy are what is tying our hands now.
I don't know where your political views put you on the spectrum, but I can bet you will cut every program, but the ones you like.
BTW, Nerzog, recent Fox News opinion surveys show that 100% of Fox viewers who answered their land lines in the middle of the day and responded to their polls believe that Obama has raised everybody's taxes.
How do you feel about the fact that Obama has raised everybody's taxes ?
There is necessary spending, like the stimulus spending and the spending happening NOW to continue to support the two wars.
There is unnecessary deficit spending, like the unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit, or the totally unnecessary war with Iraq, or the two tax cuts funded by deficit spending, one an unprecedented tax cut during wartime! Those tax cuts were SO bad for the deficit that the Republicans HAD to make them have a 10 year cut-off in order to pass them using reconciliation rules.
The USA is not that highly taxed compared to other developed nations.
The Dems aren't doing "empire building". You're either lying or you're too ignorant to have a discussion with mature adults. Which is it?
Fact is, you have personal animus for any opinion that is different from yours. Grow up, for once.
I DID add more specifics about spending patterns that NO OTHER poster added, first off.
I also added the bit about necessary versus unnecessary spending, which no other poster mentioned.
Then I added the part about how the US isn't all that highly taxed, which no other poster wrote, combating the nonsense that poster presented in yet another way.
And then, yeah, you're right, when confronted with a post that's either dishonest to the core or a poster who's too ignorant of reality to try to educate us at all, I am going to mock that person.
And I think it's exactly what I should do. That poster deserved no credibility or respect, and so your WHINE that he didn't get any, that he's a victim when he's really only being held to account for the stuff he wrote, is evidence of YOUR personal animus, doofus! But thanks for once again showing it off - you wouldn't want to give anyone a chance to forget how consumed by that animus you are! You repeatedly try to claim that I add nothing, when any sane person knows that's not the truth. Calling out dishonest and/or ignorant posts and the posters who make them is a valuable service in and of itself, and I DID add stuff that other posters did not! It's undeniable, yet you deny it - and that's YOUR failing, not mine.
And your false portrayal of that person as a victim of me is typical, and baseless, and further evidence of your inability to control your personal animus.
Thanks for being unable to control yourself. Please, don't stop.
A lot!
It is amazing how Bush presented us with this epic struggle against terrorism, yet did not raise revenue to pay for it. In fact, except for our soldiers who sacrificed a great deal, Bush's wars were set up to be painless as possible for the average person - keep them in the background. The idea of paying your way as discarded by republicans.
Now that republicans are not in power, it seems all the want to do is complain about being fiscally responsible.
two tax cuts funded by deficit spending, one an unprecedented tax cut during wartime! Those tax cuts were SO bad for the deficit that the Republicans HAD to make them have a 10 year cut-off in order to pass them using reconciliation rules.
Where were the tea parties back then?????
Now, I don't doubt that some of them were against Bush towards the end, and I don't doubt that some were actually against the big spending he did.
But that actually makes them look WORSE, in my mind.
Because they were against the big spending, and against Bush, but they didn't speak up because their short-term politically partisan goals were MORE IMPORTANT TO THEM than the long-term fiscal health of the USA! They were more worried about what their vocal objections to the deficit spending would do to the electability of Republicans than they should have been, given the gravity of the economic situation!
Saying that you were aware of the problems, but did nothing, is worse than saying that you weren't aware of the problems and did nothing!
"It is time this country grew up and acted like adults instead of spoiled children"
Well said, could not agree more. I am totally down with the idea of having an honest and frank discussion about taxes and spending. Put everything out there and deal with it, look at where our money is being spent, is it necessary, can it be cut or trimmed, and if taxes need to be raised, then I guess they need to be raised.
But I don't trust our politicians, they don't treat us like adults, they treat us like fragile potential voters. Their handlers and PR people tell them what it takes to rack up votes for the next election, do not rock any boats, be vague, smile, dump on the other party, but DO NOT be brutally honest because then they are toast.
So unless we demand the spin stop and the truth be told us, I don't hold out much hope for that frank discussion. And without it, I can't condone any tax hikes, sorry.
When politicians see how an outlet like fox news can manipulate voters and derail adult conversation with unfounded hysteria and smear, why would they treat us like adults? Fox treats its audience like fragile potential children and it seems to work. Fox reinforces all those handlers and PR people, so that a large segment of the voters have knee jerk emotional reactions to just about any issue. They might be brutal but the last thing they are is honest.
Put everything out there and deal with it, look at where our money is being spent, is it necessary, can it be cut or trimmed, and if taxes need to be raised, then I guess they need to be raised.
That will not work when you have so many people so happily misinformed and manipulated by partisan media. Look at the recent health care reform as an example. A rational, honest review of all the option available was intentionally derailed and a PR outlet like FOX certainly was an enabler for politicians who did not want to rock the boat and were encouraged to spin to their hearts content.
Partisans will always be partisans, clinging to their Republican or Democratic labels no matter what. Just because of that entrenchment is no excuse to say you can't be heard. I don't buy it.
The left can blame Fox for everything wrong with our political system as a convenience for inaction, but I don't. So it's tough, too bad. If it's too tough, don't run for office and step aside for someone who will treat us like adults.
And not run scared of Fox News.
And yeah, I understand it's going to tee you off that I caught you at it again, and you're going to make some baseless personal attack as a result. And so does everyone else.
Your denial that both sides aren't equivalent doesn't fly here.
Oh yeah, Sue, I am really teed off that you "caught" me. LOL!
Don't ever change my pet.
And everyone noted that you couldn't and didn't even begin to try to refute my accusation - you simply tried to pretend that the basis for my assertion didn't exist.
But yet again you failed to realize that EVERYONE CAN READ YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS! And because they can do that, they can see for themselves the bogus false equivalency argument you again tried to make.
Its not that Fox is totally to blame but they are major enablers for our politicians who will avoid tough issues and treat us like children.
Lets face it, having a well informed and engaged public is crucial to keeping our politicians in check. When the people seem so vulnerable to PR and blatant manipulation and it repeatedly empowers those with an obstructionist political agenda, it unfortunately is a game changer. It worked all through the Clinton years and it seems to be working now.
All the emotional hysteria resonating out of Fox makes much of the public talk and act like children. Fragile voters indeed.
I don't apologize for Fox, I think they are a bottom feeder propaganda network and they certainly soil the landscape of fairness and balance. But they are here to stay so you can't roll over and just let them drive the narrative, you have to rise above it and take your case to the people on a multitude of other venues.
Look at Obama and his presidential campaign, his popularity skyrocketed, he was the buzz of all the nation, he whipped Hillary Clinton and demolished McCain - all while Fox was the #1 cable network. So it can be done.
It's the REPUBLICANS who behave this way most often. It's those on the right who lie to their supporters most often. It's the right which has misled their base with disinformation, dishonesty and omission of relevant data so that those deluded fools thing that all taxes are going to be raised, for instance.
Virtually no politician is brutally honest. But the right has cornered the market on disinformation, and you pretend that both sides are equally guilty.
And then you say that if we can't get something (brutal honesty from politicians) we've NEVER seen in our nation's history, well then, you just can't support any tax hikes.
Like that's a reasonable stance? Give us a break? You're not fooling anyone.
I don't. And unless I get honesty from them, I won't support one single tax hike, period. I don't give a damn if it's a Republican or a Democrat.
Of course, you prefer dishonesty and spin because that is what you dish out everyday. Honesty is like poison to you, you don't expect it because you don't give it.
It all makes sense Sue.
"We need to discuss when and how those taxes will be raised, not whether or not they will be."
"This man is an idiot."
And then, on top of that, Obama never promised that he wouldn't raise ANY taxes that would affect everyone.
He was ALWAYS talking about taxes based upon income. That's why, every time he MENTIONED his plans for taxes, he ALWAYS talked about income! He always listed ONLY taxes that are based upon income!
You're just a dishonest troll. Please don't feed his troll post any more.
This is not the clip where Obama was talking about raising taxes.
I really shouldn't have fed you on this, but I had some extra troll food and what else was I supposed to do with it?
So, LIKE I SAID, it was TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, doofus.
Here's what the troll wrote! "Under my plan of a cap and trade system energy prices will necessarily skyrocket". Sounds like raising everyone's taxes to me.
So, as President, as a person who has ANY control over what happens with taxes(!), not as a candidate, it's unfair and out of context to claim that Obama said THAT and that one can draw a conclusion from him saying JUST THAT that a tax increase is coming!
And DOOFUS, I KNOW that THIS quote from Obama is NOT one of the multiple times when he said he wouldn't raise any taxes based upon income.
It's not MY fault that your doofus troll friend conflated two things that don't belong together! That would be HIS failing.
But is IS YOUR FAULT that you didn't figure out that it was in DIRECT reply to what your troll buddy wrote that I wrote what I wrote about Obama's pledges about taxes based upon income not going up except for the wealthiest Americans!
God, you lose EVERY time you try to interact with me. You'd think you'd learn, but you never do.
So, LIKE I SAID, it was TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, doofus.
Here's what the troll wrote! "Under my plan of a cap and trade system energy prices will necessarily skyrocket". Sounds like raising everyone's taxes to me.
So, as President, as a person who has ANY control over what happens with taxes(!), not as a candidate, it's unfair and out of context to claim that Obama said THAT and that one can draw a conclusion from him saying JUST THAT that a tax increase is coming!
And DOOFUS, I KNOW that THIS quote from Obama is NOT one of the multiple times when he said he wouldn't raise any taxes based upon income.
It's not MY fault that your doofus troll friend conflated two things that don't belong together! That would be HIS failing.
But is IS YOUR FAULT that you didn't figure out that it was in DIRECT reply to what your troll buddy wrote that I wrote what I wrote about Obama's pledges about taxes based upon income not going up except for the wealthiest Americans!
God, you lose EVERY time you try to interact with me. You'd think you'd learn, but you never do.
And since he's been elected, and actually HAD the ability to control taxes, he's always talked about offseting any rate increases that would cause any increased costs for lower income people.
And costs of goods and electric bills are NOT taxes, doofus.
And you complain in another thread about parsing words. Anyone dishonest enough to say rates and costs are different in this context is either too ignorant to know the truth, or willfully dishonest.
This is not a good day for you, so far you have struck out on every thread.
Also, competition should keep companies from passing on the price of cap and trade. It won't be perfect, but it is the price we have to pay to get off the oil. Which any reasonable person would agree should be our ultimate goal.
As for competition, what competition? Where I have ever lived there is only one power company in the area I live, no competition. There may be other power companies in the area but I don't have a choice who runs my electricity.
Just like he didnt want to take over GM, he had to.
He didnt want to takeover healthcare, he had to.
He didnt want to pass stimulus #1, he had to.
He didnt want to pass stimulus #2, he had to.
He didnt want to put a moratorium on offshore drilling, he had to.