Skip to comments.Obama's Deceit
Posted on 04/16/2011 6:14:56 AM PDT by fabrizio
Okay, I have had it with this President's blatant dishonesty. His speech today was appallingly deceitful and misleading. This President, has spent more money and added more debt than any other President in history. This is not political rhetoric, this is simply fact! Barack Obama's budget deficit in March of 2011 was larger than the deficit for all of 2007!
According to Obama's 2012 Budget Proposal, under Historical Tables, the budget deficit under George Bush first peaked in 2004 at $412 billion dollars. Between 2005 and 2007 the budget deficit declined by $252 billion to reach its low, under Bush, at $160 billion. If the tax cuts and wars, both occurring in 2001 and 2003, caused our current financial situation, how did the deficit fall between 2004 to 2007? Because Tax Cuts increase revenue to the government by allowing people and business to invest more of their own money. As people invest they conduct taxable transactions which bring in revenue to the government.
So where did Obama come up with the claim that he inherited a trillion dollar deficit? In 2008, the deficit under Bush climbed to a new high of $458 billion. The reason for the climb was the fiscal stimulus and emergency spending as a result of the financial crises. However, this number is somewhat misleading. The fiscal year for 2008 ended in October of that year, pushing much of the onetime emergency spending on the 2009 budget. When you add that spending onto the budget baseline, you come up with a deficit for 2009 of $1.4 trillion. While Obama is correct that he is not solely responsible for the 2009 budget, he is lying by not informing the American people most of the deficit was "one time emergency spending." He, Barack H. Obama, chose to put that spending in the baseline budget for the next decade. Thus, we have $1 trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see.
The President claimed that we didn't "pay for" the tax cuts. Excuse me Mr. President, when someone takes a pay cut, do they have to "pay for it?" A tax cut means the government simply takes less of YOUR money, what is there to pay for? This, seemingly innocuous, difference comes from the President's view that government has a right to your money. To Obama, it is not your income, but governments', and government not taking all of your money is an act of compassion. Obama believes that by leaving more of your money in your pocket, it is the equivalent of government sending you a check! If government sends you a check, that means government must "pay for" the tax cut. Unbelievable!
(Here is a link to his budget proposal: select table 1.1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals)
Time to turn this incompetent, inexperienced, lier OUT. and continue to investigate his fitness and ELIGIBILTY to hold the office he unfortunately was elected to, no thanks to a media that failed to honestly vet and bring to light his history or lack of one thereof.
His so called father was a “British Subject”, thus he is was born a “British Subject”, if Obama’s fictions are to be believed.
Christine Romer’s paper states that for every 1 percent rise in taxes, the GDP initially falls 3.05% then settles to a decrease of around 2%.
There IS a cause and effect many are preparing for.
The ‘progressives’ cannot fathom that their policies cause failure. There was a reason there was massive layoffs late in ‘08/early ‘09. We saw obama coming and so far we were right about that bastard.
But he’s no worse a liar than anybody else, right curiosity?
And he’s just a benign, European style socialist, right?
Wrong. He is sickest, most pathological and compulsive liar I have ever seen—and I’ve seen plenty.
And he is a full-on marxist. Not a nice marxist, either, if such exist, but a man bent on spreading the wealth [wealth he’s already destroyed, no less] not mainly to Americans but to those we have ‘wronged’. He is destroying the US in part as payback for all the ‘need’ our ‘white man’s greed’ has produced in the world.
Wake up, curiosity. This is not just a regular political liar of the socialist stripe. This is a sick, driven man, intent on implementing the Dreams he got from his equally sick marxist ‘father’. Stop running interference for him on FR, and call a spade a spade. If Obama speaks it—if his lips are moving, and words come out of his mouth—it is a lie. It’s that simple.
Zero claims on Drudge that the American people think he deserves a second term. He is correct, they think he deserves a second term in jail for lying, after a first term for financial incompetence.
No, most didn’t see Obama coming. His agenda was obvious even prior to his election...but on 11/4/08, the American electorate turned their nation over to him. And from that time forward, most Freepers have been putting their hope in tactics that never had a chance of stopping him. I’m not sure I’ll be able to stomach the “stunned reactions” here to his re-election on 12/6/12.
...has spent more money and added more debt than any other President in history.In before the "blame Boehner" crowd.
That is why I say even though Trump is no Conservative he is the only one with the Marbles to tear BHO a new one.
Let him do the dirty work and destroy BHO. Then we elect a true conservative. Not sure who that will be at this point.
"From time to time" does not mean once a year. It can and should be interpreted to mean "whenever the Pres
ident speaks he is addressing Congress. If/when he lies to Congress he is committing perjury. He should be impeached for that, as should any other office holder who commits the same crime.
Most Americans of the democrat and independent persuasion weren't aware of his simple ineligibility for the office until the new media made such a big deal of it that inertia took over and pounded it into the public consciousness.
I don't get what you're saying - please elaborate.
“As people invest they conduct taxable transactions which bring in revenue to the government.”
Investment also gives rise to innovation and jobs, not to mention a higher standard of living resulting from new products and services. It is the life blood of the economy.
Obama is a modern day trojan horse.
That may be the only battle the current group of Republicans can win. If so, they need to begin immediately so as to bring it to a head prior to the elections.
Otherwise, we may be in an uncontrolled, overspeed dive:
47% of the nation does not pay income taxes, add to that the number of dedicated anti-Americans of all stripes and you have far in excess of that needed to win the popular vote.
Add further, the continuing effort to abolish the electoral college, which effort is currently supported by 6 states and D.C. and is fueled in part by polls indicating support by 60% of Republicans and 70%++ of other voters.
“No, most didnt see Obama coming.”
What I don’t understand is WHY do his original voters/backers/supporters continue to play the myth of 0. He is everything you say and more. I can’t use the language I would prefer to describe him for fear of being bounced.
He is just plain EVIL. I have been suspicious since I first heard of his programs and listened to him speak. He is EVIL and his goal is the destruction of capitalism and the US way of living.
Voters were scammed in 2008. We all know it. All Pubs, of every stripe, Libertarians, Reagan Dems and Indies must unite. Must have a come to Jesus moment for the 2012 election. No slips. None of the ,’oh isn’t he an articulate man of his race bit.’ He is a socialist con man and his radical Party are un-American: period. Time to stop giving into this Annointed One. Flood the Pubs with mail and calls with encouragement to unite all the above type voters to drive this alien out of govt. It is not his birth that is alien: it is his views on our heritage, history, culture, economy and values.
I think his favorable numbers remain about 42 percent because as many as a third of those are so indoctrinated with political correctness that they are unwilling to tell a pollster that they have an unfavorable opinion of him. They will vote against him, perhaps, put they are not willing to say that they have an unfavorable opinion of him, because they think that would label them as "racist".
Dead on. I was polled by Gallup on Thursday. A whole bunch of feel-up (you know what I mean) questions. They finally got to vote related stuff and the guy seemed surprised when I said it would be a cold day in hell when I would ever vote for any dem for anything as long as they hold their socialistic views (forever, I suspect)!
If Trump is the GOP candidate, there will likely rise a 3rd party with a real conservative. That equates to Obama’s 2nd term.
It’s really your last sentence that says it all, Bailee.
There are 2 reasons his origins are mysterious. The first reason is that it’s working for him. The second isn’t something most would understand.
As for the tactics...just consider how successful Obama has been in implementing his agenda, while we faxed, called, emailed, marched, blah, blah, blah. The Left loves it when conservatives continue to employ the same old tactics - as if the world hadn’t changed at all on 11/4/08. As I said here on FR that morning: All things have changed, nothing will again be the same.
>>>Let him do the dirty work and destroy BHO. Then we elect a true conservative. Not sure who that will be at this point.<<<
Assuming that Trump won’t just enforce aspects of Obama to his liking, build coalitions between business and government in the model of Giovanni Angelli at Fiat and the Italian left, and then he can claim (falsely) that the number of late flights at the nation’s airports are at an all-time low.
Trump isn’t doing dirty work, in my opinion. He’s positioning himself to be one of the elite in the new corporate-state structure. He had plenty of practice in New York. Why not nationally?
By the time Trump is through, there won’t be any room left for conservatives. Sure, we’ll still be elected on school boards and city councils, but our ability to shape the national agenda will be over.
Trump has the opportunity to be the Ross Perot for the 2012 election. In other words, he’s a slimy bastard who will split and destroy the conservatives, perhaps by accident, perhaps on purpose.
True conservatives? Bachmann. Palin. Ryan. Mario Rubio. I’d love to see any of those four become president. There are others waiting in the wings, too. IMHO.
I meant Marco Rubio. Gee, it would nice to have an “edit” function for those many times my fingers get ahead of my brain.
However, I do stand by most of my previous statements about him.
Obama is mendacious in the way he misleads and twists the truth. However, I am hard-pressed to think of an example in which he outright lied.
Before you jump all over me for that statement, I mean "lie" in the literal sense of the word, that is, a deliberate misstatement of fact, something equivalent to Bill Clinton's statement, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
I honestly cannot think of an example where Obama deliberately made a statement that is obviously and verifiably factually untrue.
Like most mendatious politicians, Obama is too smart to do that. Instead of outright lying (which is very hard to get away with), Obama misleads with statements that contain some truth but, by omitting facts that do not serve his goals, create a mistaken impression of the truth in the listener.
The best example I can think of are his claims that Obamacare reduces the deficit over 10 years. This is not an outright lie, because the impact of his plan on the deficit is not a factual claim that can be proven or disproven. The claim is based on a CBO scoring that has been manipulated and gamed by the legislation, which forced the CBO to make unrealistic assumptions about the path of spending and taxation. It also omits the inconvenient fact that the scoring is only for 10 years, in which Obamacare taxes are front-loaded and benefits backloaded, making the 10 year picture of deficit reduction a misleading one with regard to the law's long-term impact on our fiscal health.
Still, his claim is not an outright lie, and is based on a truth, namely, that the CBO scored his plan as deficit-reducing in 10 years, even though the claim is very misleading and, if taken at face value, leaves the listener with a mistaken impression about the true.
Before you jump all over me for defending Obama, let me just say that someone who habitually misleads the way Obama does way is actually more dangerous than a pathological liar. A pathological liar is relatively easy to spot and discreit. It is much harder to discredit someone who deals in half-truths and selective quoting of fact the way Obama does.
As to whether Obama is a full-on Marxist, that is really silly. If you had actually read Marx and his followers, you would realize what a silly statement that is. Obama is not advocating violent workers revolution that would usher in a dictatorship of the proletariat that would then abolish all private property.
The real Obama is bad enough: a politician who habitually misleads and twists the truth with the goal of establishing a European-style high tax welfare state in the United states. Stick to that narrative. Making up stuff and throwing around exaggerated epithets about his views doesn't help our cause of defeating him.
BINGO! Obama ends up winning when exaggerations are posted - the simple facts will result in his demise.
And hes just a benign, European style socialist, right?
European-style welfare statism isn't benign. It's very dangerous, actually. More dangerous that full-on Marxism.
Why is that? Because Marxism is so obviously repugnant to the majority of voters that it never stands a chance of ever winning.
European-style social welfare statism, however, is a trojan horse; its propoerted benefits are immediate an obvious, whereas its drawbacks are more abstract and harder for the average voter to comprehend, even though these drawbacks outweigh the proported benefits by orders of magnitude. Hence it stands a much higher chance of actually getting implemented here.
Stop with the insults. They’ve long since gotten old.
Obama is steeped in Marcism up to his eyeballs.
‘According to Drew, He [Obama] was arguing a straightforward Marxist-Leninist class-struggle point of view, which anticipated that there would be a revolution of the working class, led by revolutionaries, who would overthrow the capitalist system and institute a new socialist government that would redistribute the wealth.’
You remind me of a liberal. You’re always right. You’re the only one who understands marxism. You’re the only one who truly understands Obama. Anybody who doubts this should just ask you, right?
Btw, you’re also the only one who really understands Michelle Bachmann. I’ve never heard anyone else on FR state, as if it is a certain fact, that she’s a “blithering idiot”. You do get your jollies by smearing conservatives, don’t you? You really do.
Not all arrogant, pompous intellectuals like me are liberal! There are plenty of other conservatives, other than me, who fit that mold. Look a Buckley.
Your idea of what a conservative is like is clouded by the unfortunate fact that the rank-and-file of the conservative movement has become increasingly rural and populist. However, trust me, I'm not the only metropolitan conservative who thinks he smarter than you and the rest of the rubes. You'll run into plenty more, especially among those beltway elites who hold the power, no matter how much you disdain them.
Youre the only one who understands marxism. Youre the only one who truly understands Obama. Anybody who doubts this should just ask you, right?
I'm not asking you to take my word for it. You can read Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto, and then compare them to what Obama has said or done as president. While his words and deeds certainly reflect elements of Marx's thought, he is most definitely not a "full-on Marxist" (your words, not mine), in the sense that he's accepted any of Marx's main ideas.
As to the stuff Obama that someone says Obama believed in college...meh. Very few middle-aged people hold the same radical ideas today they once advocated in college. There is no evidence that Obama is a Marxist anymore, if he ever was one.
In fact, I'd say that makes him much more dangerous, as the kind of welfare statism he advocates now is much easier to get the public to swallow.
No, I just get my jollies by smearing stupid conservatives, who repeatedly say dumb things in public that reflect badly on the movement and make it harder for conservatives to win elections.
I'm a big fan of people like Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie who are effective at selling true conservative ideas to moderates and independents, and hence help us win elections.
Your MO is always the same. You make unsubstantiated claims, and when presented with facts you don’t agree with, you deny the facts. Sure, Obama claimed he only befriended marxist profs and other radicals because he himself wasn’t a marxist. Those who actually knew him, unlike YOU, said he was a total and complete marxist—but YOU know better. You always do—just ask yourself.
We’ll meet again on another thread. I’ll ask you to specify exactly how you know Bachmann is a stupid blithering idiot. Save your verbiage. I want your explanation on an active thread, not a dead one.
You're an idiot.
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.