'Lying in politics is not new'

Lying in politics is not new. The great extent of lying we are seeing in 2012 is.
From Paul Krugman's blog, the Conscience of a Liberal today.

Krugman's comments about the role of the national media in its refusal to confront liars like Paul Ryan are on target. Some of the journalists are clueless or embarrassed by missing this aspect of Ryan's character over his many years in Washington.

On the other hand, today's Sunday morning press shows talked about the pervasiveness of lying, and CBS News had an Obama staffer who addressed Ryan's speech:

See CBS' Fact-checking 6 claims in Paul Ryan's convention speech to the RNC.

I am listening now to C-Span's live telecast of VP Biden's political speech in Wisconsin. He, too, is attacking head-on the lying from the GOP ticket leaders.

Hope they will keep shining the light on exaggerating, pre-varificating, and out-and-out lying going on in this election campaign.



3 out of town full time employees here work 7 days on get out vote--

Romney plans appear to be:
Cuts to teaching jobs, student loans, research and technology, Medicare and Social Security.
Slash funding for education while cutting taxes for richest
No plan to pay for $5 Trillion in new tax cuts
End Medicare as we know it and make deep cuts to Medicaid by repealing Obamacare
Increase defense spending significantly raising deficit.
Take us back to the failed policies that created record breaking debt and Great Recession

clarence swinney

vote for middle class

1945 to 1980 were Great years for growth of the Middle Class.
Affordable Housing via local Savings and Loans
Affordable Health Care via company insurance coverage
Affordable Education via Pell Grants and GI Bill


Three Republican Presidents for 20 years—A Republican Senate for 18 years and a Republican House for 12 years gave us Great Middle Class Success to Less Success:

Initiated our involvement in 10 foreign conflicts where hundreds of thousands of innocent people died.
Had 5 Stock Market crashes in 20 years
Took Carter 218,000 per month job creation down to 99,000
Took a 600 Budget to 3500 (less Clinton itsy bitsy)
Took a 1000 Debt to 11,900(9-30-09)
Took a Surplus to a 1400 Deficit(9-30-09)
Destroyed the Great Savings and Loan Industry that has financed locally millions of affordable homes
Destroyed the local banking system by Repeal of Glass Steagall whereby 10 Too Big To Fail Banks own 80% of all deposits in about 7000 banks. Return to that bill..
Destroyed our Great Housing Industry by allowing predator toxic mortgages to be created and sold world wide as AAA mortgages by profiteering banks. One of all time Disasters for America.
Created a Modernization of Commodities Bill that freed Wall Street to become Casino Derivative Of America or a bigger gambling house than Las Vegas.

How do we get back to 1945-1980 Success for the Middle Class when 10% not own 73% of net wealth, 83% of financial wealth and take 50% of individual income.

It will be tough for the rich will fight like electing two of their own in 2012 and promise by one to spend as much as 100 million to elect them to save all his benefits in the tax book plus get them to add more.

It can be done by the tax code, get money out of elections, elect those who promise to be Fair in protecting programs that aid the Middle Class, invest in growth and jobs in America not in
other nations. clarence swinney

clarence swinney

rich pay all the taxes

The Rich Pay Almost All the Taxes

That's simply not true. The percentage of total taxes paid by the very rich (the top 1%) is approximately the same as the percentage paid by middle class Americans (the 4th quintile, average income $68,700). Here are the details:

Internal Revenue Service figures show that the very rich paid 23% of their incomes in federal income taxes in 2006. The middle class paid about 8% of their incomes in federal income taxes. Based on U.S. Congressional Budget Office figures, the very rich pay just under 2% of their incomes toward social security, while the middle class pays just under 10%. According to a study by The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the very rich pay about 7% of their incomes in state and sales and property and excise taxes, while the middle class pays approximately 10%. Another year of Bush tax cuts will reduce the taxes of the very rich by at least 3% more than the middle class.

So total taxes for the very rich are 29% of their incomes (23% + 2% + 7% - 3%). Total taxes for the middle class are 28% of their incomes (8% + 10% + 10%). These figures agree with CTJ's 2011 estimate of total taxes paid.

clarence swinney


Obama Medicare successes (so far)
Added 8 years to solvency
Recovered $10.7 Billion in crackdown on fraud
47 million have access to free preventative services
Helping get lower premiums saved average beneficiary $4200 over a decade
XXXXRomney wants to repeal a successful program

clarence swinney

better off

Yes, we’re better off — if only because George W. Bush is no longer president.”
Four years ago, the U.S. economy was dropping rapidly with no bottom in sight, owing to the irresponsible and incompetent policies pursued by Bush. Most Americans – indeed, many people around the world – were deeply frightened by the financial crisis. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month and seemed to be sinking into a global depression. By February 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had fallen to around 6500.
Today the economy is returning to growth, slowly but steadily. The stimulus and other Obama policies prevented far worse consequences that we might have faced without them, inadequate as they were to improve employment rapidly. Nevertheless, the U.S. economy has gained about four million jobs since Obama assumed office, while the Dow is around 13,000, or roughly double its three-year low.
America and the world still confront serious economic dangers — principally from the fiscal austerity that conservatives have imposed in Europe and would implement here – but we now have at least begun to emerge from the crisis.
To ask whether we are better off today is a misleading question, however. Given the economic conditions that Obama inherited – including a severe recession, a ruined banking system, and a burst housing bubble – there is no truthful economist who would predict that most households would be “better off” after only three years of recovery.
The more honest question is whether we are better off today than we would be if Bush – or Mitt Romney, who has offered his own critique of Obama’s actions – had been in power during those years.
Again, the answer is plain. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Bush, a rigid, simplistic right-wing ideologue, would have been adequate to deal with the crisis. Having reluctantly gone along with the Troubled Assets Relief Program to bail out the big banks, would he have implemented any stimulus spending as the recession grew worse in 2009? What would he have done about the failing auto industry?
As for Mitt Romney, we know what he would have done – which is nothing —  because he has told us so. No stimulus and no assistance to the auto industry, which would have meant the loss of millions more jobs and a freefall into depression; more tax cuts and more cuts in public services, which would have also have meant more jobs lost by teachers, firefighters, and cops.
So are we better off today than we might have been? The answer should be obvious. But in comparing Obama and Romney there are different and more pressing questions. Which candidate has showed better judgment – and which candidate would handle a renewed crisis more capably? Those are the issues that the coming campaign must explore.

clarence swinney