The Media Propaganda And Obama Class Warfare LIE That Romney Pays Less Tax Than Middle Class. And The Reason And Proof Why Low Capital Gains Taxes Are GOOD.

The degeneration of the media is astonishing.  Yes, the media always had a liberal bias; you could count on it.  But there was a time when we had journalists who fact checked.  Then we got journalism PLUS fact checking to correct the lies of the journalists.  And now we’ve  fact checkers correcting the lies of the fact checkers.

If I meet somebody who tells me, “I’m a journalist,” I know that there is an overwhelmingly statistical likelihood that that person is a) a doctrinaire liberal; and b) a biased doctrinaire liberal who insinuates his or her ideology, bias and prejudices into most of his or her reporting.

You need to understand how pathologically dishonest and biased the mainstream news media have become.  A couple of recent examples:

So this really isn’t that surprising.  Journalists are professional liars.  You can trust them to be dishonest.

And so here we go again:

ABC’s Karl Dissembles on Romney’s Tax Rate, But NBC Points Out He Pays Higher Percent Than Middle Class
By Brent Baker | September 22, 2012 | 14:09

Repeating a common mythology that a person’s federal income tax rate equals the effective tax rate they actually pay after deductions, ABC’s Jonathan Karl on Friday night forwarded the canard that Mitt Romney’s 14.1 percent rate is lower than what a $75,000 earner pays. NBC’s Peter Alexander, however, correctly noted “the average middle class American family pays roughly 13 percent.”

On World News, Karl reported that Mitt Romney “made $13.7 million last year and paid nearly $2 million in taxes. His effective tax rate, 14.1 percent.” Then, without citing any source, Karl asserted: “That’s a lower rate than an auto mechanic who made $75,000 in pay.”

Wrong. As USA Today noted in January, Romney’s 14 percent income tax rate is “a higher tax rate than the majority of taxpayers” pay and “the average effective tax rate for taxpayers with AGI of $1 million or more is 25%, according to the Tax Foundation analysis.”

In “Tax bracket vs. tax rate: They’re two different things,” reporter Sandra Block explained: “The average effective federal tax rate for American taxpayers is 11%, according to an analysis of 2009 IRS data by the Tax Foundation, a non-profit research organization. For individuals with adjusted gross income of $50,000 or less, the average effective tax rate is less than 5%, according to the Tax Foundation….”

More in my NB post: “Nets Use Romney’s Taxes to Advance Obama’s False ‘Fairness’ Narrative,” which included a table showing those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 pay an average effective income tax rate of 7 percent, 8 percent for those taking in $75,000 to $100,000 and 12 percent for those between $100,000 and $200,000.

From the start of Karl’s September 21 story, closed captioning corrected against the video by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth:

The most interesting thing about these tax returns are that even though Mitt Romney paid a low tax rate, he actually voluntarily paid more in taxes than he had to. The bottom line on Mitt Romney’s taxes: He made $13.7 million last year and paid nearly $2 million in taxes. His effective tax rate, 14.1 percent. That’s a lower rate than an auto mechanic who made $75,000 in pay. Although he made almost $14 million, not one penny came from wages or salary. Instead, his money came largely from investments, which are taxed at the much lower capital gains tax rate…

Peter Alexander on Friday’s NBC Nightly News:

It has been a rough couple of weeks for the Romney campaign, now trailing in the polls. And by putting out Romney’s tax returns today, the campaign is hoping it can put this issue to bed so it doesn’t have to deal with any more negative headlines closer to the election.

Campaigning in Las Vegas today and under pressure for months to be more transparent about his personal finances, Mitt Romney released his 2011 tax returns, revealing that he and his wife Ann paid nearly $2 million in federal taxes, on income of nearly $14 million, largely from investments, a tax rate of 14.1 percent. That’s slightly more than the 13.9 rate the couple paid in 2010. The average middle class American family pays roughly 13 percent…

So on top of the dishonesty that we saw from the rest of the mainstream media, CBS’s 60 Minutes piled on with the dishonesty in its interview with Mitt Romney:

Pelley: Now, you made on your investments, personally, about $20 million last year. And you paid 14 percent in federal taxes. That’s the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?

Romney: It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent.

Pelley: So you think it is fair?

Romney: Yeah, I think it’s the right way to encourage economic growth, to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.

Scott Pelley’s question was a) biased and b) based entirely on a false premise.  Because he gets his “facts” COMPLETELY wrong and proceeds to beat Romney over the head with a dishonest conclusion from those false “facts.”  In fact, Mitt Romney does NOT pay a lower rate than the guy who earned $50,000.  In FACT Romney pays more than TWICE as high of a rate – 14.1 percent versus 7 percent – as the guy who earns $50,000 a year in the adjusted income tax rate that actually matters (as the rate you actually pay taxes at).

There are so many ways that the media lies: they lie in deciding which stories to cover and deciding which stories will not get any coverage; they lie about what aspects of those stories they cover will get covered or ignored; they lie in salad picking their “experts” or witnesses in order to cherry pick the point or conclusion they want the audience to draw.  They further lie in how they edit and package the story.  And there are other ways they lie in production.  But now we’re to the point where the media lies by simply dishonestly inventing “facts.”

The fact that Pelley lied and made up bogus “facts” gave Barack Obama to exploit those lies in his own demonization of Mitt Romney.

The question “is it fair” about low capital gains taxes is as naive as it is idiotic.  Keeping capital gains taxes low encourages investment and encouraging investment increases jobs.  How is it “fair” to gut job creation?

I would ask if it’s fair for journalists and for the current president of the United States to make up their own facts and attack Mitt Romney with lies.

The best way to document that fact is to point out that Bill Clinton was the man who cut capital gains taxes and benefitted enormously from doing so:

American Thinker points out that the Clinton income tax hike of 1993 did NOT bring in ANYWHERE NEAR the revenue Democrats had predicted:

The Clinton years provide lessons on the effects of tax increases and decreases. The American left attributes the successful economy of the Clinton years to the former and ignores the impact of the latter in order to justify their appetite for the increases they would have us believe will provide additional tax revenues today.
The effects of increasing taxes on Treasury receipts can be seen in the Clinton and Democrat-controlled congressional tax increase of 1993, one of the largest in history. Despite a more robust job market following a recession, the 1993 tax increase didn’t accomplish what Democrats expected. The tax increases added very little to treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree.

In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn’t occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates.

So what did both Clinton’s and later George Bush’s capital gains rate cuts do?  Let’s pick up where the article left off:

The Clinton tax policies of the early ’90s were based on rate increases and luck — the luck provided by a normal growth cycle that began in 1992 as America emerged from a mild recession and a communications revolution. It was tax relief that improved receipts following the disappointing outcome of the 1993 tax hikes and made the Clinton economy successful. The 1997 rate reduction on capital gains unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to more than triple by 1998 and double again in 1999. Treasury receipts for this category of tax obligation increased dramatically. Without tax relief and the internet/communications revolution, the second Clinton term would likely have seen tax revenues decline in a lagging economy.

There is no reason to believe that tax increases will perform any differently this time under a different aggregation of hopeful Democrats.

To find a pure, easily illustrated example of tax decreases boosting the economy and Treasury receipts, one need only look at the current rates on capital gains and dividends. When Congress passed the 15-percent tax rate on capital gains in 2003, and again following the 2006 extension, Democrats protested that large deficits would result.

The new leadership in Washington and those who support them would allow this tax cut to expire to “generate revenue” for the federal government. Based on data from Congress’s own budgetary agency, they should consider whether expiration will have the effect they desire.

For anyone willing to read it, the January 2007 Congressional Budget Office annual report settles any debate. Citing the original CBO forecasts of capital gains tax revenue of $42 billion in 2003, $46 billion in 2004, $52 billion in 2005, and $57 billion in 2006, Democrats who opposed the rate reduction in 2003 claimed that the capital gains tax cut would “cost” the federal treasury $5.4 billion in fiscal years 2003-2006.

Those forecasts were embarrassingly wrong. The 2007 CBO report revealed that capital gains and dividends tax collections were actually $51 billion in 2003, $72 billion in 2004, $97 billion in 2005, and $110 billion in 2006, the last two years nearly doubling initial forecasts.

In other words, forecasts in earlier CBO reports were low by a total of $133 billion for the four-year period. This tax rate reduction stimulated enough additional economic activity to more than offset forecasted losses.

Reductions in tax rates for capital gains were arguably the most successful fiscal initiatives of the past thirty years.

You will find that when George W. Bush cut the tax rates across the board, TAX REVENUES SHOT UP DRAMATICALLY.  And even the uberliberal New York Times was forced to acknowledge that Bush INCREASED tax revenues following his tax cut:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Here are the numbers following Clinton’s signing the Republican-sponsored and passed capital gains tax rate cut in 1997:

Capital gains taxation revenues collected by the federal government:

1996  –  $66 billion
1997  –  (capital gains tax rate cut goes into effect)
1997  –  $79.3 billion
1998  –  $89.1 billion
1999  –  $111.8 billion
2000  –  $127.3 billion

Dick Morris – who was Bill Clinton’s primary political adviser at the time and engineered Clinton’s successful triangulation strategy that won him reelection – wrote it up this way:

When Clinton took office he did all the wrong things. He raised taxes sharply, hiking the top bracket from 35% to 39.6% and raised taxes on gasoline. The result was that the economy, which had been recovering, staggered. GDP growth dropped to 0.7% in Clinton’s first quarter (down from 4.3% in Bush’s last quarter) and stayed around 2% for the rest of 1993. Personal income rose 6.3% in 1992 under Bush but slowed to 4.1% under Clinton in 1993.

The tax increases Clinton passed failed to generate the revenue he had expected. The tax paradox set in. Martin Feldstein, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, summed it up in his Wall Street Journal article, “What the ’93 Tax Increase Really Did,” published on October 26, 1995. He said taxpayers reduced their incomes when they saw the tax hikes coming. Feldstein writes that “the Treasury lost two-thirds of the extra revenue that would have been collected if taxpayers had not changed their behavior.” Because of Clinton’s tax hikes, real personal income fell by $25 billion. High income taxpayers, facing the prospect of a tax increase reported 8.5% less taxable income in 1993 than they would have if their tax rates had not changed. The tax paradox!

Then Clinton got wiped out in the Congressional elections of 1994, losing control of the Senate and the House – the first time the Republicans had run the House in forty years!

Clinton suddenly saw the error of his ways and began to hold down spending and push for a tax cut. In 1997, he and the Republican Congress combined to cut capital gains taxes from 28% (the rate to which Bush had increased it) to 20%. The result was electrifying! Real wage growth was 6.5% in the four years after the tax cut compared to minuscule wage growth of 0.8% over the four years after Clinton’s tax increase!

And the tax paradox was again evident: lower rates produced higher revenues! In 1996, the year before the capital gains cut, the tax collected revenues of only $66 billion. In the four years after the cut, they averaged $100 billion a year. But, what was more important was the surge in economic activity that the capital gains tax cut generated. In 1996, before the tax cut, there were $261 billion in capital gains in America. In the three years after the cut, capital gains rose to an average of $440 billion. The increased tax collections and the greater economic activity were such that they pushed the budget into a surplus for the first time since the 1950s.

Is it “fair” that I’m not as handsome as Brad Pitt?  Is it “fair” that I’m not as good of a swimmer as Michael Phelps or as fast a runner as Usain Bolt?  Is it “fair” that I’m not as smart as Albert Einstein?  Is it “fair” that I’m not as creative or talented as Robert Plant or Jimmy Page?  Obviously (and rather unfortunately!) I could go on and on and on with this ad naseum.  Instead, read this on the danger of “fairness.”

I’m sorry to be the one to break your bubble of idiocy, liberal: NOBODY SAID LIFE WAS FAIR.

And I just wish that evil demagogues would quit trying to stir up bitterness and envy by constantly trying to artificially and frankly cynically trying to impose a radical and Marxist doctrine of “fairness” on the world.  Because it does the exact OPPOSITE of what they say it will do.

The bottom line is patently obvious to anyone but a fool: keeping low capital gains rates means that more people will invest more money because they will have the obvious incentive of actually being able to keep what they risk their money to earn – A PROFIT.  If there is more investment, there will be more economic activity and in turn more job creation.

An interesting exchange between ABC News anchor Charles Gibson and Barack Obama during a debate shows us where Obama is:

You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.”

It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.


MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.


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.

You can reward wise practices or you can punish them. You can reward individual initiative or you can punish it. Obama is the latter even though the former is far and away the best for society.

If you think it’s “fair” to punish society – including the poor who benefit from the jobs that are created for them so that they can take care of themselves and their families and move up the economic ladder to a better life – just to punish rich people, you are the one with a huge mental and frankly moral problem.

But that mentally and morally deranged form of Marxist psychosis is exactly where Barack Obama and the radical left is.

What is interesting is that the middle class that Obama keeps pretending he’s helping KNOW that he and his media propaganda machine are liars.  Which is why Obama is getting crushed by the middle class vote which favors Romney by FOURTEEN POINTS.  Obama and the media liars aren’t trying to appeal to the middle class who know better; they’re trying to persuade the unfortunately ignorant that their lies are the truth and that the truth is actually a lie.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “The Media Propaganda And Obama Class Warfare LIE That Romney Pays Less Tax Than Middle Class. And The Reason And Proof Why Low Capital Gains Taxes Are GOOD.”

  1. surefirewizard Says:


    Let’s talk about elections. I was listening to Rush yesterday and he put forth the notion that these political polls are purposely skewed towards Obama for the purpose of provoking riots in the advent of a Romney win. I tend to the think the opposite, that this skewing will be cover for the STEALING of an election. Those in the know understand that election results will be tallied and/or verified by some company in Spain, a company with ties to George Soros. After the outrage and seeming impossibility of a Obama win the liberal media will simply point at all these fake polls and say ‘Look! Why are you so upset? All of the polls pointed to his win!” And when real patriots start to riot in response to this obvious usurpation (the 2nd, since he was never eligible to be President in the first place) the polling data, among other things, will provide cover for the administration to further clamp down on the remaining shreds of liberty that we have left. Any thoughts on this?


  2. Michael Eden Says:


    In 2008, Obama won key swing states such as Florida with a +4 Democrat turnout. In 2010, Republicans won such states as Florida and Ohio with a +4 GOP turnout. The polls are using a model that assumes not a 2010 turnout which favors Republicans, or even a 2008 model that favors Democrats, but a +9 turnout for Democrats. It’s just insane.

    That said, I have learned that it is NOT a good position to be in to be trying to explain why your candidate isn’t ahead in the polls.

    Frankly, I’m not worried about riots by either side. Of course, as you know, if and when there are riots, YOU CAN COUNT ON THE FACT THAT IT WILL BE LIBERALS WHO START THE RIOTING.

    It’s not just the lesson of history – that the socialist left is and always has been the ideology of violence – just look at the peaceful Tea Party versus the vile OWS movement.

    All I care about is the actual election on November 6.

    I’m not in the know here, given that I had not heard that a Soros-tied Spanish company was going to be tabulating the election vote count. I’ll have to look that up.

    I find it interesting that the Obama “Justice” Department sued Gallup and suddenly all the polls started skewing Obama. I also find it interesting that a couple of days ago Obama couldn’t possibly meet with world leaders (including Netanyahu) because he was so busy campaigning

    Mr. Obama was scheduled to attend a reception for world leaders at the United Nations on Monday night. But a campaign adviser acknowledged privately that in this election year, campaigning trumped meetings with world leaders. “Look, if he met with one leader, he would have to meet with 10,” the aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

    But now all of a sudden he’s got such a huge lead that the election is a slam dunk and he may as well just coast to his second inauguration. And if critical swing states like Ohio are out of reach for Romney and Romney can’t win without them, then why the hell can’t Obama take a break from campaigning long enough to meet with one or TEN world leaders???

    I mean which is it? Both of the above can’t be right. And I submit that Obama’s internal polling recognizes this election is hardly a sure thing for him.

    My own view is that the media is trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy; they want to dishearten and deenergize Romney supporters – particularly campaign donors – and thus influence the election.

    I found an article here on this Spanish-owned company. I guess all I can say is I hope our guys are able to keep their guys from being able to steal the election, but….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: