Obama Lies (Again)

As Ronald Reagan would have said, “well, there he goes again”, as our Resident lies blatantly in our face, apparently forgetting that Google is just a click away, and checking on anyone’s words is just too easy. And crosschecking with other members of his party reveals that they just do not care how blatantly they insult the American people with outright lies.

Recently, (within the last two months), we have had both Henry Waxman and the Resident come out and lie about the true costs of the Cap and Trade Bill passed by the House of Representatives. First, the head of the Energy Committee, Henry Waxman says that the cost to the consumer (that would be you and me) would be about “40 cents a day”- Really?

And then you had the Liar in Chief  (there- I said it- am I a racist, too?) claim that the cost of this legislation was “… about the cost of a stamp…” per day. Oooohhh, not so fast here.

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent. 

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year. 

~ snip~

The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday. 

These disclosures will probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats’ cap and trade bill. The House of Representatives approved it by a remarkably narrow margin in June — the bill would have failed if only six House members had switched their votes to “no” — and it faces significant opposition in the Senate. 

One reason the bill faces an uncertain future is concern about its cost. House Republican Leader John Boehner hasestimated the additional tax bill would be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. Democrats have pointed to estimates from MIT’s John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family, and noted that tax credits to low income households could offset part of the bite. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, “the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year.” 

cbsnews.com

Even though figures vary, depending on who’s ox is being gored, the low end, MIT’s estimate of $800 per year is still way above either of the estimates postulated by  Waxman or the Resident- by about a factor of around 500%– a rather egregious error, wouldn’t you agree? Other estimates are considerably more- and if it hits the upper end, (1200%), families that are having trouble making ends meet are in for a world of hurt. Do the Liberal progressives care? Obviously not, or they would say, “Perhaps we should hold off until people can absorb the costs,” but nooooooo.

“Heritage is saying publicly what the administration is saying to itself privately,” says Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who filed the FOIA request. “It’s nice to see they’re not spinning each other behind closed doors.” 

“They’re not telling you the cost — they’re not telling you the benefit,” says Horner, who wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. “If they don’t tell you the cost, and they don’t tell you the benefit, what are they telling you? They’re just talking about global salvation.” 

cbsnews.com

“Global salvation”- oh goody- yeah right, like that will work, what with China and India, who supply us with their smog on a daily basis (it takes two to three days for their air to become ours) NOT signing on to any treaty that inhibits their economic growth.  All the Climate bill that was passed by the Democrats in the House- (Republicans were a little smarter than that; they want the Dems to “own” this FUBAR bill) will do is to make us poorer, and give the progressives the excuse to insinuate themselves in our lives, burying themselves deep like the blood-sucking ticks they resemble, but without the good points.

Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year. 

One odd point: The document written by Jaffee includes this line: “It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.” The Treasury Department redacted the rest of the sentence with a thick black line. 

The Freedom of Information Act, of course, contains no this-might-embarrass-the-president exemption (nor, for that matter, should federal agencies be in the business of possibly suppressing dissenting climate change voices). You’d hope the presidential administration that boasts of being the “most open and transparent in history” would be more forthcoming than this. 

cbsnews.com

Yeah- transparent this Resident is not-  (note the “blacked out”, or x’ed out section the Treasury Department redacted from the FOIA document )- liar he definitely is, and complicit in defrauding the American people- think of it- can you afford another 8- 15 % rise in your income taxes, just on the energy bill? This does not take into account the Health care bill, or any other legislation they are considering. All total, we could be looking at a 25% increase in our taxes- for what? So they, the government, could dictate the way we live our lives? How cool or warm we want our living area to be, the amount of water we use,the way we live our lives? How or what we drive?

This is an administration built literally on lie after lie – I truly do not think they are physically or mentally capable of telling the truth, and between the new Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, who can impose restrictive regulations that will rule your lives and make you poorer, and the Resident’s Science Czar, John Holdren, who first believed in Global Cooling and a new “Ice Age”– then reversed course and hyped Global Warming with Al “I’m a HUGE hypocrite” Gore, we will be forced to do what the government wants, and thus our liberties shrink some more.  We don’t need this.

Cass Sunstein thinks “free speech” is overrated, and should be restricted anyway, and that expectations of personal privacy are unreasonable. He also believes hunting should be banned, not realizing that hunting is actually a good and necessary thing in controlling wildlife populations, but since he just thinks and has never actually studied the cause and effects of hunting as population control, this position is not unexpected.

John Holdren- ( the Science Czar, for God’s sake),  thinks that the government should force people to have abortions and be sterilized, if their genetics are not “preferred” by the government “elites”. Isn’t that just peachy? These are the people the Resident thinks are good for the country- 

And you just hoped “Change” would be a good thing-

Silly Goose.
Blake

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.

36 Responses to “Obama Lies (Again)”

  1. Darrel says:

    All that chatter and not a moment spent supporting the main premise:

    Again, to show a lie you need:

    a) to show the actual claim (you’re too lazy to even do this)

    b) Show the claim is false

    c) Show the person made the claim knowing it was false.

    BLK: “John Holdren- (the Science Czar,…), thinks that the government should force people to have abortions and be sterilized…”

    DAR
    As much noise as you make about lying, a casual observer might think truth was important to you. They would be wrong.

    The last time you floated this whopper you admitted you couldn’t back it up. I see this hasn’t changed. Having investigated the claim myself, I know it to be false. 100% certainty.

    You know it’s false too, but you don’t care.

    D.
    —————-
    “I AM a fair minded, honest intelligent conservative.” –Blake, Wednesday Sept 16th, 2009

    • Blake says:

      Did it, did it, and did it- done.

      • Darrel says:

        Saying “did it” doesn’t do.

        Lay it out, a, b, c.

        Here is a blank template for you:

        a)

        b)

        c)

        Let’s see how you do. Learn how to make a case for your assertions.

        D.

        • Blake says:

          I make the statements, and they are true statements- he did advocate for them in the book he co- authored with the Erlichs- that is a provable fact, and you know this- if he had doubts, it would not be in the book- you do not publish what you do not believe in- that would be stupid. Is Holdren stupid?
          I think he is crazy, but stupid?

        • Darrel says:

          A baby step.

          Try just doing:

          a)

          Show the actual claim.

          You don’t even do this.

        • Blake says:

          a)- Hussein said the cost would be about the cost of a stamp per day- FALSE, and he knew it, therefore he lied.
          b)- I showed the claim is false- the treasury itself disputed the amount by as much as 1200%- he lied.
          c)- The Resident is the boss of the Treasury- he would have received the report- therefore he knowingly lied.
          You really should learn to read for comprehension, D- I shouldn’t have to repeat myself unless I am talking to a child-
          Well? Am I?

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: “a)- Hussein said the cost would be about the cost of a stamp per day- FALSE, and he knew it, therefore he lied.”

        DAR
        Show this.

        • Blake says:

          You are becoming tiresome here, why should I do your digging for you- that is doing my work AND yours also. fetch it yourself- it was from approximately 2-3 weeks ago.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “why should I do your digging for you”

          DAR
          It’s my job to support your bogus, unsupportable case? Sorry, I’m pretty good, for a goat farmer, but I ain’t that good.

          D.

  2. Blake says:

    Thanks for keeping my words in your mind, but you’re going to make me blush-
    Here’s something you might want to de- bunk with some more of your pseudo- science babble:
    http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873

    • Blake says:

      n fact, I did ALL of what you say to do to show that he lied, and HE KNEW HE WAS LYING (again).
      First the lie, then the report, which he had to have seen, then the treasury redacts figures, just so we the people cannot know how bad it is, and if you look at the timelines, Waxman said it in March, Hussein repeated this in april, but the report came out in February- all BEFORE he said his LIES-
      Don’t lie for him, you’re just enabling.
      Bad man.

    • Adam says:

      This will have a chilling effect on the scientific community if scientists are just able to change their stance on a subject any time new scientific research comes to light that renders the old way of thinking invalid.

      • Blake says:

        Darrel seems to be of the opinion that Newsweek was just one mag that talked about Global COOLING- I just wanted to politely point out that he was wrong.

        • Darrel says:

          Newsweek is a coffee table news mag, not a peer reviewed scientific journal. And pointing to a single article in a pop news rag is absurd. As I have shown repeatedly:

          “A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.”

          New Scientist.

          Detailed here.

          See also:

          The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus –American Meteorological Society

          Also:

          Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the ’70’s? No.

          Etc.

          Blake can only play dumb for so long, it became obvious some time ago that he is just dishonest.

          D.

        • Blake says:

          Did Holdren work for Newsweek?

        • Blake says:

          So, you are saying that Holdren was one of the DUMB scientists? Goodness! we should not have this dumb A** in our government.
          And yes, Adam, he DID propose putting sterilants in the drinking water, and also putting sterilizing capsules under the skin of people in a forced sterilization scheme.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “DID propose putting sterilants in the drinking water, and also putting sterilizing capsules under the skin of people in a forced sterilization scheme.”>>

          DAR
          If this were true (and it isn’t true and you know it isn’t true), when Holdren testified before the senate that he “has never endorsed forced sterilization” all it would have taken is one senator to stand up and show that he has in fact endorsed this.

          But no one did this. There is a reason for this.

          Instead, they confirmed him, unanimously.

          D.

        • Blake says:

          You do know about the Democratic majority? Well we also have RINOS in office, and they ALL came to work that day.
          Holdren should never have been nominated, much less confirmed.

    • Blake says:

      The timeline shows he did not “change his mind”- he knew all along, hence the “Lie” appellation.

      • Blake says:

        And try as I might, I have seen nothing that shows that Holdren ever disavowed his inconsistency- he just flipped- and that, to me, is blatantly dishonest, and panders to the cause du jour for personal gain- the mark of a cheap whore, who will be whatever someone wants, so they can profit.

  3. Aresay says:

    What if Obama appeared on all the Sunday morning news programs (except FOX news) and nobody watched him, would he still make a sound?

  4. Darrel says:

    BLAKE: I believe my post above trumps yours->>

    DAR
    Well, an important part of becoming an adult is realizing that believing something does not make it so. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

    BLK: “we do not have, nor do we want, a socialized system of anything,…”>>

    DAR
    Time for a little rant about something I have put off for far too long. Have a seat little grasshopper.

    [Dar cracks knuckles]

    Rather than “not having… a socialized system of anything,” you swim in a sea of socialism. You are a product of it. You probably fancy yourself a rugged individualist but this is a packaged fantasy someone sold you and you bought it hook line and sinker.

    Every piece of glass and rubber down to the fibers in the cloth in every new vehicle requires a government seal of approval. Every aspect of every new vehicle has to follow a litany of government mandates and goes through a battery of government required tests. Brakes, restraints, lights, flammability, crumple zones, air bags, paint, emissions, stability, all regulated and strictly enforced.

    Every new window put in a home, every treated board used, every shingle, every water pipe, every light switch, every drop of paint, all made to government enforced, socialized, standards of safety and efficiency.

    Every power tool, every appliance, every toy, every battery, every electric cable, every couch, every off road three wheeler (oops, BANNED, can’t have those), every off road four wheeler, all made to government enforced, socialized, standards of safety and efficiency.

    Firehouses = socialized

    Police = socialized

    Laws (obviously) = socialized

    Courts = socialized

    Military = socialized (with private contractors)

    Education = almost all socialized and regulated

    Health care = at least half socialized and heavily regulated

    Pharma = heavily regulated and socialized

    Employer and work related rules = heavily regulated/socialized

    Banking, commerce, investment, insurance, aviation, fuel manufacture and transport, imports/exports, cable, ALL utilities, wireless, radio bandwidth, TV, broadcast, explosives, agriculture, internet, cross border travel, disease control, child care, all controlled, licensed and enforced by local, state and federal government mandates (socialized).

    Almost all municipal aspects, garbage pick-up/disposal and containment, all public water, toxic chemical manufacture and use, factory smoke stacks, building construction, all done to government enforced, that is socialized, mandated standards of safety and efficiency.

    Let’s start at the beginning. Every baby crib, every disposable diaper, every jar of baby food, every box of cereal, every medicinal treatment, every teddy bear, every pair of pajamas, all made to government mandated, government enforced (socialized), standards of safety.

    Every new car, every new house, nearly every item of food purchased at the grocery, every glue product, every motor oil, every cosmetic product (and service) all controlled by government (socialized) standards.

    Every medical treatment (with claims of efficacy), every medical device, every pill, every drug, tested, labeled and approved to follow government mandated (socialized) standards of safety and quality.

    When you get old, if you move into an assisted care facility, the living conditions and terms will be heavily regulated by our socialized system. When you die (not if), the treatment of your body, how your possessions are dealt with (if intestate, no will), the duration before burial, the place of burial, the manufacture of your casket (or the process of cremation) are all controlled by licenses and government mandated, government enforced (socialized), standards of safety.

    That’s not all of it, but it’s a good start.

    So, dear Blake, next time you feel like saying:

    “we do not have, nor do we want, a socialized system of anything…”

    Please consider the reality of my comments above. You are the product of, and swim in a system, that, while driven and fueled by a thriving private sector, is heavily socialized from top to bottom.

    D.

    • Blake says:

      True, all true about the unwarranted government interference- most of which we do not need. Most government regs are intrusive and do not serve the public well, they just serve the bureaucracy, and that’s not a good thing.
      The only reason to have government is to provide the services,(police, fire, and military) and infrastructure (roads, etc.) and NO MORE- the less government the better.
      There has been creeping socialism into our lives for many years, and like a virus, it has infected all parts of government.
      It’s time for an antibiotic for this virus.
      Once a bureaucracy is created, it NEVER goes away- that is sad, as many of the functions are no longer valid, no needed, but like the Guinea Worm, these unneeded bureaucracies just get into the flesh of government and never leave, just sucking off of the taxes of others- not good.
      Much of what you describe above is needless- the free market can take care of that- but as I said, government has been sneaking into our lives for quite awhile now.
      That doesn’t make it right.

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: “The only reason to have government is to provide the services,(police, fire, and military) and infrastructure (roads, etc.) and NO MORE”>>

        DAR
        Nope. Just one more basic necessity. Health care. We can’t afford it otherwise. We need strict cost controls, price caps, as we do with so many other things. It’s too important to society. The doctors and greed machine will have to get shafted. Take it in the shorts.

        BLK: “Once a bureaucracy is created, it NEVER goes away”>>

        DAR
        How soon they forget.

        Clinton:

        * cut the Federal Workforce by over 200,000 — on the way to lowest level in 30 years.

        * Got rid of 16,000 pages of obsolete regulations…

        * Eliminated 284 federal advisory committees.

        By 2000:

        Smallest Government Workforce Since the 1960’s… 375,000 fewer employees in the Federal government workforce than in 1993 — …the smallest Federal workforce since the Kennedy Administration.

        Lowest Government Spending Since 1974. At 18.7 percent, Federal Government spending as a share of the Gross Domestic Product [was] at its lowest level since 1974.

        And what do you have?

        “big-government conservatism.” The lines on every graph show the same pattern: Government — whether measured by spending, the deficit, the number of employees, or earmarked appropriations — expanded through the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush Senior administrations; declined steadily under Clinton; then shot rapidly northward after Republicans took control of the White House in 2001.”

        LINK.

        D.

    • Blake says:

      Article one, section eight is the most abused portion of the Constitution- as it is the vaguest- but it is abused by venal politicians seeking more power and control, not for altruistic reasons.
      We need to clean out the attic that is Article 1 section 8.

  5. Blake says:

    Ever since the 1920s, the “progressives” have been trying to grow government into a nanny state, against the Law of the Constitution, indeed, these traitors thought the Constitution was an “inconvenient” document, and should be bypassed- as a result, we have had all the “socialization” that Darrel mentions above, much of which we could do without- but the time has come when we as a nation need to shed the dead skin of socialist behavior and excessive government takeovers of our lives, liberties, and our pursuits of happiness.
    We, as a nation, need to re- make our government into what our founders believed it should be- limited federal interference in our lives, and limited money with which to work.
    States should decide the direction and welfare of their respective citizens, and the legality of laws that affect their respective citizens- this is not a function the federal government should have.

    • Darrel says:

      BLK: “States should decide the direction and welfare of their respective citizens”>>

      DAR
      I am fine for making it so states can develop single payer, or something similar, at the individual state level.

      Huckabee did it in Arkansas for the kids and it is a great success.

      Lot’s of states would go for this given the chance. And they would never go back.

      D.

  6. Darrel says:

    BLK [quotes] “The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.”

    KRUGMAN responds:

    “So where do the apocalyptic warnings about the cost of climate-change policy come from?

    Are the opponents of cap-and-trade relying on different studies that reach fundamentally different conclusions? No, not really. It’s true that last spring the Heritage Foundation put out a report claiming that Waxman-Markey would lead to huge job losses, but the study seems to have been so obviously absurd that I’ve hardly seen anyone cite it.

    Instead, the campaign against saving the planet rests mainly on lies.

    Thus, last week Glenn Beck — who seems to be challenging Rush Limbaugh for the role of de facto leader of the G.O.P. — informed his audience of a “buried” Obama administration study showing that Waxman-Markey would actually cost the average family $1,787 per year. Needless to say, no such study exists.

    But we shouldn’t be too hard on Mr. Beck. Similar — and similarly false — claims about the cost of Waxman-Markey have been circulated by many supposed experts.

    A year ago I would have been shocked by this behavior. But as we’ve already seen in the health care debate, the polarization of our political discourse has forced self-proclaimed “centrists” to choose sides — and many of them have apparently decided that partisan opposition to President Obama trumps any concerns about intellectual honesty.

    So here’s the bottom line: The claim that climate legislation will kill the economy deserves the same disdain as the claim that global warming is a hoax. The truth about the economics of climate change is that it’s relatively easy being green.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/opinion/25krugman.html

    • Blake says:

      o- you, like Krugman, dispute the treasury report- just hold your hands over your ears and chant “lalalala” until you are blue in the face
      That’s the way to “roast” it, Darrel- this is treasury’s own report, and you want this fubar of a bill so ban that you will deny the treasury?
      Stay in the real world, D- don’t float with Krugman- he’s a whacko- do not be like him.

      • Blake says:

        The job loss estimates were based on the Spanish job losses, as they have been heavily invested in going green- they found that for every “green” job created, 2.5 other jobs were eliminated. that is a negative ratio, and not good for an economy.

      • Blake says:

        Well, D has a love affair with Krugman, who is an economic hack, and hardly better on economic matters than a coin toss.

    • Big Dog says:

      Yeah, why would you take what Krugman says over the government’s own estimates? Why would you believe him over Obama’s own estimates (the ones he kept quiet about until the FOIA request)?