Post a New Topic
Original post made
by jimf01, another community,
on Nov 2, 2009
Thanks Jim. However, the other big lies that are not mentioned in the video are that Obama...
- wants America to succeed
- cares to fix high unemployment
- wants America to have a strong national defense
- was legally qualified to be President
- that Bill Ayres wrote Obama's book
- received funding for his university education and for his Presidential campaign from anti-American, Islamic sources
there will be many more surprises to come, I am sure...
"Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. **Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants**; electric light the most efficient policeman." - Louis Brandeis
So how is Obama lying about that?
Since I've already shown how that is *not* a lie, please explain to me how the other six "lies" are so categorized.
I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." -- Barack Obama Sept. 12, 2008
Please tell me how this is not a lie
You're right! It was a lie! That cigarette tax for SCHIP broke his promise!
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are." -- Barack Obama Jan. 31, 2008
No legislation required to keep this promise. I do not believe (and did not believe at the time) that there was ever an intention to keep this promise.
No, Jim, that's not how it works.
1. Your second quote is not in the video. I'm asking you to address the 6 remaining alleged fallacies you presented with your video link.
2. You are accusing Obama of being a liar. The onus is on *you* to prove that he's a liar, not on supporters to *dis*prove that he's a liar. So explain how he is lying.
Please, please let it be cigarette taxes.
What you wrote and what Obama said is two different things, he was paraphrasing Brandeis, at best.
Many examples of lack of transparency, how many would you like? Lets start with the latest "White House visitors list". A list of people who entered the White House, no dates, no purpose of visit, nothing on who they met with. How does that allow "anyone to insure (WH) business is the peoples business"?
Pork barrels are rolling along, what proof do you need of that? - Murtha airport, 3 flights a day, all to Wash DC
Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public? - not happening
The public will have 5 days to look online before I sign a bill - not happening
And so on. Look, he is saying these things as though they are going to happen. He has a dem majority. I think, realistically speaking, he would get little resistance from the GOP in passing legislation to ensure these things happen.
From what I have seen it is his party who currently enjoy crafting bills in secret and ramming them through, i.e. stimulus, HR 3200 Health Care Reform #1.
Yeah, Obama said that Brandeis said "Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant." Brandeis *actually* said, " Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Paraphrase? Indeed. Lie? Absolutely not.
Here is some information on the WH visitor list:
Specifically, "...it's the first time in history an administration has agreed to release this information. Often, the White House found itself defending its policy in court; the Bush administration, for example, refused to release the names of those from the oil and gas industry who may have visited the White House to discuss energy policy.
CREW executive director Melanie Sloan was pleased with the change:
Today the Obama administration has proven its pledge to usher in a new era of government transparency was more than just a campaign promise. The Obama administration will have the most open White House in history. Providing public access to visitor records is an important step in restoring transparency and accountability to our government.
Tapped, the blog of The American Prospect, calls it "one small step for transparency":
This is a good move. It's important for Americans to know who has influence over and access to the President. It's likely to cause some headaches for the White House in the long run, particularly with the paranoid style being in fashion in American politics today."
Public having 5 days - You're right, not happening. That is a broken promise. Here is some information regarding the topic:
"Now, in a tacit acknowledgment that the campaign pledge was easier to make than to fulfill, the White House is changing its terms. Instead of starting the five-day clock when Congress passes a bill, administration officials say they intend to start it earlier and post the bills sooner.
“In order to continue providing the American people more transparency in government, once it is clear that a bill will be coming to the president’s desk, the White House will post the bill online,” said Nick Shapiro, a White House spokesman. “This will give the American people a greater ability to review the bill, often many more than five days before the president signs it into law.”
Mr. Shapiro said the move would provide more transparency because the White House site drew so much traffic. It also stretches out the time in which a bill will be posted, making it easier for Mr. Obama to abide by the pledge.
Currently, after a bill passes Congress, the White House posts it by linking to the site of the Library of Congress. From now on, the White House plans to link to the site earlier, though Mr. Shapiro did not specify when.
The move marks a departure in the White House position on the pledge. Since January, when Mr. Obama broke the pledge with the first bill he signed, the administration has said it would implement it “in full soon.”
The Obama team has also said that it found unexpected technical hurdles in translating its campaign goals to governing. This is especially true regarding the posting of online comments. Ms. Miller of the Sunlight Foundation said that while the pledge was well intentioned, it was “meaningless” because it would not change anything and it had no mechanism for public comments or initiating a national conversation.
More useful, she said, would be for Congress to post bills earlier in the process, when language can still be changed. (Representative Brian N. Baird, Democrat of Washington, introduced a bill last week that says the House must post bills 72 hours before debate begins; a similar measure has not been introduced in the Senate.)
Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning research organization, has tracked Mr. Obama’s bill-signing history. He said posting bills before final passage could be problematic because of last-minute changes."
So clearly the effort is there to implement these changes. Bills get rammed through all the time (Patriot Act) - what is important is that the current administration is trying to set up a process of inclusion.
Oooh, I missed the derogatory racial slurs at the end of the video. But I'm shocked they were there. Really.
What about omissions? I didn't hear full reports on his 30, yes 30 recent ALL POLITICAL, Dem campaign fundraisers to help his party & his congresspeople who could be in trouble...for their lies. Refreshing on those candidates, locations, etc. However, I think he was squeezing in brief briefings on the wars, which congresspeople are & are not fully onboard the 'monstrous health care package'. Soon he's going to have to sit still & make tough decisions.
Excuse me, at the end of the commentary *following* the video. I wouldn't want to be called a liar.
I didn't read the youtube comments, they aren't part of the video which is embedded elsewhere without comments, you can google for it yourself
"7 lies in less than 2 minutes"
"Allow five days of public comment before signing bills" FAIL Web Link
More broken promises here: Web Link
I think this is really historic as there's been no handy little Internet site tracking campaign promises made by a President before. The level of public scrutiny enabled by the Internet is unprecedented.
Thanks for providing the link and I actually saw the speech and was drawn to his refreshing viewpoints and pledge of transparency. Unfortunately, he is a liar like the rest.
obviously you were not the only one who had the wool pulled over your eyes. Election day tomorrow in some places. NJ and VA gov, NY23, and CA10 will show us if maybe America is starting to wake up.
Jim and Patti,
I'm so curious, do you have any response to the information provided regarding the Brandeis quote, or the WH visitor list, or the taxation, or the efforts toward the 5 day posting? Are you just going to ignore how of the 7 alleged lies, two have been completely disproven and the others can be subject to debate?
Yeah, I already said my piece on the quote from Brandeis, it is quibbling over nothing.
"White House visitors list". A list of people who entered the White House, no dates, no purpose of visit, nothing on who they met with. How does that allow "anyone to insure (WH) business is the peoples business"? Answer, it doesn't.
For taxation, do you want additional taxes we are already paying, or proposed taxes in health care Obama has already indicated he will sign off on, or other taxes coming down the pipe?
the efforts toward the 5 day posting, are just what they have claimed, efforts. They didn't do it, so they broke a clear campaign pledge. It is not rocket science to post something on the web, wait 5 days, then sign it. The comments about efforts do not even pass the laugh test. unexpected technical hurdles my foot.
On top of that, the the Pelosi and Reid led Congress have demonstrated regressive behavior in several areas. Don't give me the two wrongs make a right argument by saying the Patriot act was pushed through quickly.
But, ooh, what is important is that the current administration is trying to set up a process of inclusion. We can all feel so good about that.
Obama goes in front of a joint session of Congress and says, my door is open, when he hadn't invited a single GOP Congressman to the WH in the previous three months? Then he says the GOP are not making any proposals for health care reform. The GOP'ers were waving copies of their bills right in his face.
Did you see that the Obama Administration will have the most transparent WH visitor's list in history? I provided link and excerpt above.
Yes, I'd like info on all the taxes you mentioned.
Clearly the 5 day posting is a bit more complicated than what you implied, as evidenced in the article I provided.
I'm not arguing two wrongs make a right (Patriot Act), I'm citing an example.
I'm sorry you don't feel good about the current administration. I feel at peace for the first time in eight years, and I am very grateful for that.
The GOPers were waving something, how do we know what it was? What's stopping them from getting that out? I just read today for the first time they are trying to present a bill.
The GOPers were waving something, how do we know what it was?
What's stopping them from getting that out?
I just read today for the first time they are trying to present a bill.
Did you see that the Obama Administration will have the most transparent WH visitor's list in history?
Is this really Stay Cool? I expect a little more from you.
That is their claim, if it hasn't happened, it isn't germane.
What you provided was WH self-congratulation and approval from CREW, funded by Soros, 'nuff said.
If you are just now hearing about GOP proposals, you need to read a little more. I have brought them up on this forum previously. Try www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare to start you off.
Other conservatives have other common sense fixes.
"The GOP'ers were waving copies of their bills right in his face."
Oh really? These were actual bills? Or were they their "ideas" or "proposals" or "amendments" or most likely just blank pieces of paper? Things like tax credits and health savings accounts and tort reform among the "8 or 9 ideas" Boehner claims the GOP is compiling into a bill someday soon maybe. As of now, we're still waiting for the GOP to present more than just vague ideas.
As for Obama not inviting any GOP members of congress to the whitehouse, he tried that several times in the first few months he was in office, he reached out several times, looked for input into the stimulus bill, etc...and got how many GOP votes in return? Oh yeah. Zero. Negotiation is not a one way street. Compromise does not mean one side giving everything away to the other. The fact that the GOP won't take one step towards governing in a responsible manner shouldn't reflect on Obama after the overtures he made the first 6 months in office...
And you keep saying time and time again both in this thread and in others that Obama has raised taxes and will again. I know that you don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs (noted by you and Patti ignoring Stay Cool's rebuttal to your original post), but do you realize that the Stimulus bill that got passed back in february CUT taxes by nearly 288 billion. 237 billion were directed to individuals and 51 billion to businesses. Here's a complete list of those tax CUTS:
Total: $288 billion
Tax cuts for individuals
Total: $237 billion
$116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers. 
$70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.
$15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
$14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
$6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.
$4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
$4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
$4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
$1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.
Of note is that there is no planned congressional revision of U.S. tax tables to run concurrent with the payroll tax credit, meaning that, regardless of the initial amount of employer withholding, the majority of taxpayers will still owe the same amount in total taxes to the IRS upon filing at the end of the year. This discrepancy has been reported in the media by representatives from H&R Block and has been labeled by such as "potentially problematic." Some critics have begun referring to this provision as "a cash advance masquerading as a tax cut."
Tax cuts for companies
Total: $51 billion
$15 billion: Allowing companies to use current losses to offset profits made in the previous five years, instead of two, making them eligible for tax refunds.
$13 billion: to extend tax credits for renewable energy production (until 2014).
$11 billion: Government contractors: Repeal a law that takes effect in 2012, requiring government agencies to withhold three percent of payments to contractors to help ensure they pay their tax bills. Repealing the law would cost $11 billion over 10 years, in part because the government could not earn interest by holding the money throughout the year.
$7 billion: Repeal bank credit: Repeal a Treasury provision that allowed firms that buy money-losing banks to use more of the losses as tax credits to offset the profits of the merged banks for tax purposes. The change would increase taxes on the merged banks by $7 billion over 10 years.
$5 billion: Bonus depreciation which extends a provision allowing businesses buying equipment such as computers to speed up its depreciation through 2009.
But feel free to ignore this list of tax CUTS by Obama and the democratic congress and continue to push the myth of the tax and spend liberals...maybe it's that the overwhelming majority of these taxes were directed towards lower or middle income people instead of the top 1% that Bush's 1.8 trillion dollar give away targeted.
As for taxes in the healthcare reform package, that's been covered time and again, so targeting taxes to the top 1% of wage earners is hardly a tax increase on the rest of us and Obama still has not broken his pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than 250k and neither health care bill in senate or house will do that.
As for your quibbling about the white house not releasing the dates and times and topics covered by the individuals who visited the whitehouse, I have a feeling if they release that information as well you'd be asking for a transcript of what was said and if that's provided you'd then demand a video of the meeting and if that's released, you'd then ask why it wasn't aired live on CSPAN or something. Give the whitehouse credit for doing something no other administration has done and for doing something that the previous administration actually went to court to avoid doing.
PB - OK, I found your list on wikipedia, but one little problem. These are not all tax cuts. Of the entire list of tax cuts for companies, only the first one is actually a tax cut that can help businesses in 2009 and 2010. The rest are extension of existing provisions or credits or repealing a law that was to take effect in 2012? That's a tax cut? Give me a break.
From the letter accompanying the CBO report on HR 1:
Combining both spending and revenue
effects, CBO estimates that enacting the conference agreement for H.R. 1
would increase federal budget deficits by $185 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $399 billion in 2010, by $134 billion in 2011, and by $787 billion over the 2009-2019 period.
I assume you are ok with that PB, many Americans are not.
I am not sure how this stopped being a thread on Obama's lies during the campaign, but let's accept, for just a moment, that your wikipedia list of tax cuts is credible.
If Obama's teleprompter had told him to say, we Dems are going to pass the stimulus package within two months and increase the federal budget deficit by $787 billion over the next 10 years, I wonder if that would have gone over a whole lot better than the pack of lies we heard from Obama and Co in 2008.
we're still waiting for the GOP to present more than just vague ideas
WRONG - This web page includes the proposed bills and dates introduced. Web Link
Obama...looked for input into the stimulus bill...and got how many GOP votes in return?.. Zero
WRONG Correct answer is three
Compromise does not mean one side giving everything away to the other
CORRECT! ding ding ding
about the white house not releasing the info... I have a feeling ... you'd be asking for...
WRONG (once again, you try to distort my position into something it isn't, and bring BUSH back into it while you're at it! Didn't we have a chat about this?)
Well, so sorry PB, thanks for coming and playing our game, but you do not win.
Considering the point of my post was to counter your claim that Obama has and will RAISE taxes with a list of tax CUTS and all you can counter with is that not all of the items on the list are "real" tax cuts, then I would have to say you play a pretty weak game. Can you point to a single tax increase that has been implemented on the middle class by obama? No. DING DING DING!!!
But pull the typical GOP game of declaring yourself winner and going home. It worked for Sarah Palin and John Mccain (remember suspending the campaing gimick) As for having 3 THREE!!! GOP members (1 of whom flipped to the democratic side for his efforts) after all the outreach obama did pretty much proves my point again, you pretty much provide my point with a ridiculous counter-claim. Fine I was wrong, after months of outreach Obama got 3 GOP members to support him (none in the house, by the way, not that that's stopped GOP house members from claiming credit for stimulus funding in their districts, the hypocrits). As for the supposed GOP HCR bills, once again, the link you presented is to a webpage listing vague proposals of GOP "reform ideas", the centerpiece seeming to be tort reform. *yawn*. And these are not bills, they have not been written up, have not been reviewed and have not been presented to any of the relevant committees or even presented on the floor of the house or senate. A list of vague ideas does not a bill make.
And the point about bringing bush into it regarding the list of white house visitors is to beg the question why you had no issue about these lists remaining private until Obama became president. Sure Obama promised to release this list and he has and after that you go on a rant that he hasn't held up to his campaign promise. Your arguments are both weak in that obama did what you asked and disingenuous as you criticize him for something that you had no problem the previous administration doing.
So fine, take you shinny gold star home with you and tell mommy you're the winner. The rest of us will still be here playing the game...
I didn't say I win, I said you lose. It's my country that I am pulling for, unlike you and the ideologues that make up the base of Obama's support.
Tell me how a list of names allows, as Obama promised in the speech, "anyone to insure (WH) business is the peoples business"
Try scrolling down that page for a specific list of bills and dates introduced. As for whether any or all having written up, reviewed, presented to committees or made it to the floor for a vote, you, with your vast knowledge of the legislative process, know that various procedural maneuvers have prevented these actions. Pelosi and Reid's tactics are to shut the GOP out of the process.
You can continue to call them vague ideas, but anyone can read:
HR3400 from Price here --> summary Web Link full PDF Web Link
or any of the others:
# Improving Health Care for All Americans Act (Shadegg Health Care Reform Bill, introduced July 14, 2009)
# Medical Rights & Reform Act (Kirk-Dent Health Care Reform Bill, introduced June 16, 2009)
# Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act (Gingrey medical liability reform bill, introduced June 6, 2009)
# Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2009 (Johnson small business health plans bill, introduced May 21, 2009)
# Promoting Health and Preventing Chronic Disease through Prevention and Wellness Programs for Employees, Communities, and Individuals Act of 2009 (Castle Wellness & Prevention Bill, introduced July 31, 2009)
# Improved Employee Access to Health Insurance Act of 2009 (Deal auto-enrollment bill, introduced October 15, 2009)
# Health Insurance Access for Young Workers and College Students Act of 2009 (Blunt bill to improve health insurance coverage of dependents, introduced October 21, 2009)
Anyone can read these and see that you are promoting a lie.
Your only point was to divert and distort, and still is.
As for the reality of Obama's tax cuts. A tax cut should involve 'cutting' the rate of 'taxataion'. Obama does not do that.
First up: A two-year (temporary) payroll tax credit, puts $8-$13 in some peoples pockets, if you don't make over $75k, and if you actually work and get a paycheck, then you are in the group that gets a tax cut. But no worries about having a real job, because this is a refundable credit! You don't have to have actual taxable income to get this money. But, don't call it income redistribution, it's a tax cut.
Next, a one year (temporary) change in the AMT floor. Permanent AMT fixes are on the table could have been incorporated in the stimulus, another temporary fix leaves people with uncertainty about the future. Why does Congress continue to play this game? Alas, it is also very similar to the previous temporary AMT fixes, so no one who is actually subject to the AMT is receiving any additional 'cut' in their 'taxes'.
Next three are all credits, including, hey, neato! more refundable credits. I don't even have to have taxable income to get free money back on my tax return!
Next one is my favorite. If you don't have a job, you already get money. It's called unemployment. But for years the government has been playing this game of calling your unemployment money taxable income. It still is with Obama, but you can exclude a portion of it. Net result, further redistribution of wealth and more complicated tax returns, a double whammy.
Next one, wow Obama TRIPLED the energy credit. Equals out to 10% of what you spend on energy efficient upgrades, so if you have $15,000 lying around to spend on a new A/C, doors, windows, you can take the $1500 off your taxes, you rich ba$tard.
I am just taking these 1 by 1, I will do more later.
OK, Jim, here we go. Time for another little snapshot of what is *really* going on:
The Democrats' plan - "While it would cost a gross $1.055 trillion over 10 years, it would cost a net $894 billion and reduce the deficit by $104 billion over the same period, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office."
How about this for our patriotic GOPers: "Republicans in the Senate have said they **do not plan to unveil a rival plan** but will instead offer amendments on everything from abortion to medical malpractice liability. They also are focused on eliminating requirements to buy health insurance while allowing people who want to buy a policy to do so across state lines. ****Republicans have threatened to block debate on the bill**** but Senator Joseph Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, reiterated that he would not allow that although he opposes any final bill that includes a public option."
So proud of our Republican representatives, blocking debate on the bill - so patriotic! Teamwork, Teamwork!
Also, since you insist in throwing a comment about Soros into the mix, here is the lowdown on cprights (which you referenced) backer Richard Scott:
"Ten years later, Scott was ousted by the company's board of directors in the midst of the nation's biggest health care fraud scandal in which the company ultimately plead guilty to the nation's then largest Medicaid and Medicare fraud and paid a record fine of $1.7 billion dollars."
BTW, the fact that CREW made the comments about the WH doesn't change the fact that Obama's WH is still more transparent that any preceding administrations.
Also, you wrote: "For taxation, do you want additional taxes we are already paying, or proposed taxes in health care Obama has already indicated he will sign off on, or other taxes coming down the pipe?" I want all of them. All of them. I want to know exactly what these taxes are and how they are against those making $250K or less. I'm especially curious about the "other taxes coming down the pipe." Please, please, please let it be the cigarette taxes.
Come on, we can throw back and forth competing quotes about Dem and GOP tactics, or who is backing whom, bla bla.
I didn't know anything about Scott, I like the ideas put forth on the website.
Bottom line, the system is broken, you have seen me here before saying throw 'em all out.
But minority opposition is what it is. The whole thing is built on this parliamentary maneuvering, excluding minority opposition from the process is the real issue here, all the while calling the GOP the party of no.
Great, the CBO says that by spending $1T+ we are saving $10B a year. If you hand me a dollar every second for 31000 years, I will give you a penny back each time. That is how much the CBO says we are savings. A ginormous power grab, tax increase and new bureaucracy is what we get.
As I have also said before, the answer is no to what Pelosi and Reid are offering. The answer is no if you are running an insurance company and the majority's stated goal is single-payer, taking 16% of the economy and turning it into socialized medicine.
The question still remains unanswered. Where are obama's supposed tax increases? You can go through that entire list and challenge them as "real" tax cuts all you want, you still haven't pointed out a single instance of Obama raising taxes, as you so often claim both on this thread and others. You also left unanswered SC's challenge as well. What are the "taxes coming down the pipe" that you're referring to. As for excluding minority participation, list one instance where the GOP has been shut out of the process as far as presenting amendments or bringing bills to the floor? Just because they choose to not participate in the process doens't mean the dems are shutting them out.
RE: "It's my country that I am pulling for, unlike you and the ideologues that make up the base of Obama's support." Refer to the thread of a few days back that pretty much puts to shame this ridiculous idea that anyone who disagrees with you must want America to fail. Get over yourself.
I have work to do, so start with the tax proposals from the One himself:
Ordinary Income: The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990’s levels of 36% and 39.6%.
Capital Gains: For those in the top two income tax brackets – likewise adjusted to affect only families over $250,000 – Obama will create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent
Dividends: The top dividends rate for people making over $250,000 would be set at 20 percent.
Next edition will have tax increases included in health care reform, including taxes on those making less than $250k, the people to whom Barack Obama made a firm pledge:
Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Now he can say it is not a lie, because he prefaced it with "under my plan". But he will sign whatever HCR package he gets from Nancy & Harry, as long as it is "paid for (with higher taxes)".
Yes, Jim - the issue is the pledge to not raising taxes on < $250K. So the information you provided above is irrelevant. I await your clarification.
You know, I take that back - your information *is* relevant, in that it appears adjustments have been made to adhere to the $250K promise.
Sound and Fury over Vile and Slur-ry
By Tom Cushing | 90 comments | 1,385 views
New state housing requirements could affect Pleasanton
By Jeb Bing | 6 comments | 559 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
© 2018 Pleasanton Weekly
All rights reserved.