5 big lies in Obama's economic fairness speech
I'm surprised that IDB can only find 5 big lies in Obama's Kansas economic speech. But 5 is a good start:
Tax cuts and deregulation have "never worked" to grow the economy. There's so much evidence to disprove this claim, it's hard to know where to start. But let's begin with the fact that countries with greater economic freedom - lower taxes, less government, sound money, free trade - consistently produce greater overall prosperity.
[...]
Bush's tax cuts on the rich only managed to produced "massive deficits" and the "slowest job growth in half a century." Budget data make clear that Obama's spending hikes, not Bush's tax cuts, produced today's massive deficits.
[...]
During the Bush years, "we had weak regulation, we had little oversight." This is patently false. Regulatory staffing climbed 42% under Bush, and regulatory spending shot up 50%, according to a Washington University in St. Louis/George Washington University study. And the number of Federal Register pages - a proxy for regulatory activity - was far higher under Bush than any previous president.
[...]
The "wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century." Fact: the federal income tax code is now more progressive than it was in 1979, according to the Congressional Budget Office. IRS data show the richest 1% paid almost 40% of federal income taxes in 2009, up from 18% back in 1980.
[...]
![]()
We can keep tax breaks for the rich in place, or make needed investments, "but we can't do both." Not true. Repealing the Bush tax cuts on the "rich" would raise only about $70 billion a year, a tiny fraction of projected deficits. With or without the Bush tax cuts, the country can't afford Obama's agenda.
It is probably too much to ask the press to point out Obama's lies this campaign season. However, Glenn Kessler at the WaPo blog Fact Checker examined the same Obama speech and gave it "3 Pinocchio's" out of a possible 4. Awarding three Pinocchio's means that there was "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions" in the facts presented.
I'd say that's a great big "yes."
Hat Tip: Ed Lasky
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- A Multi-Point Attack on the National Debt
- Nearing the Final Battle Against the Deep State
- Now’s the Time to Buy a Nuke (Nuclear Power Plant, That Is)
- The Fall and Fall of the Associated Press
- Bill Gates and the AI Delusion
- New York Greenlights Quarantine Camps
- Reality Check for Democrats
- A MAGA Siege of the Democrats’ Deep State
- Why Incel and 4B Culture Matter
- Defending Donald Trump: A Response to Jeffrey Goldberg and The Atlantic on the Signal Leak
Blog Posts
- Buried lede: San Francisco has lost 60,000 tourism-related jobs
- I’ve recognized manipulation in the past, and I see it now on the Supreme Court
- The progressive movement has led the Democrat party into a political black hole
- A Colorado Democrat’s immoral cost-benefit analysis to justify taxpayer-funded abortion
- We must reclaim Islam from Islamism
- Texas under siege: the stealth Islamic takeover we can’t ignore
- The UFO mystery
- NYT: Dems in ‘denial’ about ‘comprehensive defeat’
- Stupiditywatch: Columbia's pro-Hamas protestors tear up their own diplomas for the cameras
- U.K. to institute two-tier system of justice?
- We remember those who served in Vietnam
- A curiosity about the DC District Court’s judges
- The 9th Circuit prepares to be reversed again
- Tim Walz really is a knucklehead
- A Ph.D. in ‘Molecular and Cell Biology’ shows the difference between credentials and knowledge