Showing posts with label Liberal Myths. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Myths. Show all posts

8/15/2013

Reagan Biographer: 'The Butler' maligns Reagan's Record on Race

Reagan Biographer Blasts 'The Butler' for Maligning President's Race Record

The new political drama Lee Daniels' The Butler depicts President Ronald Reagan as being dismissive of apartheid in South Africa as well as civil rights regarding black Americans.

Reagan biographer Craig Shirley says such a characterization is nonsense.

Shirley, who worked on Reagan's 1980 and 1984 presidential campaigns, says the country's 40th president signed the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday into law as well as legislation extending the Voting Rights and Fair Housing Acts.

A critical scene in the movie shows Reagan (Alan Rickman) bluntly threatening to crush sanctions against South Africa for its racist policies.

Shirley says Reagan's position on the matter was far more intricate than the film describes, a stand that likely helped the nation emerge from its hateful policies with less bloodshed.

To Continue Reading, click below:
Reagan Biographer Blasts 'The Butler' for Maligning President's Race Record
Enhanced by Zemanta

12/26/2012

Liberal Myth of 91% Tax On the Rich Debunked

Posted by Brian

When talking about raising the tax rates on the rich, liberals loooove to point out that tax rates on the so-called rich during the Eisenhower/Kennedy years were 91%, and that it was a period of general prosperity.  The fact is, tax rates were 91% during that time.  But what they don't tell you is that those rates were not what they actually paid.  Due to deductions and other exemptions (what liberals like to call "loopholes"), literally no one paid a 91% tax rate.  In fact, no one paid anywhere even remotely close to that rate.

Mark Levin addressed this liberal myth on a recent "best of" show, pointing out what the "effective" tax rate was, that is, what people actually paid in taxes.

So what did the "rich" pay as a percentage back during the 50's "boom" economy?

$200,000-$500,000 group:
Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)
1953 = 45.9
1954 = 39.3
1955 = 36.8
1956 = 37.4
1957 = 38.6
1958 = 36.9
1959 = 33.8
1960 = 33.1
1961 = 31.5

$500,000-$1,000,000 group:
Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)
1953 = 46.3
1954 = 38.7
1955 = 35.6
1956 = 36.7
1957 = 36.6
1958 = 36.0
1959 = 32.1
1960 = 30.8
1961 = 29.1

Over $1,000,000 group:
Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)
1953 = 49.3
1954 = 38.8
1955 = 35.8
1956 = 36.1
1957 = 40.0
1958 = 33.1
1959 = 30.6
1960 = 31.3
1961 = 27.2

From The Straight Dope

The highest rate paid during the Eisenhower years was the 49.3% rate paid by those making over $1 million back in 1953.  By 1961, their effective rate was down to 27.1%!  Hardly the 91% that liberals trumpet every time they can get to a microphone.

Myth busted!


Enhanced by Zemanta

12/14/2012

Levin Untangles the Lies Of Reaganomics

Posted by Brian
H/T to The Mark Levin Show

On last night's show, Mark Levin crushed the liberal myth that Reagan tax cuts plunged America into the fiscal disaster that we now find ourselves in.  He also addressed the equally false belief that the Clinton era tax hikes spurred the economy in the 1990's. Read and listen if you have the guts to face the truth.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures
Peter Ferrara, Contributor

In February 2009 I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal entitled “Reaganomics v Obamanomics,” which argued that the emerging outlines of President Obama’s economic policies were following in close detail exactly the opposite of President Reagan’s economic policies.  As a result, I predicted that Obamanomics would have the opposite results of Reaganomics.  That prediction seems to be on track.


         Audio of Mark Levin addressing Obamanomics vs. Reaganomics

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.
Continue Reading

Setting the Tax Record Straight: Clinton Hikes Slowed Growth, Bush Cuts Promoted Recovery
Enhanced by Zemanta

10/22/2012

The Wage Gap Myth

Posted by Brian
H/T to Mark Levin and National Review Online

When Like Jobs Are Compared, The Gap Is Significantly Less Than the 28% Touted By Liberals
On Wednesday, Mark Levin spoke of the widely circulated belief, which has been perpetrated by the media and politicians, regarding the supposed inequality of pay between men and women. The common belief is that women in the workplace earn seventy-two cents for every dollar that a man makes.  The only problem: It's not true.  When apple are compared to apples, the gap is a mere five cents. But, that is not how the data is being analyzed by those whose goal is to create a political wedge issue between men and women. Women who hold the same positions, with the same hours, seniority, and other factors are compared, the wage gap becomes virtually non-existent. When the numbers get into the 1-4% range, factors such as types of college degrees, or breaks in service for things like child-rearing can become factors.
The President touts his passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Act as proof that he "cares" more about women than Romney, but the fact is, the Fair Pay Act, which mandates against wage discrimination, was in place long before Obama was President, and the Ledbetter Act is nothing more than a symbolic ruse with little to no effect on righting a mythological wrong.  In fact, only 35 cases have been brought to the courts under the Ledbetter Act since it was passed in 2009, or less than ten per year.  Does this sound like there is mass discrimination against women going on in this country?  These cases could have been brought to court even without the Ledbetter Act, under the Fair Pay Act.
Obama is counting on women to be so ill-informed that they fall for this straw-man argument, while ignoring the fact that more women have had to file for unemployment on his watch than at any time in recent memory. Over 780K more women are now unemployed than when Obama took office.  If Obama and the Democrats want to talk about the "War on Women" they need only look at how Obama's own policies have affected working women.
Ir there is any discrimination going on, it is in President Obama's White House, where it has been reported that women are paid "significantly" less than their male counterparts, with some figures running as high as an 18% pay gap.
Obama and the Dems don't give women enough credit for being able to see through their smokescreens. Women are more than capable and intelligent enough to walk and chew gum at the same time.  And they are certainly intelligent enough to know that their concerns encompass more than free condoms, a non-existent wage gap, and the Obama campaign's instruction to "Vote with their Lady-parts."


Obama and Romney on the Wage Gap
By Diana Furchtgott-Roth
October 17, 2012 1:12 A.M.

We hear it over and over again: the myth of the wage gap. In Tuesday’s presidential debate, Katherine Fenton asked President Obama what he intended to do about “women making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn.”

Just one problem: Women make about 95 percent of what their male counterparts earn, if the male counterparts are in the same job with the same experience.
Continue Reading
Enhanced by Zemanta

5/24/2012

Maddow Gets Handed Her Lunch With Facts From GOP Strategist

Posted by Brian

Rachel Maddow, on 'Meet The Press' begins to trot out the age-old liberal talking point that women in the workplace make less than men, but is surprised to find that she is actually challenged on this point.  When Alex Castellanos, to her right, states that "there are reasons for that", she responds with, "No, don't tell me the reasons".  Don't tell you the reasons? Like most liberals, she is uninterested in the facts of how her 'statistic' that "women earn 77 cents on the dollar" versus what men earn, is arrived at.

This statistic of "77 cents on the dollar", adjusted up or down a penny or two over the years, has been thrown around for years.  Like the number of illegal immigrants in the country, the number never seems to change.  It's a talking point to further the notion that all women are discriminated against in the workplace. It promotes victimhood.



But, does Maddow have a point?  Only if you look at raw data without a reference point, or context.  It is pointed out to Ms. Maddow by the strategist, that single women make more than their male counterparts.  In fact, they make about 8% more on average.  The reason for this, of which Maddow is uninterested, is that more women are entering the work force with college degrees.

Motherhood and family plays a huge role in the perceived gender wage gap.  A Labor Department study shows that the pay gap is affected almost entirely by the different "choices" that men and women make throughout their careers.  For example, women are more likely than men to work at "family-friendly" companies, where women value benefits more than higher wages.  Women are more likely to work in part-time employment, which pay typically pays less than full-time employment. Women leave the work force for childbirth and raising families.  Because of these choices, as women and men grow older the aggregate time that men have spent in continuous in the workforce is more than women.  More continuous years of employment favors results in higher pay for men over time.

One point that the strategist makes at about the :45 mark is that if the statistic were true, businessmen would hire only women in the workforce and save about 25% on their bottom line.  Of course this bounces right off of Maddow, who gives it no shrift, and moves onto her next point.

Funny, how the Maddow's of the world are only interested in statistics if they move the victim card forward.  Rachel Maddow is an intelligent person, but is so steeped in her ideology, that when confronted with facts, she prefers to keep herself in intellectual slavery.

Related:


3/14/2012

Obama Wants You to Open Your Hearts and Minds to Derek Bell, But What Will You Find

Alfonzo Rachel with another brilliants piece from PJTV's ZoNation
Andrew Breitbart revealed video of Barack Obama praising radical law professor Derek Bell. Zo tells you why this is proof that liberals are peddling hate and lies under the guise of tolerance and a clean environment. Hear more.
See more at http://www.pjtv.com



Posted by Brian
Enhanced by Zemanta

1/26/2012

Pass The Fries and Buffalo Wings! They Won't Kill You!!

Posted by Brian
Another thing that will kill you debunked! I'll have my fries British style - smothered in gravy.

Fried food heart risk 'a myth'

It is a "myth" that regularly eating fried foods causes heart attacks, researchers have found, as long as you use olive oil or sunflower oil. 

By , Medical Correspondent  6:45AM GMT 25 Jan 2012


They say there is mounting research that it is the type of oil used, and whether or not it has been used before, that really matters.

The latest study, published in the British Medical Journal, found no association between the frequency of fried food consumption in Spain - where olive and sunflower oils are mostly used - and the incidence of serious heart disease.
However, the British Heart Foundation warned Britons not to "reach for the frying pan" yet, pointing out that the Mediterranean diet as a whole was healthier than ours.

Enhanced by Zemanta