Barrack Obama, liar.

[AlBell]

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/07/12/the_invincible_lie/page/full/

A Democratic president -- John F. Kennedy -- stated the issue plainly. Under the existing tax rates, he explained, investors' "efforts to avoid tax liabilities" made them put their money in tax shelters, because existing tax laws made "certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings" for the country.

Ironically, the Obama campaign's attacks on Mitt Romney for putting his money in the Cayman Islands substantiate the point that President Kennedy and others have made, that higher tax rates can drive money into tax shelters, whether tax-exempt municipal bonds or investments in other countries.

In other words, raising tax rates does not automatically raise tax revenues for the government. Higher tax rates have often led to lower tax revenues for states, the federal government and other countries. Conversely, lower tax rates have often led to higher tax revenues. It all depends on the circumstances.

But none of this matters to Barack Obama. If class warfare rhetoric about taxes leads to more votes for him, that is his bottom line, whether the government gets a dime more revenue or not. So long as his lies go unchallenged, a second term will be the end result for him and a lasting calamity for the country.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/07/13/the_invincible_lie_part_ii

Ms. Borger may simply not know any better, but Barack Obama cannot use that excuse. When he was a candidate for president back in 2008, Charles Gibson of ABC News confronted him with the fact that there was no automatic correlation between the raising and lowering of tax rates and whether tax revenues moved up or down.

Obama admitted that. But he said that he was for raising tax rates on higher income earners anyway, in the name of "fairness." How higher tax rates that the government does not actually collect make any sense, whether from a fairness perspective or as a way of paying the government's bills, is another question. The point here is that Obama knew then that tax rates and tax revenues do not automatically move in the same direction.

In other words, he is lying when he talks as if tax rates and tax revenues move together. Ms. Borger and others in the media may or may not know that. So they are not necessarily lying. But they are failing to inform their audiences about the facts -- and that allows Obama's lies to stand.

 

[Dymanic]

Ironically, the Obama campaign's attacks on Mitt Romney for putting his money in the Cayman Islands substantiate the point that President Kennedy and others have made, that higher tax rates can drive money into tax shelters, whether tax-exempt municipal bonds or investments in other countries.

See, the thing is, we're talking about a guy who's running for President of the United States. Any person with such aspirations must expect to be held to a different standard (right down to avoiding careless statements regarding his preferences in vegetables). That's just the way it is.

Can you name any US President in history who had money stashed in a Swiss bank account?

 

[RandFan]

Allow me to concede the point for argument's sake only. In fact, percentage of GDP is one viable way to look at this issue, and I will. When examined that way, it becomes the tenth largest tax increase in American history. Might you concede the point that when looking at dollar amount only, and not adjusting for inflation and dollar values of years past (again, I'm not saying those things are not important nor germane), it is the largest increase ever?

I would concede the following, given that A.) walking like a duck, B.) quacking like a duck and C.) looking like a duck are not indicative of a duck then anything that does walk, quack and look like a duck isn't necessarily a duck. So, yes. But it's a dumb question, IMO. Trying to score on some kind of technical basis isn't saying much.

Are you saying the taxes incurred through ObamaCare are not taxes?

A.) You are question begging (your question presumes the conclusion (are black trucks black?). B.) I'm happy to look at the mandate as a tax. FWIW: I've been one of the very few that argued that the mandate was in effect a tax.

Nice dodge. You didn't really think you were going to get out of it that easy did you? Do you have any evidence that taxes (fees, penalties, blah, blah, blah) will increase for many or most?

 

[RandFan]

"Obama admitted that. But he said that he was for raising tax rates on higher income earners anyway, in the name of "fairness." How higher tax rates that the government does not actually collect make any sense, whether from a fairness perspective or as a way of paying the government's bills, is another question.http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/07/13/the_invincible_lie_part_ii"

So, you ready to answer some questions yet? Or can you only post and run away?

 

[RandFan]

Fair warning- for this reply I will not review Mr. Obama's entire speech.

I will make a guess, though. I'm going to guess that not once in his speech to Congress did Mr. Obama ever mention a tax increase. Am I right? I will further venture to guess that the only times he did mention taxes were to highlight the fact that nobody making less than $250,000/year would receive a tax increase. Am I right?

Can you demonstrate this tax increase on people making less than $250,000? And, just out of curiosity, do you really feel good about that this kind of gotcha politics or do you think you are turning the tables on Obama who you think is playing gotcha politics?

 

[AlBell]

See, the thing is, we're talking about a guy who's running for President of the United States. Any person with such aspirations must expect to be held to a different standard (right down to avoiding careless statements regarding his preferences in vegetables). That's just the way it is.

Can you name any US President in history who had money stashed in a Swiss bank account?

Re what I bolded, I don't have any info on that. Speculating: FDR?, likely JFK & Roosevelt, one or both Bushes, Kerry, Gore?, Obamas.

 

[RandFan]

I don't have any info on that. Speculating:

Speculation vs skepticism.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Sorry, guys, if I gave you the impression that I know what's on the linked website. I don't. Not a clue. It's inclusion in my post was just an afterthought. It may have Obama lies. It may not. I don't know and don't care. I didn't read it before I posted the link.

I created this thread only as a counter to Ben's. I thought it should be oobvious.

Obama lies.

So you made this thread with the intention of getting it placed in the AAH section?

 

[Dumb All Over]

You didn't really think you were going to get out of it that easy did you?

No, I suppose not. Not when going up against the likes of RandFan.

What I will do is remind anyone who refers to the ObamaCare tax as the largest in history that, in fact, it is the tenth largest in history, and explain to them I was thoroughly schooled on this by RandFan.

 

[Bri]

Collard greens taste better than turnip greens is a matter of opinion. Doctor Who is more fun to watch then House is a matter of opinion. We can improve education in the US by funding charter schools is open to debate.

The latter is a matter of opinion because it's open to debate. I think you're making a distinction between subjective propositions (or propositions for which there can be no evidence one way or the other) from those for which there is evidence, but of course this thread is only concerned about propositions for which there is evidence, so the other type is kind of irrelevant to the discussion (all of PolitiFact's ratings are supported by evidence).

There is no right answer to the first two propositions. There is a right answer to the third proposition, but finding out what it is calls for more than one side simply declaring we're right, you're wrong.

Yes, it calls for an evaluation of the evidence. In this case, there is strong evidence against the proposition that preventive care generally saves money as stated by Obama and little evidence in support of it. Read through the thread you quoted from if you're interested in the evidence.

There are many questions which are open to debate. Each of us may have strong opinions on what the right answers to these questions are; but simply declaring we know we're right, and our opponents are wrong, is not a good way to deal with such questions.

Sure, but who are you claiming "simply declared" that Obama's statement was false without examining the evidence?

Reasonable people can believe (as you do) that preventive measures do not save money. Reasonable people can believe (as Obama does) that preventive measures do save money. Both sides have merit.

Both sides don't have equal merit in this case.

A blanket statement that preventive measures always save money would be false. But that's not the statement which was made.

The statement in question was in the context of the set of preventive measures included in Obama's health care proposal. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority don't save money, and taken together they don't save money. Obama was incorrect by any reasonable interpretation of his statement.

-Bri

 

[Mike!]

See, the thing is, we're talking about a guy who's running for President of the United States. Any person with such aspirations must expect to be held to a different standard (right down to avoiding careless statements regarding his preferences in vegetables). That's just the way it is.

Can you name any US President in history who had money stashed in a Swiss bank account?

I don't know that I've ever heard the question asked before, but, it sure sounds a lot like, 'Can you name any other President who had to show a birth certificate before?' I know, it's lost on a great many people here, who claim to be critical thinkers and skeptics, unless it follows with their own personal ideology, then asking questions is questionable at best.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Can you demonstrate this tax increase on people making less than $250,000? And, just out of curiosity, do you really feel good about that this kind of gotcha politics or do you think you are turning the tables on Obama who you think is playing gotcha politics?

Gotcha politics is a strong-hand suit dealt constantly by both sides. I have no illusions that my comments in the politics section of the JREF will make the slightest difference or carry sway on any member's presidential vote. On the contrary, it is my belief that the members who post in this section are well-entrenched within their respective ideologies and they made up their minds a long time ago.

 

[RandFan]

Gotcha politics is a strong-hand suit dealt constantly by both sides. I have no allusions that my comments in the politics section of the JREF will make the slightest difference or carry sway on any member's presidential vote. On the contrary, it is my belief that the members who post in this section are well-entrenched within their respective ideologies and they made up their minds a long time ago.

Doesn't at all address my question. But let me point this out. For nearly I decade I argued passionately for conservative ideology. I defended George Bush and Republican policies. It was the arguments in this forum that brought about a change. I've no idea what on earth your point is but it hardly justifies playing "gotcha" on this issue. If you don't think there is a point of you being here then why are you here?

 

[angrysoba]

Gotcha politics is a strong-hand suit dealt constantly by both sides. I have no allusions that my comments in the politics section of the JREF will make the slightest difference or carry sway on any member's presidential vote. On the contrary, it is my belief that the members who post in this section are well-entrenched within their respective ideologies and they made up their minds a long time ago.

It's "illusions".

Anyway, why is everyone upset about Obama telling lies or being a hypocrite or anything like that? Don't you know all politicians lie and do hypocritical things?

At least Obama's not like that lying hypocrite Mitt Romney!

 

[RandFan]

No, I suppose not. Not when going up against the likes of RandFan.

What I will do is remind anyone who refers to the ObamaCare tax as the largest in history that, in fact, it is the tenth largest in history, and explain to them I was thoroughly schooled on this by RandFan.

I'm not in a good mood today. Not an excuse just stating a fact. It's hard for me to discern your point. Sorry if I was bullying or browbeating. Sincerely.

 

[DavidJames]

Gotcha politics is a strong-hand suit dealt constantly by both sides. I have no allusions that my comments in the politics section of the JREF will make the slightest difference or carry sway on any member's presidential vote. On the contrary, it is my belief that the members who post in this section are well-entrenched within their respective ideologies and they made up their minds a long time ago.

Projection is not a healthy trait.

I don't know if you can change people to vote for your guy, but you can get the upper hand with a specific argument. In the case of the Obama quote you provided and the mandate, you haven't done that.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Doesn't at all address my question. But let me point this out. For nearly I decade I argued passionately for conservative ideology. I defended George Bush and Republican policies. It was the arguments in this forum that brought about a change. I've no idea what on earth your point is but it hardly justifies playing "gotcha" on this issue. If you don't think there is a point of you being here then why are you here?

Without knowing many details, I am somewhat aware of your personal change and would categorize you as the exception and not the rule. Why am I here? Many reasons, I suppose. I enjoy keeping abreast of the liberal point of view. I enjoy the interaction with skeptics who are much, much smarter that I am. I enjoy the sport of politics, to name but a few.

 

[RandFan]

Without knowing many details, I am somewhat aware of your personal change and would categorize you as the exception and not the rule. Why am I here? Many reasons, I suppose. I enjoy keeping abreast of the liberal point of view. I enjoy the interaction with skeptics who are much, much smarter that I am. I enjoy the sport of politics, to name but a few.

Fair enough.

 

[Dumb All Over]

I'm not in a good mood today. Not an excuse just stating a fact. It's hard for me to discern your point. Sorry if I was bullying or browbeating. Sincerely.

I didn't take it that way. You showed me some compelling evidence that the ObamaCare taxes do not constitute the largest increase in history. Good on ya. I accept it.

 

[RandFan]

I didn't take it that way. You showed me some compelling evidence that the ObamaCare taxes do not constitute the largest increase in history. Good on ya. I accept it.

Okay.