Posted on 02/13/2019 12:36:32 PM PST by jazusamo
California Senator and left-wing presidential candidate Kamala Harris is lying about the new tax law, which she -- and every Democrat -- voted against in 2017. We recently highlighted new polling showing tax reform's popularity on the rise, presumably as many Americans discover that their tax rates went down in 2018. The very large majority of US taxpayers do not itemize deductions, opting for the straightforward standard deduction. The GOP-passed law doubled the standard deduction, meaning that most people can exempt a much larger chunk of their income from taxation -- $12,000 for individuals, $24,000 for couples, and $18,000 for heads of household. With these more generous numbers in place, an estimated 90 percent of Americans are expected to select the standard deduction this year. Eager to continue their campaign of misinformation and lies against a law that's benefitting the overwhelming majority of citizens, Democrats are seizing on another extremely misleading talking point in order to confuse voters and muddy the waters:
The average tax refund is down about $170 compared to last year. Let’s call the President’s tax cut what it is: a middle-class tax hike to line the pockets of already wealthy corporations and the 1%.
What's wrong with this tweet? Basically everything. First of all, and least importantly, the sample size on which she's basing her assertion is very small, coming from a tiny sliver of filings from the very beginning of tax season. More importantly, the size of someone's tax refund is not at all reflective of whether they paid more or less in taxes than the previous year. Philip Klein unpacks the dishonesty :
To be clear, the level of people's tax refunds has absolutely nothing to do with their overall tax burden, which will be lower for nearly every taxpayer as a result of the enacted tax changes. Federal taxes get withheld from paychecks throughout the year, and then by the following April, taxpayers file and they have to pay the balance if they under-withheld in the previous year, or they are issued a refund if they overpaid. Thanks to marketing from tax preparation companies promising big refunds, Americans have come to view refunds as some sort of bonus they receive every April. A larger refund just means that they gave an interest free loan to the federal government by overpaying the previous year. That early data, which could change between now and April, show that on average people are receiving lower refunds, is merely a reflection of the fact that money was more accurately deducted from their paychecks throughout the year.
Harris, who may be humiliatingly unprepared to discuss certain policies, is not a stupid woman. She's paid taxes her entire life. She knows exactly what she's claiming, and why it's false. But she's saying it anyway. She's prematurely using very early data that may or may not make a point about withholding rates (most people didn't update their paperwork on this front), and twisting it into "proof" that that new law is a "middle-class tax hike." It is nothing of the sort, as the data has shown. Klein helpfully notes some of the key numbers while fact-checking Harris, whose bogus message is also being amplified by misleading media headlines:
A Tax Policy Center analysis , which Democrats loved to cite for other reasons throughout the tax debate, found that 80 percent of taxpayers would receive a cut in 2018 , compared with just 5 percent who would see their taxes increase. The remainder would see virtually no change. In other words, 95 percent of Americans will have either paid lower taxes in 2018, or about the same amount of taxes. Among taxpayers in the middle-fifth income group, 91 percent would pay an average of $1,090 less in taxes.
Again, that information comes via the left-leaning Tax Policy Center. Only five percent of all filers will shoulder a higher tax burden for 2018, the disproportionate majority of whom are wealthy earners living in high-tax blue states. Fully eight in ten Americans got a cut -- including 91 percent of the middle class, the very group Harris claims is being slapped with a tax hike. She's peddling the opposite of the truth (also, be on the lookout for this lie about supposed "middle class tax increases" in the law). Rich Lowry's observation about the 2020 Democratic liar-in-chief sweepstakes is spot on:
Kamala Harris is taking an early lead in the most dishonest Democratic tweeter primary; other candidates will have to work hard to catch up https://twitter.com/kamalaharris/status/1095052105327484931 …
And he wasn't even referring to her amusing 'truthiness' about her first time smoking pot, a story she told with all the forced glee of someone desperate to signal "I'm not a cop!" to a suspicious left-wing base. The fact that her fable was literally impossible matters not; it was morally true in her mind, no doubt. I'll leave you with this:
BILL CLINTON: I smoked, but I did not inhale
BUSH 43: When I was young & irresponsible, I was young & irresponsible
HARRIS: I remember it clearly. It was a cold snowy morning, the day after the moon landing, & I was in my dorm listening to Kanye. That’s when I did a marijuana
UPDATE - Harris' lie earns Four Pinocchios from the Washington Post. It's ham-fisted garbage specficially designed to confuse people into thinking they're in worse financial shape than they are.
From DMZFrank | 12/22/2018 2:58:29 PM PST
The SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution with regard to POTUS eligibility. But in SCOTUS cases wherein they have given a definition of what a NBC (or a 14th amendment citizen in the case of Wong Kim Ark)is, Minor vs Haperstatt, Venus Merchantman Case of 1814) they defined an NBC as a person born of TWO, count them TWO citizen parents (the parents don’t have to be NBC) and born in one of the states of the Union, or the territories.
The authors of the 14th amendment, in the Congressional debates on the matter, also defined an NBC in the same manner. Rep. Bimgham and Senator Jacob Howard were the principal authors of the 14th amendment. Here is a quote from Howard which clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Until this matter is formally adjudicated by the Court, I will defer to their NBC stare decisis definitions. Harris, Obama and a host of others were not, are not, and can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.
Whatever one thinks what the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 is, it is clear that the adoption of the 14th amendment did not alter it in any constitutional sense. How else can you account for the fact that the constitution only specifies for the office of senator and representative citizenship for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively, while the constitution requires the POTUS, to be NATURALLY born, owing allegiance to no other country? That is the ONLY constitutional provision for NBC. Obviously, there is a singular distinction with regard to that office. Under Jamaican and Indian citizenship law, for instance, It is conceivable that Jamaica or India could claim that Kamala Harris, thru her parents, is a citizen who owes allegiance to both of those countries FROM HER BIRTH. It was conferred upon her by those countries citizenship laws, just as valid as our own.
By the way, Ted Cruz (who I admire very much) made a very public demonstration of the fact that he was going to FORMALLY renounce his CANADIAN citizenship. What NATURALLY BORN US citizen has to do such a thing?
The framers of the constitution were patriarchs. (Yes I understand that is completely out of tune with modern sensibilities, but nonetheless it is true.) They believed that the citizenship of the FATHER was conferred upon his children. SCOUTUS incorporated in toto the ENTIRE 212th paragraph of Emerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations in their 1814 Venus merchantman case as they defined what an NBC is. Here is the money quote that Justice Livingstone that was cited when he wrote for the majority, “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
I suspect the reason that many do not want this issue formally examined is that they wish to foster and enhance the globalist influence on the office of POTUS. The NBC requirement was never intended to be a guarantee of allegiance, but a safeguard against undue foreign influence on the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The oath of naturalization requires a formal and legal renunciation of any prior national allegiances.
Jennie Spencer-Churchill, known as Lady Randolph Churchill, was a natural born US citizen, and a British socialite, the wife of Lord Randolph Churchill and the mother of British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.
Under US citizenship law at the time of Churchill’s birth, despite the fact that his mother was a NATURAL BORN US citizen, she could not transmit her US citizenship on to young Winston owing to her marriage to a foreign national, Sir Randolph Spencer Churchill, who was Winston’s father. That would not be legally allowed until the passage of the Cable Act of 1922, well after Churchill’s birth in 1874. The Cable Act only confers citizenship, NOT NATURALLY BORN citizenship. It did not refer to, or alter the meaning of an Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5 “natural born citizen” in any way.
Churchill was granted HONORARY US citizenship by an act of Congress on 9 April 1963. It was understood that his birth to a an NBC citizen US mother in Great Britain did not make him a citizen by law.
This is just one more indication of the fact that Obama, Cruz, Rubio OR Harris can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to the office of POTUS. We need to have this issue finally adjudicated by SCOTUS for the first time in US history, and finally get a definitive answer one way or another.
We have enough naturally born anti-american, anti-constitutional cultural marxists in our country now who aspire to be POTUS. I say let’s eliminate all those who don’t even meet the basic Article II criteria. Winnow the opposition.
This matter is SCREAMING for a definitive ruling on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5, by the SCOTUS for the first time in the history of the US. It is revealing to note what Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president when he said that the high court is “evading” the issue. The comments came as part of Thomas’ testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court’s budget in April of 2017. Thomas said that to Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
After two Obama terms, I think they are terrified of the implications of a ruling based on originalist constitutional intent and interpretation. That does not excuse the cowardice in refusing a grant of certiorari for those who wish to have SCOTUS exercise it’s Article III oversight on this matter.
Crappy News Network used the same lie in a headline
Where are the ‘factcheck’ articles and bans on facebook/twitter?
Time to rebut that she is a natural born citizen eligible to be President.
She was born of two foreign nationals with THREE nationalities.
She is not NATURALLY an American.
Natural born citizen have ONE nationality.
They are naturally citizens because they cannot be anything else.
The RNC should start a court case. And we should get 5-6 Secretaries of state to say they won’t accept her name on ballot app from the doc unless the USSC rules on it.
Bump!
The RNC will not do that, they cooperated with the Kenyanesian Usurpation and have their own ineligibles they want to promote.
It’s up to the citizens and we have no standing in court.
The Secretaries of State are the best avenue to address this.
If you want a larger tax refund, claim fewer exemptions on you W4 form. Alternatively you could overpay your estimated taxes. That would work too.
Why anyone would WANT a larger tax refund, as opposed to simply owing less taxes overall, I do not know.
[ Kamala Harris’ Ignorant Falsehood ]
Kamala Harris’ Deliberate Lie.
Biatch said she inhaled to songs that were not even written yet. LIAR
Let’s wrap this Freepathon up, Folks!
Absolutely!
NBC was reporting this, I think on Sunday. After the long and hysterical section about how “everyone” was going to get a lower refund this year, and how they just don’t know what to do, because they hadn’t planned for this, and all the “woe is me” stuff, they casually mentioned toward the end that 80% of Americans will pay less overall federal income taxes for 2018.
This is the kind of crap that makes Fake News a thing.
If Harris had any integrity, she would try to explain to people about withholding taxes, etc., but that would involve moving people out of “low info” status, which would be hazardous to the Dems.
If this isn’t the easiest way to red pill the masses at just how stupid the Democrat’s think they are...
It’s their M.O. From Hillary, to Barack, to Holder, etc. etc. etc.
And they are shameless about it. (not that we are surprised)
If you pay less taxes...you get a smaller refund. Who knew?
babble-on wrote: “Why anyone would WANT a larger tax refund, as opposed to simply owing less taxes overall, I do not know.”
Someone once said: “I don’t pay any taxes. I got a refund.”
All this discussion about refunds, etc., misses one point. In the past I’ve had to spend hours with TurboTax itemizing deductions. This year, it took less than one hour since the increased standard deduction meant itemization was no longer the best way to go. I also saved about $60 since I could use the free version of TurboTax and not the Premier version.
I think that it just got a lot easier (because of the higher standard exemption, for payroll departments to estimate actual taxes owed correctly) and therefore paycheck withholding was more accurate, and thus refunds are lower.
Exactly what it is time for.
She is not eligible to run. Time to deal with this right now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
