• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Right Wing Lie of The Day

7/10/06: O'Reilly is back from vacation. He's been working on some good lies while he's been away.

1st lie - "Tax cuts for the rich have been good for all Americans, especially the poor." Note to O'Reilly: Poverty has increased EVERY YEAR under Bush. Complete BS from O'Reilly.

2nd lie - "Tax revenues are climing twice as fast as predicted and the deficit is being sharply cut."

See this post:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/348530-post33.html

3rd lie: O'Reilly "Want more proof? President Clinton, you just saw him, he was a tax the rich guy,in the middle of his 2 terms, 1995, the government took in 1 1/2 trillion dollars in tax receipts... (This year) the Feds took in 2.1 trillion, 40% more than under Clinton."

What O'Reilly fails to mention is that these numbers aren't adjusted FOR INFLATION (and a 6% increase in population - more people, more taxes) If you adjust O'Reilly's numbers for inflation the numbers are a wash. (1.921 trillion) And Clinton's numbers in his last year were 2.3 trillion, and have gone down under Bush. So, it's very clear that when you cut taxes you don't increase revenues, the supply siders would have you think otherwise because they think you are too stupid to do the math.
 
Last edited:
hipsterdufus said:
(and a 6% increase in population - more people, more taxes)
Click to expand...
yeah, those 1-10 year olds born since 1995 contribute a lot of taxes.
 
Gill said:
yeah, those 1-10 year olds born since 1995 contribute a lot of taxes.
Click to expand...

You're making the false assumption that the increase in population is all due to new births. I'll grant you that a certain percentage would be in that category, but certainly not all.
 
hipsterdufus said:
You're making the false assumption that the increase in population is all due to new births. I'll grant you that a certain percentage would be in that category, but certainly not all.
Click to expand...
And I noticed that you did not attribute ANY of the population increase to births. Pot meet kettle.
 
Gill said:
And I noticed that you did not attribute ANY of the population increase to births. Pot meet kettle.
Click to expand...

I conceded part of your point and it's a very minor one in my original post.
Thanks for pointing it out. It's hardly needed to prove the falacies in O'Reilly's statements.
 
Gill said:
yeah, those 1-10 year olds born since 1995 contribute a lot of taxes.
Click to expand...

yeah but since then a lot of 10 year olds in clinton's time have become working 18 yearolds in bush's time.

anyways there has been in increase in the population at every level.
 
nkgupta80 said:
yeah but since then a lot of 10 year olds in clinton's time have become working 18 yearolds in bush's time.

anyways there has been in increase in the population at every level.
Click to expand...

A child born in 1995 is now 18 years old??
 
yeh, but a larger and larger percent of our population is getting older and retiring and pays no income tax...
 
Lantzolot said:
yeh, but a larger and larger percent of our population is getting older and retiring and pays no income tax...
Click to expand...

Since when do old/retirening people pay no taxes? I'll have to tell my parents about that.
 
Apparently the Left Wing has forgotten about the Forged National Guard Documents. . .When Sandy Burger stole documents out of the National Archives. . . . seemingly placing money in a freezer for no apparent reason. . .
 
hipsterdufus said:
7/10/06: O'Reilly is back from vacation. He's been working on some good lies while he's been away.

1st lie - "Tax cuts for the rich have been good for all Americans, especially the poor." Note to O'Reilly: Poverty has increased EVERY YEAR under Bush. Complete BS from O'Reilly.

2nd lie - "Tax revenues are climing twice as fast as predicted and the deficit is being sharply cut."

See this post:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/348530-post33.html

3rd lie: O'Reilly "Want more proof? President Clinton, you just saw him, he was a tax the rich guy,in the middle of his 2 terms, 1995, the government took in 1 1/2 trillion dollars in tax receipts... (This year) the Feds took in 2.1 trillion, 40% more than under Clinton."

What O'Reilly fails to mention is that these numbers aren't adjusted FOR INFLATION (and a 6% increase in population - more people, more taxes) If you adjust O'Reilly's numbers for inflation the numbers are a wash. (1.921 trillion) And Clinton's numbers in his last year were 2.3 trillion, and have gone down under Bush. So, it's very clear that when you cut taxes you don't increase revenues, the supply siders would have you think otherwise because they think you are too stupid to do the math.
Click to expand...


One Question: HOW CAN THIS BE IF THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS THE LOWEST ITS EVER BEEN? But then again your just another Bush hating fool. . .maybe one day you will see the light

Oh and by the way if you ever took economics, theres 2 ways to raise the economy, Cut Taxes or Print more money, read into that dum dum
 
Lazel said:
One Question: HOW CAN THIS BE IF THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS THE LOWEST ITS EVER BEEN? But then again your just another Bush hating fool. . .maybe one day you will see the light

Oh and by the way if you ever took economics, theres 2 ways to raise the economy, Cut Taxes or Print more money, read into that dum dum
Click to expand...

How in any way does your response correlate to any of my comments?

Where did you get your economic training?
 
Lazel said:
One Question: HOW CAN THIS BE IF THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS THE LOWEST ITS EVER BEEN? But then again your just another Bush hating fool. . .maybe one day you will see the light

Oh and by the way if you ever took economics, theres 2 ways to raise the economy, Cut Taxes or Print more money, read into that dum dum
Click to expand...

Its cut taxes or spend money, not print money. Thats how you bandaid fix a problem, and cause inflation in result.
 
So media bias has hit youtube. Big oil put up a fake spoof of Al Gore.

Busted again.

Al Gore YouTube Spoof Not So Amateurish
Republican PR Firm Said to Be Behind 'Inconvenient Truth' Spoof
By JAKE TAPPER and MAX CULHANE
Aug. 4, 2006 — - A tiny little movie making fun of Al Gore, supposedly made by an amateur filmmaker, recently appeared on the popular Web site YouTube.com.

At first blush, the spoof seemed like a scrappy little homemade film poking fun at Gore and his anti-global warming crusade.

In the movie, Gore is seen boring an army of penguins with his lecture and blaming global warming for everything, including Lindsay Lohan's thinness.

But when the Wall Street Journal tried to find the guy who posted the film "Al Gore's Penguin Army" -- listed on YouTube as a 29-year-old -- they found the movie didn't come from an amateur working out of his basement.

The film actually came from a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.

Exxon denies knowing anything about the film, and DCI says, "We do not disclose the names of our clients, nor do we discuss the work we do on behalf of our clients."
Click to expand...
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=2273111
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom