5 big lies in Obama's economic fairness speech

I'm surprised that IDB can only find 5 big lies in Obama's Kansas economic speech. But 5 is a good start:

Tax cuts and deregulation have "never worked" to grow the economy. There's so much evidence to disprove this claim, it's hard to know where to start. But let's begin with the fact that countries with greater economic freedom - lower taxes, less government, sound money, free trade - consistently produce greater overall prosperity.

[...]

Bush's tax cuts on the rich only managed to produced "massive deficits" and the "slowest job growth in half a century." Budget data make clear that Obama's spending hikes, not Bush's tax cuts, produced today's massive deficits.

[...]

During the Bush years, "we had weak regulation, we had little oversight." This is patently false. Regulatory staffing climbed 42% under Bush, and regulatory spending shot up 50%, according to a Washington University in St. Louis/George Washington University study. And the number of Federal Register pages - a proxy for regulatory activity - was far higher under Bush than any previous president.

[...]

The "wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century." Fact: the federal income tax code is now more progressive than it was in 1979, according to the Congressional Budget Office. IRS data show the richest 1% paid almost 40% of federal income taxes in 2009, up from 18% back in 1980.

[...]

We can keep tax breaks for the rich in place, or make needed investments, "but we can't do both." Not true. Repealing the Bush tax cuts on the "rich" would raise only about $70 billion a year, a tiny fraction of projected deficits. With or without the Bush tax cuts, the country can't afford Obama's agenda.

It is probably too much to ask the press to point out Obama's lies this campaign season. However, Glenn Kessler at the WaPo blog Fact Checker examined the same Obama speech and gave it "3 Pinocchio's" out of a possible 4. Awarding three Pinocchio's means that there was "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions" in the facts presented.

I'd say that's a great big "yes."

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky


I'm surprised that IDB can only find 5 big lies in Obama's Kansas economic speech. But 5 is a good start:

Tax cuts and deregulation have "never worked" to grow the economy. There's so much evidence to disprove this claim, it's hard to know where to start. But let's begin with the fact that countries with greater economic freedom - lower taxes, less government, sound money, free trade - consistently produce greater overall prosperity.

[...]

Bush's tax cuts on the rich only managed to produced "massive deficits" and the "slowest job growth in half a century." Budget data make clear that Obama's spending hikes, not Bush's tax cuts, produced today's massive deficits.

[...]

During the Bush years, "we had weak regulation, we had little oversight." This is patently false. Regulatory staffing climbed 42% under Bush, and regulatory spending shot up 50%, according to a Washington University in St. Louis/George Washington University study. And the number of Federal Register pages - a proxy for regulatory activity - was far higher under Bush than any previous president.

[...]

The "wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century." Fact: the federal income tax code is now more progressive than it was in 1979, according to the Congressional Budget Office. IRS data show the richest 1% paid almost 40% of federal income taxes in 2009, up from 18% back in 1980.

[...]

We can keep tax breaks for the rich in place, or make needed investments, "but we can't do both." Not true. Repealing the Bush tax cuts on the "rich" would raise only about $70 billion a year, a tiny fraction of projected deficits. With or without the Bush tax cuts, the country can't afford Obama's agenda.

It is probably too much to ask the press to point out Obama's lies this campaign season. However, Glenn Kessler at the WaPo blog Fact Checker examined the same Obama speech and gave it "3 Pinocchio's" out of a possible 4. Awarding three Pinocchio's means that there was "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions" in the facts presented.

I'd say that's a great big "yes."

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky


RECENT VIDEOS