Want to see rampant and malignant bias? Watch this.
In case you were wondering what a pathetically biased left wing bunch of sycophants Politifact is made of, here is prima facie evidence. Here’s Hillary telling her followers that she is going to raise taxes on the middle class.
She absolutely says it. Listen as many times as you want. She said it. No one forced her to otherwise. And her zombies cheered.
Of course, Donald Trump set upon it immediately. He said that Hillary said she’s raising taxes.
She did not, shrieks Politifact! Utterly unable to accept the truth, PF resorted to some kind of dubious voice alteration to attempt to prove she said something other than what she said.
By analyzing the sound waves, we can see that Clinton was saying “aren’t,” because she definitely pronounced the “n,” though she didn’t really hit the “t.”
How laughable. There is no length to which PF will not go to try to rescue democrats. It’s pretty damn clear she said what she said.
Needless to say, PF hit Trump with a “Pants of fire” rating. CBS News ran with that.
Donald Trump’s campaign has released a video that falsifies Hillary Clinton’s stance on taxes, the fact-checkers over at Politifact found.
Again, total BS. He quoted her and he quoted her correctly.
Snopes, on the other hand, struggled with the argument before finally almost capitulating to the truth:
Worst case, she simply misspoke and said “are” when she meant “aren’t,” because she has not announced any changes to her tax platform or said on any other occasion that she plans to raise taxes on the middle class and not the wealthy.
They, as PF, simply cannot accept what Clinton said. She said what she said. I don’t think she misspoke. I think it was a gaffe, in the sense that gaffes are defined as politicians accidentally speaking the truth. The money for taxes always- always– comes from the middle class because that’s where most of the money is.
So-called “fact checkers” are rife with left wing bias. Even more can be found here, here and here.
Normally these sites are more subtle in the bias, but desperation is a stressor that can cast a cold light exposing the truth. And the truth is these alleged fact checker sites are hopelessly biased to the left and are not worthy of trust.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Her words are true even if she didn’t mean to say them out loud.
If you are a small business owner who files as an individual or jointly with your spouse, you will be paying much more under Hillary.
Under Donald Trump your taxes will go down.
Hilliary is all about empowering government. It must be fed.
@Nanny G: She clearly said she is going to raise taxes on the middle class. If the subject is political, snopes is all in for the Dimocrats. Even when they admit they can’t find the truth anywhere, they still decide in favor of the dimocrats because they must have nothing but good intentions. PolitiFact is all dimocrat all the way. Nothing wishy-washy about them.
It is unfortunate about Snopes. They have taken what used to be a sterling reputation and thrown it out the door. And for what … ? I realized that Snopes were Left wing apologists when they marked the article about Obama being born in the United States as “true” rather than “undetermined”.
@Robert What?: Politically, Snopes has always been in the tank. I think they try to be factual about non-political issues, such as is Mars larger than Venus.
I quit checking Snopes a long time ago, especially when it has anything to do with democrats. They always hedge for them. You can play Obama’s stuff over and over and Snopes will say it isn’t true.
@Shery:
Of course you should always double check everything with the primary source material
“….desperation is a stressor that can cast a cold light exposing the truth.”
— Dr. John
Excellent line, mind if I keep that one for my quotations file?
You folks have gradually narrowed your sources down to those that confirm what you already believe to be true. What you dislike about Snopes is that it doesn’t fall into that category.
@Greg:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Project much?
@Pete, #10:
Not so much, I think, but I certainly recognize it when I see it. I think I’ve outgrown most childish defense mechanisms.
Intellectualization is probably my personal favorite as an adult, along with some selective repression, and that ever-popular defense mechanism, rationalization.
That’s just what you can ever expect from liberal tax and spend demac-RATS higher taxes and taxes on everything from hamburgers and soda pop to gasoline and guns Higher taxes is just about what the demacraps are about
PolitiFact doth protest too much.
PolitiFact fact checked the title of the email and the video, not the content of the ad itself.
So let’s say that she pronounced the “n” sound after “are.”
Don’t people who give speeches realize that it’s smart to add the emphasis on the key word? Hard to do with “not” when you’re using a contraction.
“We ARE not going to raise taxes on the middle class”
“We are NOT going to raise taxes on the middle class”
“We AREN’ going to raise taxes on the middle class”
The middle one is preferable seven days per week, isn’t it?
Clinton sent a muddled message and PolitiFact sold it as clear even while admitting she did not pronounce the t sound.
Thanks for the link to PolitiFact Bias, by the way.
Was Hillary in the South when she said it?
Was she doing her, ”I’m no ways tarred,” accent?
Only the left would develop a method to tell people, “This might be what you heard, but this is what you REALLY heard.”
Isn’t the assertion that Hillary Clinton lies constantly for personal and political advantage logically inconsistent with the claim that she just made a truthful statement concerning middle class tax hikes that would be political suicide?
Critical thinking seems to be an increasingly rare capability these days.
@Nanny G: I am a southerner and all I heard Shrillary say was We Are Going to Raise Taxes on the middle class. Maybe we could get Snopes to lie, er, I mean, weigh in on this.
It may be “logically” inconsistent, but logic is not reality. “Critical thinking” does not apply. What’s to think about? She said what she said.
Clinton’s relatively simple intentions regarding tax changes have actually been spelled out in detail for each income group. If you want to know the facts rather than the fantasy, Money has calculated the specifics and presented them in an online article: What the Clinton and Trump Tax Plans Would Mean For You You can find the specifics for each income group at the bottom of the article. Click on View as List to see them all on a single page.
Under Clinton’s plan, singles and married joint filers earning between $45,000 to $81,000, at an average income of $64,000 per year, would, in fact, see a average tax hike of $44 per year, or 0.1%. To my way of thinking, such a tiny tax hike is essentially irrelevant. In practical terms, it’s pretty close to neutral.
Trump’s plan for the same group cuts taxes by $2,732, or 4.3%. Sounds good, eh? The downside is that three separate independent groups of experts have all calculated that it would add an additional $10 TRILLION to the projected national debt.
Clinton’s plan would result in an average tax hike of $143 per year—again, one tenth of one percent on average upper-middle class earners.
Trump would cut their taxes an average $5,369 or 4.3% per year…
…and so on, with the Trump tax cuts rapidly climbing the higher your income gets. The average income of the top 1 percent is $2.4 million per year. Such a person would get a Trump tax cut of $275,000 per year or 11.8%.
So, you can see who wins big, at the cost of $10 TRILLION more in debt. Look carefully at the numbers, and then tell me who’s taking the most realistic, responsible approach to tax changes.
As Money points out in the last paragraph of the article, Clinton’s plan avoids Trump’s additional $10 TRILLION in national debt, which is actually on top of current projections. An additional $10 TRILLION would be totally nuts.
Clinton’s plan would raise enough new revenue to completely offset her relatively modest new spending proposals. It doesn’t cure the debt problem, but it doesn’t throw buckets of gasoline on the fire, either.
Time magazine is pretty liberal, but usually their economists can see the ramifications of tax plans on the big picture.
The ramifications here are that the Trump tax plan would encourage economic growth at a pace similar to what Ronald Reagan achieved after the Carter years.
OTOH, the Hillary tax plan would continue to depress our economy.
Sure businesses open and close with each plan, that’s just business.
But Hillary’s plan would funnel more money from businesses to the government than Trump’s plan.
Thus, risk-takers, like those in the upper 30% income would be more likely to invest in new ventures under Trump more often.
Lest we forget, Hillary sells herself as “Obama’s 3rd term.”
And, under Obama over $1 TRILLION has parked itself overseas!
Probably as much as that sits on the sidelines, inside the country as well.
And Hillary says she will forgive $1 trillion in college debt, too.
Trump will merely renegotiate those loans from the gov’t then get the gov’t out of the college loan business.
Politifactless sliding rule for truth or lie, really? Snopes as a fact source…um ahhh ….lol Try to muck for actual facts in todays media coverage.
Seems Politifactless should rate the truthfulness of Obamas oath of office , but it would break their little meter.
@Nanny G, #20:
The Reagan presidency was in the 1980s. The nature of the global economy has drastically changed over the quarter of a century that has passed since then. Europe and Japan are no longer suffering from the lingering effects of the Second World War. China has become an industrial giant. And most significantly for any tax cut proposals, tax rates were far more progressive through nearly all of the Reagan years to begin with; Reagan’s high-end tax rate cuts were reductions from a far higher beginning point, not from today’s level that has already been greatly reduced.
Ronald Reagan would probably have considered any tax proposal calculated to add an additional $10 TRILLION to current debt projections when the national debt already stands at over $18 Trillion to be nothing short of insane. I don’t think he’d even recognize a GOP that would nominate a presidential candidate like Donald Trump.
The Laffer Curve was never meant to suggest that revenues would continue to rise indefinitely as tax rates continued to be cut indefinitely. It’s an absurd notion. There’s a point of diminishing returns, and that was reached decades ago. Upper end tax rates are now such that the resulting upward transfer of wealth can be observed to create a corresponding increase in the total national debt. That’s essentially what Donald Trump’s top-heavy tax cuts would accelerate. The middle class would get cuts as well, as a sort of sugar coating, but those with the highest income would receive the biggest benefit by far—at the cost of $10 Trillion in new debt. Essentially, we would be going from not doing enough to address the growing debt problem to announcing that we simply don’t give a damn about it anymore. That would take us one giant step closer to disaster.
@Greg: I assume you’re attempting to blow smoke up the *ss of fellow libs that have no better understanding of how the tax system works than you do. In brief, the Dimocrat tax plan seems to be. Dims propose it=good. Anyone else propose it=bad. Basically Hillarys plan, as she has made it clear, is to raise taxes on the middle class. Take more money out of circulation, reduce investments in business. In short, everything that is bad for the economy. I know you don’t want to believe that, but all you have to do is listen to her speech’s and the ones that are not censured and edited clearly state she is going to raise taxes.
@Redteam, #23:
Trump’s plan is bad because it boils down to another round of top-heavy, fiscally irresponsible tax cuts, that three well-respected organizations of tax experts have independently calculated will add $10 TRILLION more to the projected national debt.
Clinton’s plan involves modest changes that will have little or no adverse effect on working and middle class American families, while raising enough new revenue to pay for all of her modest spending proposals. It does not add $10 TRILLION more to the projected growth of the national debt.
Clinton’s plan does not promise middle class tax cuts that we can not afford. I thought you folks understood that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Since Trump came along, there seem to be a lot of things that you’ve suddenly forgotten.
By the way, this is from The Hill, a well-respected publication much favored by conservatives: Fifty top GOP national security officials signed a letter published Monday saying they will not vote for Trump, declaring that “he would be the most reckless president in American history.”
It’s not just those on the left who are very concerned about Donald Trump. That concern is increasingly wide spread, and crosses the usual right/left political divide.
@Greg: Not true. That’s only the analysis by Libs. We need the truth, not the liberal version of it.
* Mr. Trump’s tax plan would substantially lower individual income taxes and the corporate income tax and eliminate a number of complex features in the current tax code.
* Mr. Trump’s plan would cut taxes by $11.98 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $10.14 trillion over the next decade when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital.
* The plan would also result in increased outlays due to higher interest on the debt, creating a ten-year deficit somewhat larger than the estimates above.
* According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to an 11 percent higher GDP over the long term provided that the tax cut could be appropriately financed.
* The plan would also lead to a 29 percent larger capital stock, 6.5 percent higher wages, and 5.3 million more full-time equivalent jobs.
* The plan would cut taxes and lead to higher after-tax incomes for taxpayers at all levels of income.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan
Seems as if everyone doesn’t interpret Trump’s plan the same.
@Greg:
True, in fact, it promises middle class tax increases.
@Redteam, #27:
…which work out to only $44 per year for a person earning $64,000 per year.
I think I prefer that to being told an economic fairy tale, while adding an additional $10 TRILLION to the national debt.
@Greg: When did libs start being concerned over the debt? Shouldn’t it have been ‘before’ you let Obozo run it up to 20 Trillion in his two terms? Why does only 10 more seem to bother you. Also, Shrillary’s plan doesn’t include anything for lowering that 20 Trillion the Dims have put us in the hole, doesn’t that concern you? It has been proven that you can’t tax your way out of recessions (depressions) you have to reduce taxes, build businesses and grow your way out. That’s the American way. Shrillary wants to use the Socialists failed systems.
Please remind me again… How many years was it that republicans simultaneously controlled the House, the Senate, and had a republican in the White House, without doing doing a damn thing about rising deficits and the national debt?
The debt is all your fault, so we’re going to hand out more tax cuts and run up an additional $10 TRILLION somehow doesn’t strike me as a rational argument in favor of a Trump presidency.
Your candidate speaks without thinking. Although that is giving him the benefit of the doubt. The other possibility is even worse.
@Greg:
In the last 60 years, the Repubs controlled all 3 at the same time for 4 years total, the Dims controlled all 3 for a total of 16. See why we have such a mess?
I’m still not clear how any of this makes adding an additional $10 Trillion to the national debt to hand out another round of irresponsible, top-heavy tax cuts a good idea.
@Greg:
And how long have you been complaining about Obama running up the debt by 10 Trillion?
WOW! BREAKING=> Julian Assange Suggests Seth Rich – Who Was MURDERED in DC – Was Wikileaks DNC Source!
Jim Hoft Aug 9th, 2016 8:15 pm
On July 8, 2016, 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich was murdered in Washington DC. The killer or killers took nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone.
Looks like it wasn’t the Russians Seth has added 20K to the 25K reward for info.
I think he has his suspicions.
Great week for Hillary…
Her unsecured emails get an Iran spy killed, she outs an NSA rep, she gets sued for defamation and negligent homicide, she pals around with the terrorist dad of an islamic homophobe who killed 50 Americans, and she lies about lying about her deleted emails. Seems like the ’90’s all over again.
* And MSM is silent except to assert that 2nd amendment holders are potential assassins.
I can’t believe people hear “We are” when she clearly says “We aren’t”.
Just because some Hillary-hating tool puts the words they want you to ‘hear’ in a closed caption – it doesn’t make them the words she said.
To begin with why would anyone say “We are going to”? when “We’re going to” would be the normal vernacular?
I don’t really care – anyone knows what her stand is on the issue. But what IS disgusting is the way the Republican tools tried to turn this into something it wasn’t.
@Joe Fabitz:
Joe Fabitz, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, there’s a great reason to say “are NOT going to” instead of “AREN’T going to.” The former emphasizes opposition to the idea. The latter may be confused (as it was, in fact) for favoring the idea–especially when the “t” is dropped (as it was, in fact).
Gotta hand it to you for changing the quotation to eliminate the “not/n’t” and replacing it with are/’re. Brilliant.
I wanted to document an example of something I experienced on Snopes. It involves a “fact check” involving the following claim:
CLAIM: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case.
Answer: Mostly false.
Why does it say that this is “mostly false”? In fact, Hillary did successfully defend an accused child rapist. This is a fact. Furthermore, we can clearly hear Hillary Clinton laughing several times in the audio as she is discussing the case.
I was under the mistaken impression that this written by a real journalist, so I actually wrote to them to try to correct the issue. Here is what they wrote me in a no-reply e-mail:
———————————————————————————————–
You have misread. Nowhere in our article does it say she does not laugh. We already include a link to the audio in our article.
Rather than telling us what you think we wrote, why don’t you just actually read the article instead? You could then clearly see that yes, Hillary Clinton laughed, and it is discussed on our page.
Your message will not be forwarded to Kim — she doesn’t have time to read fiction right now.
—
sitemail@snopes.com
———————————————————————————————–
I wanted to document this so that people can see the truth about Snopes. By the way, you might be surprised to learn that I am a registered Democrat.
@Redteam, #26:
Did you get what the Tax Foundation analysis you linked actually says? Try reading the second paragraph listed under Key Findings again:
The $10.14 trillion in revenue reduction is precisely how you wind up adding another $10 trillion to the national debt. That happens even when resulting economic growth has been factored in. The Tax Foundation analysis comes to the same conclusion as the other experts.
He’s essentially buying votes with promises of tax cuts—with the biggest by far going to the richest—and running up another $10 trillion in debt to do it.
In comparison with that, Clinton’s tax plan looks like a model of fiscal restraint and responsibility.
@Bryan W. White:
Huh? I put that in quotes because that is what you claim she said. She did not say “We are” she said “We aren’t”. And it wouldn’t make a bit of difference even if she did say “we are” – other than to play some silly childish ‘gotcha’ game. Because everyone knows what her policy is – that she “will not raise taxes on the middle class”. It’s in her platform, in print on her campaign website, and she has repeated it publicly dozens of times. Get a life.
@Joe Fabitz: Joe, you are a ‘tool’ spelled with an f.
@Greg:
Well, you’ve certainly learned from the reality of Obama’s huge deficit. Though I’m not sure why you’ve suddenly learned that a deficit is not a good thing only if it’s the Republicans that run it up. You would be content to allow Hillary to raise the taxes on the middle class so she can hand it out to her illegal immigrants.
@Joe Fabitz: Joe, no amount of foaming at the mouth is going to change the fact that she said she was going to raise taxes on the middle class. She might have misspoken, but she said it.
@Joe Fabitz wrote:
“Huh? I put that in quotes because that is what you claim she said.”
No, Joe, I made no claim about what she said. I offered three ways to say the same thing, all in quotations and none attributed to Clinton, to show why not using a contraction would have been smart.
**She did not say “We are” she said “We aren’t”.**
I can’t hear the “t” sound, and neither did PolitiFact’s expert using special audio equipment. I trust she meant to say “aren’t,” though I suspect a Freudian slip since a number of her tax proposals will affect the middle class. But I’m pointing out why going with the contraction “aren’t” wasn’t smart. It’s easily misunderstood since it fails to emphasize the negation. Do you follow that argument?
Joe went on:
**And it wouldn’t make a bit of difference even if she did say “we are” – other than to play some silly childish ‘gotcha’ game.**
Well, if her tax plan raises new revenues from the middle class it makes her statement untruthful the way you interpret it. That would make a pretty legitimate “Gotcha,” wouldn’t it?
**Because everyone knows what her policy is – that she “will not raise taxes on the middle class”.**
The Tax Foundation thinks she’s going to raise taxes on the middle class. Not part of “everyone” the way you’re using it, though?
**Get a life.**
Obama promised he would not raise taxes on the middle class at all, not even a dime. Guess what? He broke the promise. We can expect the same of Clinton. Good candidates for breaking her promise: carbon tax, soda tax, gun tax, payroll tax.
@Redteam: How much larger than Venus is Mars? Certainly as goddess of beauty Venus is far greater than Mars, god of war. Likewise, women are far wiser and fairer than men, who are the universal screwups. As such, Hillary is a far better candidate than Trump, if only because she’s a woman. Beyond that, Trump belongs (now, at least) to the Republican party, which is nothing but a bunch of cannibals.
@assehat: Well, at least it seems as if you named yourself correctly. Give us a list of the things you admire about Hillary.
Some things to include: Vince Foster, travel office, Bill’s bimbo’s, Ambassador Stephens, Benghazi, 30,000+ emails, Can’t stand up without assistance, can’t focus her eyes, thinks America is the problem, wants everyone to have a free college education ( If she gets elected, I’m going to get another degree) Certified Liar, (can’t run well with head down). I’m sure you’ve got a much longer list.
@Redteam (One of The Proud Deplorables): sane
@asshat: I realize I’m sane, the question was about Hillary.
@tiffy:
What’s really funny is I recently emailed them as well about an article they had one of their “journalists” write that was just pure fiction; fiction in that it was just wrong mathematically, so it was clearly wrong.
They wrote back and sarcastically suggested I had the wrong site. I responded that I probably did because I thought they were an objective fact based site. To which they responded with a veiled threat asking me if my position on their site was the position of my “employer” and that I should visit their “office” in “my” town.
So, as you can see, they’re nothing better than liberal propaganda now.
I don’t know how I got here but after reading both articles, and putting her tax policy in context, it was phonetically mispronounced “aren’t.” I will give you prima facie it does sound like “are” but you can also here the “n’t” if you are paying attention as well. Besides, who the hell in the Democratic party cheers for raising taxes on the middle class?
@Nope:
No, she does not pronounce the “N” or a “T”, she goes straight to “G” as in the first letter of “GOING”.
You can try to lie as much as you want, I know you’re paid to “CorrectTheRecord” after all, but you aren’t fooling anyone with this 3rd grader logic.