The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

tRumps lies off the scale Options
Oscar D. Grouch
Posted: Saturday, December 16, 2017 1:29:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/26/2014
Posts: 539
Neurons: 876,021
Trump’s Lies vs. Obama’s

"After we published a list of President Trump’s lies this summer, we heard a common response from his supporters. They said, in effect: Yes, but if you made a similar list for previous presidents, it would be just as bad.

We’ve set out to make that list. Here, you will find our attempt at a comprehensive catalog of the falsehoods that Barack Obama told while he was president. (We also discuss George W. Bush below, although the lack of real-time fact-checking during his presidency made a comprehensive list impossible.)

We applied the same conservative standard to Obama and Trump, counting only demonstrably and substantially false statements. The result: Trump is unlike any other modern president. He seems virtually indifferent to reality, often saying whatever helps him make the case he’s trying to make.

In his first 10 months in office, he has told 103 separate untruths, many of them repeatedly. Obama told 18 over his entire eight-year tenure. That’s an average of about two a year for Obama and about 124 a year for Trump.

Separately, we have updated our earlier list of Trump's lies, which also includes repeated falsehoods. This article counts only distinct falsehoods for both Trump and Obama.

If we had used a less strict standard, Trump would look even worse by comparison. He makes misleading statements and mild exaggerations – about economic statistics, his political opponents and many other subjects – far more often than Obama. We left out any statement that could be plausibly defended even if many people would disagree with the president's interpretation. We also left out modest quantitative errors, such as Trump's frequent imprecision with numbers.

We have used the word “lies” again here, as we did in our original piece. If anything, though, the word is unfair to Obama and Bush. When they became aware that they had been saying something untrue, they stopped doing it. Obama didn’t continue to claim that all Americans would be able to keep their existing health insurance under Obamacare, for example, and Bush changed the way he spoke about Iraq’s weapons capability.

Trump is different. When he is caught lying, he will often try to discredit people telling the truth, be they judges, scientists, F.B.I. or C.I.A. officials, journalists or members of Congress. Trump is trying to make truth irrelevant. It is extremely damaging to democracy, and it’s not an accident. It’s core to his political strategy.

As for Obama: His falsehoods tended to be attempts to make his own policies look better or to overstate a problem he was trying to solve. In a few cases, they seemed to be careless exaggerations he avoided repeating.

Over all, Obama rarely told demonstrable untruths as president. And he appears to have become more careful over time. We counted six straight-up falsehoods in his first year in office. Across his entire second four-year term, we counted the same number, six, only one of which came in his final year in office.

In all, we found 18 different bald untruths from Obama during his presidency. Trump told his 18th separate untruth in his third full week in office, and his list keeps growing.

In fact, Trump tells falsehoods about Obama and his administration more often than Obama told falsehoods about all subjects. Since his inauguration, Trump has told 10 separate untruths about Obama, including false allegations of wiretapping and false descriptions of Obamacare. We counted only two falsehoods Obama told about Bush.

Postscript: George W. Bush

As we mentioned above, it was not possible to create a similar list for George W. Bush, because the various fact-checking groups – whose work we used heavily here – were not operating continuously when he became president, in 2001.

But several sources did try to evaluate some of his claims at the time. Their work suggests that Bush sometimes told falsehoods but was fundamentally different from Trump. Bush instead seems to be somewhere on the pre-Trump presidential spectrum.

In 2001, for example, Bush said significantly more stem-cell lines existed than actually did. Most infamously, Bush and his advisers justified the Iraq War by talking about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which did not exist. But as costly as these claims were, Bush evidently believed them at the time. And for the most part, once his statements became demonstrably false, he stopped making them."

Posted: Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:05:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,542
Neurons: 43,441
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Does what he told the public about the tax bill belong in this thread?

Trump said many times, "The Tax bill won't benefit me/the wealthy."

Corker just signed on after saying he wouldn't. Wonder how they achieved that? 😀

"International Business Times reports that a provision added during the reconciliation process allows owners of income-producing real estate to take advantage of a 20 percent deduction for "pass-through" entities. The Senate version of the tax bill included rules that allowed the deduction to be claimed only by businesses that pay their employees significant wages.

The new provision effectively creates a new tax deduction for real estate moguls like Trump and Corker, who announced his support for the bill on Friday after it was added. According to the IBTimes more than a dozen other GOP lawmakers could also benefit from the provision.

Both Trump and Corker have made millions off of "pass-through" income, according to IBTimes. Trump made between $41 million and $68 million from 25 "pass-through" LLC's he owned in 2016, while Corker earned between $1.2 million and $7 million in rental income from his LLCs last year."

That's on top of the cuts they already made that benefit the rich and the corporations.

"Their plans would slash the corporate tax rate by almost half, cut taxes on pass-through income for smaller businesses, eliminate the Alternate Minimum Tax, and erode the estate tax, all of which disproportionately help rich families. This comes at a time when post-tax corporate profits as a share of GDP have hovered at a record-high level for the last seven years, and the top 1 percent's share of total income is higher than any time in the second half of the 20th century.

Nearly 50 percent of the benefits of the Senate tax cut would go to the top 5 percent of household earners in the first year of the law, according to the Tax Policy Center. By 2027, 98 percent of multimillionaires would still get a tax cut, compared to just 27 percent of households making less than $75,000."

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
Oscar D. Grouch
Posted: Sunday, December 17, 2017 5:35:55 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/26/2014
Posts: 539
Neurons: 876,021
I will be blunt...

The tRump tax cut bill is nothing short of a gang banging orgy that screws the middle and lower classes. There is also talk of "cutting entitlements" in order to help offset the increase in the national debt induced by the tax cuts. So, why use the term "entitlements?" Clearly, it has negative connotations. They must be bad. "Entitlements" implies something that someone feels "entitled" to, i.e., money for nothing. In reality, "entitlements" refers to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Disability (SSDI), etc... Medicare and Social Security, for example, are most certainly not "money for nothing." People who have worked their whole lives have paid into Medicare and Social Security. These programs, in turn, provide some protection against becoming impoverished in old age when one is no longer fit to work. However, the banana republicans wish to steal the money ordinary folks have paid into these programs and let people drown in the resultant quagmire while the money goes to giant corporations.

Moreover, the tRump tax cuts are doomed to failure. Trickle down economics never worked for Ronny "Bedtime for Bonzo" Reagan. The only "trickle down" effect were the poor saps drowning their sorrows in a bar and were too drunk to make it to the urinal.

More recently, the state of Kansas drank the "trickle down" Kool-Aid and found it to be a bitter poison that nearly bankrupted their state.

The Great Kansas Tax Cut Experiment Crashes And Burns

"Just as President Trump is ramping up his push for a major tax cut that he believes will pay for itself through faster economic growth, the Kansas template for that approach has crashed and burned. After four years of below-average growth, deepening budget deficits, and steep spending reductions, the GOP-dominated Kansas legislature has repealed many of the tax cuts at the heart of Governor Sam Brownback fiscal agenda.

Brownback vetoed the legislature’s first attempt to reverse his tax cuts, but two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate overrode his veto. The measure would boost state taxes by $1.2 billion over two years, in part by raising the top income tax rate from 4.6 percent to 5.7 percent and by once again taxing sole proprietorships, partnerships, and other pass-through businesses. Pressured by Brownback, the legislature had made pass-throughs tax free.

In a worrisome echo of that plan, the Trump Administration says it will propose cutting the federal individual income tax rate on pass-throughs to 15 percent, far below the top current rate on wages of 39.6 percent or Trump’s preferred rate of 35 percent.

Since Kansas enacted tax and spending cuts in 2012 and 2013, Brownback and his allies have argued that this fiscal potion would generate an explosion of economic growth. It didn’t. Overall growth and job creation in Kansas underperformed both the national economy and neighboring states. From January, 2014 (after both tax cuts passed) to April, 2017, Kansas gained only 28,000 net new non-farm jobs. By contrast, Nebraska, an economically similar state with a much smaller labor force, saw a net increase of 35,000 jobs.

While overall employment barely increased and economic activity was lower than other states, Kansas saw a significant increase in the number of individuals with business income. The likely reason: That zero tax rate on pass-throughs.

The tax cuts did produce one explosion, however. The state’s budget deficit was expected to hit $280 million this year, despite major spending reductions. Kansas falls well below national averages in a wide range of public services from K-12 education to housing to police and fire protection, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute’s State and Local Finance Initiative. Under order from the state Supreme Court, the legislature has voted to increase funding for public schools by $293 million over the next two years.

The more troubling lesson for Republicans in Congress: While Brownback was reelected in 2014, his popularity has since plummeted and his approval rating now hovers at around 25 percent, second lowest among all sitting governors. And while the GOP enjoyed tremendous national electoral success in 2016, the party lost seats in the Kansas legislature. At least in one deep red state, the Trump formula of big tax and spending cuts is no longer the path to political success.

In 2012, Brownback called his tax plan a “real live experiment.” It appears to have failed."

Welcome to Kansas!

Stop tRump.

Before he further destroys our country.
Posted: Sunday, December 31, 2017 3:37:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 27,701
Neurons: 155,747
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Oscar D. Grouch wrote:
So, why use the term "entitlements?" Clearly, it has negative connotations. They must be bad. "Entitlements" implies something that someone feels "entitled" to, i.e., money for nothing.

Is this another American redefinition?

Entitle means:
vb (tr)
1. to give (a person) the right to do or have something; qualify; allow

(Collins English Dictionary)

1. to give a right or claim to something; qualify:

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary

Entitled means
- qualified for by right according to law; "we are all entitled to equal protection under the law"

It's nothing to do with something for nothing. It's a right, by law.

I am entitled to pay for my work.
All are entitled to their human rights.

Article 1 Right to Equality
Article 2 Freedom from Discrimination
Article 3 Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
Article 4 Freedom from Slavery
Article 5 Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment
Article 6 Right to Recognition as a Person before the Law
Article 7 Right to Equality before the Law
Article 8 Right to Remedy by Competent Tribunal
Article 9 Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile
Article 10 Right to Fair Public Hearing
Article 11 Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
Article 12 Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
Article 13 Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country
Article 14 Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution
Article 15 Right to a Nationality and the Freedom to Change It
Article 16 Right to Marriage and Family
Article 17 Right to Own Property
Article 18 Freedom of Belief and Religion
Article 19 Freedom of Opinion and Information
Article 20 Right of Peaceful Assembly and Association
Article 21 Right to Participate in Government and in Free Elections
Article 22 Right to Social Security
Article 23 Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions
Article 24 Right to Rest and Leisure
Article 25 Right to Adequate Living Standard
Article 26 Right to Education
Article 27 Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community
Article 28 Right to a Social Order that Articulates this Document
Article 29 Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development
Article 30 Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Posted: Sunday, December 31, 2017 9:15:08 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 12/16/2017
Posts: 333
Neurons: 4,589
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
It's nothing to do with something for nothing. It's a right, by law.

I agree.

I have, however, heard it used with the negative connotation that Oscar suggests - particularly by those on the the right of the political spectrum:

Typical scrounger! He'd sooner claim all his entitlements than go back to work.

Since her accident, my niece has gone all out to claim everything she is entitled to. Why should I have to pay for idle people like her?

I once had a headteacher who told me I was being unprofessional when I told her I was moving house on a certain date, and would be taking the day's leave to which I was legally entitled. It did not seem to occur to her when she told me she would have docked me a day's pay if she could, that she was hardly being professional.

I suppose that if I am to be fair, I have also heard it used negatively by those on the left:

Fred X earns over a quarter of a million a year and yet still claims Child Benefit. Just because he's entitled to it. Greedy ****.

I speak British English (standard southern, slightly dated).
Posted: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 7:26:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,633
Neurons: 228,334
Location: Princeton, Minnesota, United States
Fyfardens is correct. The word has become a dog whistle for conservative politicians when they talk about defunding or removing public services or social programs.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Posted: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 8:03:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 27,701
Neurons: 155,747
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
progpen wrote:
Fyfardens is correct. The word has become a dog whistle for conservative politicians when they talk about defunding or removing public services or social programs.

Ah! Refusing someone their Human Rights is 'explained' as just 'removing entitlements' - and 'entitlement' is re-defined as 'criminality' (taking something for no exchange).

But 1984 came and went ages ago . . .

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Posted: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 4:07:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 3,948
Neurons: 60,259
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
But 1984 came and went ages ago . . .

So he was off by 40 years or so.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Posted: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 10:07:44 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,633
Neurons: 228,334
Location: Princeton, Minnesota, United States
I was going to say that 1984 came but never left.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Users browsing this topic

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.