Obama Admits He Was Lying

Obama, through actions by his regime, has admitted that he was lying but exactly when he lied is a matter of how things are interpreted. Obama either lied when he was campaigning or he lied when he was ramming the health care bill through and the regime is making the case that Obama actually lied BOTH times (which is what I believe).

First some background. During the campaign Barack Obama said he would not increase taxes on the middle class. Those making below a certain amount of money (the exact amount is really unknown because it changed regularly but it is anywhere from $120,000 to $250,000 per year) would not see their taxes increased. That is the first important item to know, Obama promised not to increase taxes (not one dime) on the middle class.

The second thing to know is that during the health care debate Obama vehemently defended the individual mandate and said that any fine levied against those who did not buy insurance was not a tax. Obama was even very condescending to George Stephanopoulos of ABC when George brought up the issue and said it was a tax. Obama chastened him about looking up a word in the dictionary and proclaimed that the individual mandate was absolutely not a tax regardless of what Stephanopoulos or anyone else said.

By God, Barack Obama has decreed it is not a tax now just shut up about it George and move on.

So the health care bill passes and Obama signs it into law and almost immediately a number of lawsuits are filed questioning the Constitutionality of the mandate. The arguments have been made on this point and I will not rehash them here except to say that many scholars believe that Congress overstepped its bounds by claiming it could regulate a person who engaged in NO commerce under the commerce clause.

Evidently, the Obama regime thinks there is something to this argument, which if successful would derail the legislation and the bogus claims of low costs and deficit reduction. The regime is trying to have the case against the health care law dismissed. Now this is nothing unusual because parties try to do that all the time. If it works they do not have to defend the issue but in this case I cannot imagine a judge throwing it out because of the magnitude of the issue.

In any event, the fact that the regime is trying to get it dismissed is not unusual but the grounds they are using for the dismissal are.

The regime is arguing that the law does not allow for suits regarding the assessment or collection of TAXES.

Late last night, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Florida-based lawsuit against the health care law, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the State of Florida and fellow plaintiffs haven’t presented a claim for which the court can grant relief. To bolster its case, the DOJ cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government’s ability to collect taxes.

The Act, according to a DOJ memo supporting the motion to dismiss, says that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.” The memo goes on to say that it makes no difference whether the disputed payment it is called a “tax” or “penalty,” because either way, it’s “assessed and collected in the same manner” by the Internal Revenue Service. [all emphasis mine] The American Spectator

Uh oh. Looks like there is trouble right here in River City my friends. The Obama regime is now saying that the fine for failing to buy insurance is a TAX even though the almighty Barack Obama scolded George Stephanopoulos and flat out told him that this was not a tax.

So there you have it ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama said it was not a tax when he wanted it to pass and he is saying that it is a tax now that it needs to withstand judicial scrutiny. Obama either lied to get it passed or he is lying to keep it out of court. Obama knew that calling it a tax would make members of Congress uneasy in an election year and he now knows that unless he calls it a tax it will have a tough time withstanding the court challenge. He is a liar and he will say or do anything to get what he wants.

Remember, if it is such a good thing they would not need to lie about the costs and they would not need to lie about how it is funded. All of the lies and manipulations clearly show this is a bad piece of legislation.

This is the kind of dishonest person Obama is and the kind of dishonesty that he expects when he is playing politics as usual, another thing he promised he would not do and, as it turns out, another broken promise.

There is one other unusual thing going on here. If Obama succeeds in portraying this as a tax and the court rules in his favor then he will have broken a huge campaign promise. Keep in mind that this mandate will affect the middle class the most. The poor will receive subsidies but the middle class will be forced to buy insurance more than any other and that means Obama will have imposed a huge tax increase on them. If he wins the argument that this is a tax then he will be admitting that he raised taxes on the middle class, something he said he would not do. Or as the cited article puts it:

Put another way, the administration is now arguing in federal court that Obama signed a massive middle-class tax increase, in violation of his campaign pledge.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if Obama’s own words about this not being a tax were used against his regime and the court ruled that Obama said it was not a tax so he can’t call it one now? Wouldn’t it be even more bizarre if he lost that argument, lost the case and still had to answer to the public as to why he deceived them by saying it was not a tax and then argued that it was?

Obama is a liar and a thief. He will steal money from those who make it and give it to those who do not. He leads the party of parasites (tolerant ones at that) and he is more than willing to continue to suck the life-blood out of our country in order to fulfill his dream of making it a Socialist nation.

How much more do people need to see to understand that Obama is a hack, an inexperienced man-child, a person who is automatically the least experienced of any person in a room he enters and that he is more interested in playing golf, partying, spending tax dollars on his parties, and working to bang through a Socialist agenda?

How much more do you people need to see that this guy is an inexperienced poser who can’t lead?

This incident should awaken you. He will say and do anything to get what he wants.

How is that hope and change working for you now?

Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

21 Responses to “Obama Admits He Was Lying”

  1. Darrel says:

    Bigd: “Obama, through actions by his regime, has admitted that he was lying but exactly when he lied is a matter of how things are interpreted.”>>

    DAR
    Again with the same pattern. Bigd likes to tell a glaring whopper in his very first sentence, but most especially in his title.

    His title screams “Obama admits he was lying.”

    That’s pretty straightforward English.

    Everyone knows what it looks like, what it means, when a person admits they have lied. If this were the case Bigd would be able to provide the citation, the quote, word for word, and support his assertion. But of course, he can’t do that, because his title is (ironically) a bold faced lie. And he knows it. Every honest person knows it.

    Then we see his first sentence, where he tries to mitigate the bold faced lie in the title with some weasel words. He radically modifies his claim of Obama admitting to lying to something about:

    “through actions by his regime”

    A child can understand that this is something completely different. Can “actions by his regime” be the same as a personal admission of lying? Of course not. The actions of other people, or an administration do not in any sense equal a personal admission of lying. That’s just silly.

    So we see that Bigd, as usual has been extraordinarily dishonest his title and first sentence. When someone shows this much dishonesty out of the gate, with regard to very plain and simple information it’s not likely they can be trusted to get the rest of their details right. And of course, he doesn’t. He recycles the same tired old crap about who would and wouldn’t receive tax increases. All straightforward misinformation carefully knocked down over a year ago and it is just as silly, wrong and distorted as it was then.

    But this is beside the main point which is that when a person proves themselves to be a liar about a simple claim in the title of their post, best to not trust them on the finer detailed material that follows. Not if you are a person interested in having your beliefs be in line with truth and reality.

    D.
    ———–
    “Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow; He who would search for pearls must dive below.” –John Dryden (1631-1700)

    • Big Dog says:

      Nice try but in politics the administration 9or in this case, regime) is spoken for by others. The press secretary speaks for Obama and the DOJ speaks for him when carrying out his bidding. When they claim this is now a tax they are conveying HIS thoughts and desires.

      Call it what you wish but the reality is that the leader has others who speak for him and on his behalf. When Hillary said that the regime would file a lawsuit against Arizona the regime denied it but it now turns out true. So the regime, and by extension Obama, lied.

      By sending his DOJ out to argue this particular set of facts it is conveying his wishes and that means he lied.

      I knew I could count on you to ignore the entire item which has, in no way, been refuted over a year ago. Obama said taxes would not be raised on those making under $200k ($250k for married) but that number was stated as low as $120k. In any event, the impact of the mandate will be hardest felt on the middle class 9those under the threshold) and therefore constitutes a tax increase, per their argument, the argument of Obama.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “Nice try but in politics the administration 9or in this case, regime) is spoken for by others.”>>

        DAR
        The claim in your title doesn’t in any way address “others.” It says, “Obama admits he was lying.”

        If I said “G.W. Bush admitted he lied,” I would need to support it with a citation showing he, admitted, he, lied. If couldn’t I would then need to either withdraw the false claim or become myself, a liar.

        If you wish to be honest, you have two options:

        a) Cite where Obama admitted he lied, or

        b) admit that it is you who is lying

        Since you know you cannot do “a” the second one is your only honest recourse and follows whether you admit it or not. Once again we see, in your desperation to pin a lie on Obama you end up committing the exact infraction you try to falsely condemn him for.

        D.
        ————
        Regarding your central distortion, here is a flash back to my response from May 30, 2009:

        “DAR
        The context clearly shows he [Obama] was referring to income taxes. The clue is provided by the context: “If you make.” Income taxes are scaled upon “what you make.” His 95% figure refers to income taxes for those [who] “make” less than 250k.

        Let’s not pretend that this is difficult to understand.”

        Doggie Dump archive.

    • Blake says:

      Darrel, everyone knows Bama-rama lies- it is JUST so hard to determine just WHICH STATEMENT is his most egrigious- there are so many.
      The fact that you carry his water, all while wearing your kneepads (all the better for doing your progressive homage to the One- a patented liberal Lewinsky) is realy sad- one really should expect more from an alleged sentient being, but slavish devotion, flying in the face of reality, seems to be in your genome.
      Thank God I have a brain and use it- I am a progressive’s worst nightmare- a thinking man.

      • Adam says:

        Why is it conservatives always bring everything back to either bending over or getting on your knees? Is that all you folks ever think about?

        Blake: “I am a progressive’s worst nightmare- a thinking man.”

        AHAHAHAHA! That reminds me of the saying the banana is the Atheist’s nightmare…

  2. “Obama is a liar and a thief. He will steal money from those who make it and give it to those who do not.”

    Except that he calls it “spreading the wealth around,” maintains that “it’s good for everybody,” and therefore it’s not wrong when he does it.

    Breaking a campaign pledge apparently isn’t wrong when he does it, either. I think we disabused George H. W. Bush of that notion, didn’t we?

  3. Adam says:

    It certainly can be argued that Obama is wrong when suggesting a penalty is not a tax. But he has not changed stances on that subject and American Spectator is wrong to suggest he has. He still considers there to be a difference between a tax penalty and a tax increase.

    American Spectator seems to think the Anti-Injunction Act only counts for taxes in the traditional sense of the word so if Obama thinks the penalty falls under the AIA then he is admitting it is a tax. That argument is not supported by the DOJ document.

    The DOJ is arguing “the penalty at issue here is a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act…” The key here is in the words “for the purposes of” which simply means that the term “tax” refers to all the various “penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.” That is not to be confused with a suggestion that a “penalty” is now considered a “tax” by Obama.

    Furthermore, the document is still arguing that the minimum coverage provision falls under the Commerce Clause and not the Taxing and Spending Clause.

    Your list of Obama lies don’t add up. Obama said he would not raise taxes. He does not (despite what American Spectator incorectly suggests) believe imposing a penalty is a tax increase. So what did Obama lie about? It has been argued that a penalty is a tax increase but that is more a broken promise than an outright lie.

    • It doesn’t matter what the Obamunist-In-Chief believes. Excepting judically imposed fines, there are three recognized involuntary governmental transfers of wealth:
      — torts;
      — takings;
      — taxes.

      The first is illegal; the second requires “just compensation;” the third…well, take your pick.

    • I don’t expect you’ll claim that Obama believes he’s legally capable of levying a fine: a legal penalty. That requires a judicial imposition of sentence, in consequence of a jury’s decision that the penalized person has broken the law. the thief you admire so wouldn’t be stupid enough to arrogate the powers of judge and jury to himself, now would he? And of course, we know Congress doesn’t have that power, don’t we?

      So: If Obama isn’t stupid, either he’s deliberately contravening the Constitutional separation of powers, or he’s levying a tax and knows it. Take your pick.

  4. Big Dog says:

    And he also said your taxes and left out the income part so don’t act like he only spoke of it once.

    Once can admit to lying and never say I lied.

    If a president says I will not raise taxes and then pushes for things that will raise taxes (like ending the bush tax cuts and taxing people for not buying insurance) then he admits to lying without saying it.

  5. Big Dog says:

    No Adam, you get charged a penalty (unless you are in Obama’s regime like Geithner) which you are free to fight in court. If they fine you for being late and you pay the penalty then you waive the right to have it adjudicated. It is like getting a speeding ticket. You can pay the fine or you can elect to go to court and have a judge decide.

    Now do you understand?

  6. Big Dog says:

    Yes, it is because you cannot go to court. Of course you can sue but that is not the same. You have no recourse. You can’t say I think I fight this in court. You pay or you get in trouble.

    And, Obama is arguing that it is a tax (which some of us said from the start).

    • Adam says:

      “And, Obama is arguing that it is a tax (which some of us said from the start).”

      This was exactly my point above. No, he’s still not arguing that it is a tax, no matter what American Prospect thinks.

      • Big Dog says:

        So let me get this straight. Obama quibbled with George S of ABC over a definition and basically made fun of him looking up the word tax and then said that it was not a tax and now the administration is saying it is a tax but you want to now quibble about the definition.

        They are arguing it is a tax and should be treated as such in order to get it thrown out of court. Then we can argue it is certainly a tax and that he lied. Obama can’t deride someone over a definition and then use the “by definition” argument in order to get his way.

        It does not work like that.

        • Adam says:

          “They are arguing it is a tax and should be treated as such in order to get it thrown out of court.”

          No, they’re not doing that. Did you even read what I wrote? Did you read the DOJ document? Here is a better copy.

          American Spectator suggests the DOJ is arguing it is a tax so therefore it counts under AIA and they take it further:

          The memo goes on to say that it makes no difference whether the disputed payment it is called a “tax” or “penalty,” because either way, it’s “assessed and collected in the same manner” by the Internal Revenue Service.

          They are mis-characterizing the argument. The actual statement from page 51 of the DOJ document:

          It does not matter whether the payment sought to be enjoined is labeled a “penalty” rather than a “tax.” Cj I.R.C. § 5000A(b) (imposing a “penalty”). With exceptions immaterial here, the penalty here is “assessed and collected in the same manner” as other penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, I.R.C. § 5000A(g)(1), and, like these other penalties, falls within the bar of the AlA.

          Notice they are not saying it is a tax. They are still arguing it is just a penalty. The argument is that it doesn’t have to be a tax, that a penalty counts under it as well.

          American Spectator incorrectly uses the word “or” while the document actually says “rather than.” That makes a big difference. Why would they say rather than if they were arguing it’s a tax and not a penalty?

          As a side note, the DOJ document also suggests there is a “challenge to the penalty in tax refund proceedings.” The details of this are unclear to me at this moment. A quick search about the bill revealed no further details.

  7. Big Dog says:

    The IRS is charged with collecting taxes and penalties associated with taxes. If the IRS is collecting it then it is a tax. The IRS can, as far as I know, only collect penalties associated with taxes. If you do not buy insurance and they penalize you then they must be collecting a penalty on a tax.

    The law requires you to surrender your money in support of a government law. That would be a tax, like George said.

    The argument in the legal filing is trying to have it both ways. IRS is the tax collection agency. If they collect it then it is a tax or a penalty ON a tax.

    It is funny too because the paper says that the plaintiffs have no standing because they might be injured but then goes on to say that the argument that the guy can afford his own health care is not a good one because his situation could change. It is obvious that they just want it to go away but I doubt it will.

    Something this important will hit the courts.

    And as long as they argue that the IRS is involved then they are talking about a tax.

    And I think you are referring to states having the ability to fight penalties because they did not submit payroll taxes, not individuals penalized (taxed) for not buying health care.

  8. Adam says:

    The question here is not whether or not it’s a tax, a penalty, a tax penalty, an excise tax, or whatever else it’s been called over the months by each side. The point is your argument is incorrect:

    The regime is arguing that the law does not allow for suits regarding the assessment or collection of TAXES.

    Obama either lied to get it passed or he is lying to keep it out of court.

    American Spectator got this wrong and they had to do so by slightly altering the language that the DOJ used in the document. Obama has not changed stances to say it is a tax just to get it out of court. They still call it just a penalty and differentiate between it and taxes. They still claim it falls under the Commerce Clause and not the Taxing and Spending Clause. They also argue it is not a direct tax.

    You can still say that Obama lied in his campaign promise (debatable) but you cannot say he somehow admitted to lying (the point of this post) because he has not changed his stance after all.