Posts Tagged ‘rich should pay their fair share’

Why Do Americans Want ‘Buffett Rule’? Because They’re Greedy And Ignorant And Hurt Themselves To Attack Those They Envy

January 24, 2012

I think it’s a safe bet that the name “Warren Buffett” will come up in Obama’s State of the Union address tonight (which under this president ought to be renamed “State of the Demagoguery).

There’s a rumor that Obama will plant Warren Buffett’s now-famous secretary next to Michelle Obama to drive his demgogic point home.

We’re going to be told that “the rich should pay their fair share.”  Because the fact that a tiny minority of the rich pay the overwhelming majority of the income tax burden while nearly half of Americans pay ZERO federal income tax is utterly immaterial:

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

We’re going to hear about the so-called “Buffett Rule,” the idea that Warren Buffett says he pays less in tax than his secretary and he thinks that he should pay more.

Part of the problem with that is that Warren Buffett is a big fat phony hypocrite who actually owes a BILLION DOLLARS in back taxes.  So apprently the REAL “Buffett Rule” is to talk out of your ass while you welch on your legitimate tax obligations.

It is of course also true that Warren Buffett could pay as much tax as he wants.  He hasn’t paid more because in point of obvious fact he’s never wanted to pay more.  Which makes him not only two-faced, but two HYPOCRITE faces. 

These points are inconvenient, so the media will proceed to ignore them as being completely besides the point.

But there’s more to it.

The reason that Warren Buffett is taxed at such a low rate is because he pays taxes on “capital gains” rather than “income.”  Income has a top federal rate of 35%; capital gains are taxed at 15%.  Capital gains are taxed at such a low rate because investors have to put their money at risk in order to receive a reward.  And if you hike the capital gains rate, you decentivize investment (why risk your money on a business failing if you don’t even get to keep what you make when you win?) and economic growth and job creation tanks.  It’s as simple as that.

Obama doesn’t care about helping the economy or increasing the actual tax revenues; he’s all about Marxist “fairness” instead as ABC News anchor Charles Gibson once got Obama to admit:

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

The Senator then proceeded to bash evil rich (sorry for the redundancy) people, so the moderator asked the question again:

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

I wrote an article on this type of issue titled, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.”  It is simply true that every single time we have cut income tax and capital gains tax rates we have had a surge in revenue to the government because investment was being encouraged.  Not only that, but the rich also paid a HIGHER percentage of that revenue than they had been paying prior to the tax cuts.  It is simply win-win – unless you are a communist or a fascist, which unfortunately Democrats are today.

It’s not about the rich paying any “fair share,” because they already PAY MORE than their fair share.  It’s not about increasing revenues, because the thing that Obama and liberals want to do will actually DECREASE revenues.  Rather, it is about Karl Marx and class warfare and playing off of ignorant people’s greed and envy and using demagoguery to stir up Marxist-based anger.  It is about cutting off your own leg so you can beat the rich man with it.  At least until all your blood gushes out of your femoral artery and you yourself die.

Here’s one last thing to read about the “Buffett Rule”:

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Class Warfare and the Buffett Rule
by Noman Says

Noman was delighted to find an Arthur Laffer opinion piece in this morning’s paper. In it, he argues that a millionaire surtax would hurt everyone but the super rich like Warren Buffet. Noman imagines that Buffet knows this, which is why he felt safe being so bold as to champion the notion.

Waving Mr. Buffett’s op-ed for all to see, Mr. Obama wasted no time in proposing a surtax on millionaires called the “Buffett Rule.” Putting aside all the oohing and ahhing over Mr. Buffett’s selflessness, his effective tax rate on his true income would hardly budge if this “Buffett Rule” were applied.

Mr. Buffett’s net worth rose by $10 billion in 2010 to $47 billion, according to Forbes Magazine. That increase, an unrealized capital gain, is part of his total income by any standard definition, including the one used by the Congressional Budget Office. After also including a $1.6 billion gift to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Mr. Buffett’s true income in 2010 was much closer to $11.6 billion than the $40 million figure cited in his op-ed. Hence his true effective tax rate was only 6/100ths of 1% as opposed to 17.4%. And these are just the additions to his income that we know about.That untaxed $11.2 billion of income would still not be touched by the Buffett Rule, after application of which his taxes would increase by $7 million. His effective tax rate would rise to .12% from .06%.

 

Zowie! Meanwhile, the rest of us would have our growth ceiling, and probability of reaching it, lowered.One might argue that Buffet’s paltry tax relative to his true income only underscores his point, which is that hedoesn’t pay enough. But, the real point is that under his own proposal, he still wouldn’t. The rest of us, on the other hand, would have to endure higher rates, higher taxes, a less prosperous economy, fewer routes to upward mobility, and the ignonimy of having to laud Buffet’s selflessness.

 
 
After laying Mr. Buffet’s pretensions to waste, Laffer targets his hypocrisy.

Mr. Buffett’s donation to the Gates Foundation goes to the heart of my critique of his public call for higher tax rates on the rich… [I]f his gift weren’t tax sheltered he wouldn’t give it. So much for “shared sacrifice.”

In a 2007 CNBC interview, when asked why he shelters his money through tax-free strategies rather than writing big checks to Uncle Sam, Mr. Buffett responded: “I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter’s foundation, my two sons’ foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government.”

So Mr. Buffett thinks he and his family can put their money to better use than the government can. I guess he’s really not so different from the rest of us after all.

That article of clothing lying about your ankles, Mr. Buffet, is your pants. Whatever was once holding them up has been plucked off.

Laffer is the foremost advocate of the well-documented and statistically-verified policy argument that if you want the rich to pay more taxes in both absolute and relative terms, then the high end of marginal tax rates should be lowered, not raised.

When it comes to raising tax revenues by raising tax rates on the rich, Mr. Buffett would again appear to be on the wrong side of the argument. Between 1921 and 1928, the top marginal income tax rate fell to 25% from 73%. During this period, tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 1.1% of GDP from 0.6% of GDP. The top income tax rate dropped to 70% from 91% after the Kennedy tax cuts began in 1964, while tax receipts from the top 1% of earners rose to 1.9% of GDP from 1.3% of GDP in the period 1960 to 1968. By the way, these periods were two of the biggest booms in U.S. history.

Guess what was the third period of boom? Since 1978, the top earned income tax rate fell to 35% from 50%, the top capital gains tax rate fell to 15% from 39.9%, and the highest dividend tax rate fell to 15% from 70%. After taking office in 1993, President Clinton virtually eliminated the capital gains tax from the sale of owner-occupied homes and cut government spending as a share of GDP by the largest amount ever.

Meanwhile, the top 1% of earners saw their tax payments climb to 3.3% of GDP in 2007 from 1.5% of GDP in 1978, while the bottom 95% saw their tax payments drop to 3.2% of GDP in 2007 from 5.4% of GDP in 1978. Why would Mr. Buffett want to reverse these numbers?

Laffer’s facts are tough to argue with. But, that doesn’t prevent Statists from trying.

Of course, cynics and die-hard progressives might object to the above evidence on the grounds that it was driven by an explosion of income gains. But that’s largely the point.

The evidence suggests that big government Lefties’ real attraction to higher taxes is that they leave the vast majority of people worse off, not better. Widespread poverty, not increased receipts to the government, appears to be the true aim of the “fair share” set. Anything to reduce the sphere of private decision-making, and increase the dominion of centralized power, eh?

And, that’s just fine with Warren Buffet. He’ll cut his own deal with whatever hegemon needs to be placated.

Noman has written about Laffer, and Buffet, and encourages you read the former’s “The End of Prosperity” (2008). It sheds a great deal of light on class warfare as an economic stratagem, and makes one question the morals of those who foment it as a political one.

 

Hiking taxes on the rich won’t result in their paying more revenue; it will result in their paying less revenue as they quickly shelter their money by using tax free bonds and other investment vehicles such as collectibles.  They will find if worth while to pay a high-priced tax attorney to find every possible shelter for their wealth.  And if you can’t similarly afford such a high-priced lawyer, well, doom on you then.

The result of Obama’s demagoguery would be less investment in business and in job creation, which are the very investments we need more of.

The small businesses that produce 75% of America’s jobs are utterly terrified of Obama and his vile Marxist policies for damn good reason.  Obama is counting on the American people’s ignorance and greed.

If Obama wins, America is doomed, and get ready for the beast of Revelation as his crony allies and his policies set up a $600 trillion collapse.

You won’t hear a word of any of the above in Obama’s speech tonight; but that is because virtually every word of his speech will be lies.

Oh, by the way, Obama is also going to tout his job recovery.  It is all a lie.  We have lost millions of jobs; the number of jobs available in America has collapsed:

‘Unexpected’ (Drink!!!): Jobless Claims Rise Sharply During Economic Wreckovery

Obama ‘Added Jobs’ Only If You Count Them With Propaganda Math

Obama Hell: When Bush Left Office Average Length Of Unemployment Was 19.8 Weeks; NOW IT’S 40.8 WEEKS

8 Illuminating Charts That Show How Truly Failed Obamanomics Truly Is

But don’t you worry, Democrats.  You can completely trust your ideological allies in the most biased news media since Goebbels to keep that shameful little secret of Obama’s, too.

AP Fact On Obama’s Tax The Rich Demagoguery A Reminder To Obama: ‘YOU LIE!’

September 21, 2011

Remember Joe Wilson?  That night Obama was giving one of his quadzillion speeches, and Joe shouted “You LIE!”

Those were the two most honest words said that entire night.

Well, Obama was a liar before Joe Wilson’s outburst and he remained a liar after Joe Wilson’s outburst.  And it’s nice that every once-in-a-while a mainstream media outlet such as the Associated Press points that fact out.

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER – Associated Press | AP – Sep 20, 2011.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are.

“Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it,” Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. “It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million.”

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In his White House address on Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the “Buffett rule,” named for the billionaire investor.

The rule says, “People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.” Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.

“Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires,” Obama said. “That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that.”

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that’s less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.

Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.

Obama’s claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.

With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ official scorekeeper on revenue issues.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.

“People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. “People at the bottom of the distribution say, ‘But all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we’re getting,’ which is also the case.”

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates.

“So it really depends on what is your profession, where’s the source of your income, what’s the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won’t really capture that,” Geithner said.

Here’s a pretty good compendium of the media’s reporting on what are truly breathtaking and astonishing Obama lies:

President Obama has claimed that the “rich” aren’t paying “their fair share” and he likes to use Warren Buffet’s claim that Buffet pays less in income taxes to infer that Buffet’s situation the norm among our wealthier citizens.

Well it isn’t. And, in fact, any number of news organizations have pointed that out today.

AP:

President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries. . . . The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

ABC News:

Treasury Secretary Geithner yesterday declined to answer a key question about the president’s proposed ‘Buffett Rule’: How many millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than middle-income families? The answer appears to be this: not many. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has crunched the numbers and found that Warren Buffett and his secretary are the exception to the rule. For the most part, the wealthy pay a significantly higher percentage of their income in taxes than middle-income workers.

The Wall Street Journal:

There’s one small problem: The entire Buffett Rule premise is false . . . . [N]early all millionaires still paid a rate that is more than twice the 8.9% average rate paid by those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, and more than three times the 7.2% average rate paid by those earning less than $50,000. The larger point is that the claim that CEOs are routinely paying lower tax rates than their secretaries is Omaha hokum.

And the WSJ calls it what it really is:

We rehearse all of this because it shows that the real point of Mr. Obama’s Buffett Rule and his latest deficit proposal isn’t tax justice or good tax policy. It is all about re-election politics.

Even NBC is on to the game:

[W]ith some 14 months until Election Day 2012, Obama’s speech yesterday essentially marked the end of the governing season and the beginning of the campaign. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer admitted as much to the New York Times. ‘The popular narrative is that we sought compromise in a quixotic quest for independent votes. We sought out compromise because a failure to get funding of the government last spring and then an extension of the debt ceiling in August would have been very bad for the economy and for the country.’ Pfeiffer added, ‘We were in a position of legislative compromise by necessity. That phase is behind us.

If there is any transparency at all to this administration, it is this – there every move is obvious and it is clear this is being pushed out there for political reasons, not reasons having to do with what is best for the country.

Do you know why – even as Obama continually lies and demagogues the rich in his Marxist class-warfare campaign – he never actually says just how much more “the rich” should pay?  Because the stock market would completely TANK and remain tanked until the fool resigned from office in the disgust and disgrace he so richly deserves.

So he demonizes in the abstract.  Absolutely NOTHING Obama is saying has a single melting snowball’s chance in the basement of hell of becoming actual U.S. policy; this is pure political posturing and pandering as Obama tries to regain some toehold with his disintegrating base.

A president with a conscience would be trying to actually fix the problems in Washington and reach out to enact legislation that could make a positive difference.  But “conscience” rules out Obama.  The man is a demagogue and a fearmonger to the very core of his being.

Prior to giving his speech before the joint session of Congress a couple of weeks ago, it is utterly incredible to note that Obama made ZERO attempt to contact Speaker John Boehner to work out some kind of deal that would get through Congress and become law.  Obama doesn’t want solutions; he wants to demonize and blame other people for the mess that HE and ONLY HE has created.  Obama is the president; but the buck stops anywhere but with him.

So blame George Bush.  Because even three years after leaving office, George Bush remains more of a president and more of a leader than Barack Obama ever was or ever will be.

That said, let me mention Warren Buffett.  It’s funny how this fraud says he wants to pay more taxes.  Because first of all, there is NOTHING stopping him from paying more tax to the federal government other than the fact that he is a liar and a hypocriteEVERY SINGLE AMERICAN can pay as much as they want to the Treasury.

Second of all, if Warren Buffett wants to pay more taxes, the fraud might start off by paying the billion dollars in back taxes he already owes:

Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes
Obama’s favorite billionaire isn’t quite ready to practice what he preaches.
by  John Hayward
08/31/2011

Warren Buffett, President Obama’s pet billionaire, spends a great deal of time calling for tax increases on wealthy people.  He began a recent New York Times op-ed, entitled “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich,” as follows:
 
OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.
 
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
 
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
 
That’s right, serfs: anything your benevolent “leaders” in Washington allow you to keep is a “blessing” that has been “showered” upon you.  All money rightfully belongs to the State.  It’s about time you spotted owls got with the program.
 
Funny thing is, it turns out Buffett was being… shall we say… disingenuous when he claimed his “leaders” never got around to asking for his “shared sacrifice.”  His company, Berkshire Hathaway?, has been fighting the IRS tooth and nail to avoid paying its federal tax bill for nearly a decade.
 
How much of the State’s rightful money has this hypocrite been clutching in a white-knuckled death grip?  Oh, only about a billion dollars or so.  Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government tallies up the bill:
 
Using only publicly-available documents, a certified public accountant (CPA) detailed Berkshire Hathaway’s tax problems to ALG researcher Richard McCarty.  Now, the American people have a better idea of how much in back taxes the company could owe Uncle Sam.
 
 According to page 56 of the company report, “At December 31, 2010… net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million”, or about $1 billion. McCarty explained, “Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company’s potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities.  They have to be recorded in the company’s financial statements.”
 
He added, “The notation means that Berkshire Hathaway’s own auditors have probably said that $1 billion is more likely than not owed to the government.”
 
On top of this tax bill, figure the value of the time IRS agents have invested trying to collect it – they don’t work cheap, and we pay their salaries – and the resources Buffett’s people have invested fighting back.  All of which would have been saved if Buffett simply practiced what he preached, and willingly handed over his fortune to the brilliant and compassionate “leaders” he commands the rest of us to support without resistance.
 
Warren Buffet is no different from the other liars and frauds orbiting Barack Obama?.  His hypocrisy just runs billions of dollars deeper.  When it comes to “shared sacrifice,” you do the sacrificing, and they do the sharing.

Allow me to add Warren Buffett to the VERY partial list of liberal frauds who inhabit Barack Obama’s orbit of prodigious hypocrisy:

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen. Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts. There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes. There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes. There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht. There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family. And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill. And the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

Another thing to recognize – and another example of the disgusting hypocrisy that today is the quintessential defining characteristic of the entire Democrat Party – is that “The Warren Buffet Rule” wouldn’t actually even apply to Warren Buffett.  This is because of a fundamental disingenuous misrepresentation that Obama has deliberately peddled conflating income taxes with capital gains taxes.

Warren Buffett pays low taxes because first and foremost, he is a tax cheat who has not paid a BILLION DOLLARS in tax debt and who has been fighting his obligation to the last lawyer even as he hypocritically demands that everyone else pay more taxes like he himself won’t.  But it goes beyond that.  Another simple fact is that Buffett has structured his income in such a way as to MINIMIZE his income tax liability – just like nearly all wealthy people (and especially the wealthy liberal hypocrite jackasses) – do.  Warren Buffett has his assets in trusts and foundations and structures his assets that he takes income as capital gains – with are taxed at less than half the rate of income tax.  He doesn’t HAVE to do that; it’s just that this lying fraud chooses to do that to reduce his tax liability as much as possible.

What would happen if capital gains were taxed at the same rate as income tax – as Obama suggests we begin doing?

Kiss investment goodbye.  Kiss the U.S. economy goodbye.  Kiss millions and millions of jobs goodbye.  And kiss the next genuine Great Depression hello.

Whenever a person invests in a stock or a company, there is a very good chance that that person may well lose money.  It is a RISK.  And if you lose, the most you can deduct is something like $3,500 on your taxes.  But if you win, the government currently takes 15% of whatever you gained.  It’s a good deal for the federal government, if you lose, you lose and the government loses nothing; if you gain, the government helps itself to your winnings.  And the simple fact of the matter is that as an investor loses the ability to profit from his investment – while receiving no similar increase in his ability to be protected from his losses – his or her incentive to invest dries up like cheap plastic in a hot and arid desert.

And unless the poor are going to start risking THEIR money to fund and build businesses that in turn hire workers, the American economy will pretty much just fade away and go poof.

All that to say that unless we start attacking investment by attacking capital gains, the Buffett rule would hypocritically most certainly NOT apply to the very man it’s named after.

Up to this point, Obama’s entire presidency has consisted in making false promises, lying, demagoguing and demonizing his opponents and imposing failed “solutions” that have made what was bad far worse.

And as the Liar-in-Chief goes into full-fledged campaign mode, it appears he is merely picking up speed to accelerate all of the above.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 530 other followers