Danish Government May Scrap Its "Fat Tax"
Global Tax News is reporting today that:
MP: Taxes are always distortionary, for one reason: People can change their behavior to avoid them, as this case demonstrates.Only one year after its implementation, the Danish government is planning to scrap the “fat tax.” The reason why: reports show that it simply doesn't work.Denmark is now likely to abolish the tax levied on saturated fats, as empirical evidence shows that its negative effects outweigh the benefits for the Danish Treasury. In particular, reports point to job losses in the food processing industry and Danes crossing the German border to buy cheaper products.The proposals to scrap the fat tax have been included in the 2013 draft budget, which is currently under consideration by Parliament. Under current law, Denmark is applying a tax of DKK16 ($2.40) per kg of saturated fat on food items. This tax was introduced back in autumn 2011 to combat obesity and raise tax revenues.
Update: In the comments section, Scott Drum poses an excellent question:
"Why is that liberals constantly embrace the idea that taxing something of which they don't approve (fat, soft drinks, gasoline) will result in less of that thing being produced/consumed, but insist that increasing taxes on investment or income won't have any affect on those activities?"
68 Comments:
job losses in the food processing industry
Shall we send Krugman to inform them that this problem is easily remedied by employing these now idle resources in the implementation of an alien defense plan? Beats digging ditches!
Danes crossing the German border to buy cheaper products.
New plan: tax border crossings!
In a small country like Denmark, where, at most, you are about an hours drive from the boarder, a fat tax cannot work.
But, if such a plan were implemented in the US, I think it would be harder to skirt the law. For those of us lucky enough to live near the boarder, sure, but what about the other folks?
Thoughts on this matter?
"But, if such a plan were implemented in the US, I think it would be harder to skirt the law. For those of us lucky enough to live near the boarder, sure, but what about the other folks? Thoughts on this matter?" -- Jon
"A Mexican industrial group said Tuesday an increase in tax on cigarettes that went into effect in 2011 has led to a proliferation of contraband, and that illegal cigarettes now account for nearly 17% of the cigarettes sold in the country. The Confederation of Industrial Chambers, or Concamin, said tobacco consumption hasn’t declined in the year-and-a-half since the higher tobacco tax took effect, although the sale of illegal cigarettes has reached record levels. Congress approved the higher tax on cigarettes in late 2010 despite protests from the country’s cigarette manufacturers" -- HotAir
JM, it depends on high the tax is. It may or may not be worth the price of obtaining goods in a black market.
Also remember what happened to the luxury tax implemented in 1992(?) on items "thuh rich" bought, like fur coats and yachts. Turns out that the rich don't need another yacht nearly as much as the middle-class ship-builders needed the jobs building those yachts. The Maine ship-building industry was destroyed and, despite the repeal of the tax, never fully recovered (last I checked). The same democrat punk who pranced around before his fellow congress clowns making his case for this "just" tax appeared haggard and slightly disheveled as he paced the same floor, begging for its repeal about a year later.
People will change behaviours, cronies will get breaks, substitutions will be made, time and energy will be wasted....and Americans will still be fat.
"Fat taxes" are the least of our problems:
"Mr. Ryan's major contribution has been to expose the illusion that Mr. Obama's re-election campaign rests on: pretending that raising taxes on a few thousand "millionaires and billionaires" can fund an ever-growing government. Every time Mr. Obama warns about Mr. Ryan "gutting" this or that "investment," what he's not saying but is unavoidably implying is that taxes must be far higher to finance this spending. Assuming he can read the budget tables, he knows the government has made promises it cannot mathematically keep—but he hopes nobody notices ... Democrats do have a plan, kind of. As debt continues to build, at some point U.S. creditors will lose confidence in the Treasury's ability to repay. Then Democrats and even some Republicans will impose a European-style value-added tax or another money machine to appease the bond markets. What voters should know is that this taxing big bang won't only hit the affluent. Far from it ..."
" ... researchers looked at how high income-tax rates would have to rise in the top two or even three tax brackets to lower debt to sustainable levels under something akin to CBO's alternative fiscal scenario. They conclude that even if the top rates hit 100%, the budget "cannot achieve the debt-reduction targets in some or any of the target years." Though conceding that near-total confiscation is "completely unrealistic," they report the results anyway "to indicate the infeasibility of achieving a high debt-reduction target simply by increasing top individual income tax rates." And this is from economists who favor higher taxes. Another way of putting it is that the rich aren't nearly rich enough to finance Mr. Obama's spending ambitions. Sooner rather than later, Washington will come for the middle class, because that's where the real money is." -- WSJ
People stupid enough to vote for this moron will deserve all of the coming and certain pain associated with that decision. Unfortunately, the innocent will suffer as well.
There is simply no way for reality to constrain the liberal desire to tell other people how to live their lives.
People will change behaviours, cronies will get breaks, substitutions will be made, time and energy will be wasted....and Americans will still be fat
sad but true
Jon asks "Thoughts on this matter?"
Jon, here are poll results for Americans on funding healthcare with a Fat Tax.
"There is simply no way for reality to constrain the liberal desire to tell other people how to live their lives." -- Scott Drum
But they're the "Pro-Choice" party.
so, the fat in butter is perhaps 70% saturated. unless the tax is designed to increase the amount of butter surplus for export, heavily taxing one of your nation's most visible products (because it's unhealthy?) seems strange.
Why is that liberals constantly embrace the idea that taxing something of which they don't approve (fat, soft drinks, gasoline) will result in less of that thing being produced/consumed, but insist that increasing taxes on investment or other income-generation won't have any affect on those activities?
The only reason they call it pro-choice is because pro-abortion didn't poll quite as well. And like Humpty Dumpty, words mean whatever they say they mean.
Notice that conservatives "oppose abortion rights". They, on the other hand are "for gun control", not "against gun rights".
Scott Drum: Excellent question about taxes, I updated the post to feature it.
Jon,
I was thinking the same thing. If the tax is passed by a state the result would surly be similar to Denmark's fat tax. Even though its not a tax, rules banning fireworks are easily avoided by visiting a neighboring state that is much more lax on these products.
However take taxes on gasoline. They tax gasoline, but its somewhat similar in price around the country therefor we must bite the bullet or sell our preferred vehicle of choice for a glorified golf cart. (I'm still very sour about trading my F-250 for a Focus)
I know the cost of gasoline didn't skyrocket because of an increase in a tax, but I feel it would have the same effect, consumer only cares about that final cost.
i bet if the Dane's all of a sudden became leaner and healthier, this tax would persist. i also suspect we would have heard all about those results by now from the low fat propaganda.
re: taxing gasoline because you don't like it...
Who Knew?
I though it was to pay for roads.
you know.. those snow-plows that come along in the winter or the traffic lights that try to keep the T-bone collisions to a minimum.
but Hell... when you suggest tolls for roads rather than taxes - people get upset about that too.
So here's my question back at Scott.
How come Conservatives like Socialist Roads?
:-)
"New plan: tax border crossings!"...
Actually methinks the Danes already (or a least used to a few years ago) slap import duties a very wide range of products brought into Denmark from other countries...
Back in '04 I was bringing a cousin of mine who worked for Maresk in Copenhagen two of the 3 pound jars of Peter Pan Peanut Butter.
One was allowed through free and the other had a $7 and change duty on it which made it about two plus dollars more than what I paid for it when I purchased it at a local grocer...
My cousin told me that the one pound jar of Peter Pan Peanut Butter at the international store over near embassy row cost her almost $50 the previous year...
Sucks to live in Denmark..:-)
"I though it was to pay for roads"...
Well larry g you also think that FICA extortion listed on your paycheck is for your socialist security retirement too...
Its all just tax regardless of the label on it...
well try taking in more than 2 liters of wine into Canada...
I though it was to pay for roads.
And I thought FICA was to pay for Social Security and not for frittering away on kept cronies. Oh well, it's so easy to be wrong.
you might ask the 50 million or so who did pay FICA taxes, and who actually do get a benefit check each month if there checks cash for real money...
Sucks to live in Denmark..:-)
Buuuuuuut they have all that expensive free healthcare!
"you might ask the 50 million or so who did pay FICA taxes, and who actually do get a benefit check each month if there checks cash for real money"...
That's the problem larry g those parasites are NOT living off their FICA extortions, they're living off of YOUR extortions...
That's how a Ponzi scheme works...
"Buuuuuuut they have all that expensive free healthcare!"...
Wedll you know methinks the Danes of some strange ideas but not as strange (I think) as the ideas that our modern day Democrats seem to exhibit...
Check out this short YouTube clip: Peter Schiff & Democrats on Let's Ban Profits!
re: " That's how a Ponzi scheme works"
isn't that how any pay-as-you-go insurance works?
when you pay your auto insurance premium, isn't it being used to pay for someone else's wreck?
is it the concept of insurance you object to?
"sn't that how any pay-as-you-go insurance works?"...
No larry g...
Your auto insurance is a 'voluntary' contract, the Ponzi scheme called socialist security is merely a mandated tax...
re: "voluntary"
if you are going to drive - "voluntary" is mandatory.
and don't forget - if you get a mortgage that nasty old lender will also force you to buy insurance also.
We make people buy social security because if we did not do that - they'd get old and destitute and we'll all have to pay taxes to keep them from living in cardboard boxes.
Social Security protects other taxpayers, eh?
juandos, and what did we expect from attendees at the Dipshit National Con?
Which brings me to...
Larry,
You would find it mighty helpful to get some understanding of the latest talking point the Democrats are desperately grasping at before you echo it as it will aid you greatly in rejecting total nonsense before you have the opportunity to repeat it.
There is an ocean of difference between a risk pool and a ponzi scheme. For one thing, with an insurance policy there is no expectation of ever receiving the premium collected unless and until a specific event occurs. A Ponzi scheme promises a payout to each payee.
Methinks are you familiar with non-govt annuities?
do you consider them ponzi schemes?
Juandos,
You're correct, of course, that SS is mandatory. However, that's not what makes it a Ponzi scheme. That's just what makes it infinitely WORSE than an ordinary Ponzi scheme.
well, we're once again descending here into the concept that any and all taxes are extortion and ponzi schemes..right?
and I assume the reason for fleeing to St Kitts are wherever... or at least threatening to...
are there any industrialized countries that do not have "ponzi schemes"?
are is the entire world's major countries all ponzi schemed?
Methinks are you familiar with non-govt annuities?
Yes, I am Larry. I even understand them. For you, however, these concepts remain illusive.
are there any industrialized countries that do not have "ponzi schemes"?
are is the entire world's major countries all ponzi schemed?
Well, Larry, what can I tell you? The answers to those are for you to puzzle over and for me not to give a damn about.
"well, we're once again descending here into the concept that any and all taxes are extortion and ponzi schemes..right?"
No, but you are descending into your
usual idiocy.
well Methinks.. it just hard for me to think that 1/2 of the countries in the world have ponzi schemes and the other half are run by two-bit thugs.
Keep thinking about it, Larry. Nothing will come of that exercise, but at least it'll give you a chance to meditate.
off to the confessional?
"if you are going to drive - "voluntary" is mandatory"...
Well larry g you said it yourself, 'if' because as ever tree hugging, root kissing, bunny squeezer knows, its not necessary to drive...
"We make people buy social security because if we did not do that - they'd get old and destitute and we'll all have to pay taxes to keep them from living in cardboard boxes"...
What's wrong with stupid people dying off larry g?
What you're stating sounds like a 'minor' problem with its own built in solution...
Now if the 'bleeding heart libtards' think these fools are worth saving then let them use their own money to keep the fools out of the cardboad box city...
There's NO reason to waste everybody else's money on them...
" There's NO reason to waste everybody else's money on them."
but that's why we make them put money aside themselves....
so they'll have it later and we won't have to take up the slack.
it's an individual mandate.
even Singapore and Chile have it...
"You're correct, of course, that SS is mandatory. However, that's not what makes it a Ponzi scheme. That's just what makes it infinitely WORSE than an ordinary Ponzi scheme"...
Yeah methinks I surely did put the word, "mandated" in the wrongest part of that sentence...
Oh lord! Where has my grammar gone?!?!
Maybe I should've stuck with Cronyism’s Costs
Documenting corruption in the Obama administration instead...
"but that's why we make them put money aside themselves"...
You can't be that goofy larry g unless you work really, really hard at it...
Its all about the money and the control...
As far as the tax leeches in the federal government are concerned they don't care if you drop dead immediately after you make your last FICA extortion payment available...
BTW who gives a damn what they do in those 3rd world toilets called Singapore and Chile?
If those places are so damn good larry g how come people aren't pulling up stakes and moving there from this oh so horrible country?
"Its all about the money and the control.."
wow.
Jon Murphy - There are other ways to change behavior to avoid a fat tax, as bootleggers and the guy in prison who 'gets things' proves this out.
Folks are creative.
"New plan: tax border crossings!"
That leads to wealthy smugglers.
Is there NOTHING government can do to repeal the laws of supply and demand?
"Thoughts on this matter?"
Smugglers.
Jon
If you want something that is illegal or expensive due to taxes and regs, just call me. I will arrange to get it for you.
Anything people demand will be supplied.
I've already lined up a source of hypodermics preloaded with trans-fats that you can inject into the products you enjoy that used to have them.
Che:
"But they're the "Pro-Choice" party."
Thanks for that, now I'm going to go slit my wrists.
"Why is that liberals constantly embrace the idea that taxing something of which they don't approve (fat, soft drinks, gasoline) will result in less of that thing being produced/consumed, but insist that increasing taxes on investment or income won't have any affect on those activities?"
Scott is smart enough to know the answer. Liberals are not very logical and are driven by ideology rather than the quest for knowledge. Just like Conservatives.
As the man said, "liberals hate your economic freedom; conservatives hate your social freedom."
Ron:
Is there NOTHING government can do to repeal the laws of supply and demand?
Voting in Canada became very painful after the Rhinoceros Party called it quits. For the Rhinos using government to repeal the laws of supply and demand was child's play. They had set their goals to more important things.
They promised to pass laws that would change the boiling point of water to 80C. Imagine how much energy that law would save? But they weren't just about materials and wealth. They cared about social justice too. For example, to help the people who were ashamed of their weight they would pass a law to change the value of the gravitational constant. That would mean that heavy people would weigh far less than they do today and could feel better about themselves without going on a diet or having to exercise.
What gets to me is why we don't hear such promises from the GOP or the Democratic Party. After having watched (in pain) some of the primary speeches the typical voter is likely to like such progressive ideas. What do you think?
"Why is that liberals constantly embrace the idea that taxing something of which they don't approve (fat, soft drinks, gasoline) will result in less of that thing being produced/consumed, but insist that increasing taxes on investment or other income-generation won't have any affect on those activities?"
This is so overly simplistic, but ok.
Taxing soft drinks or tobacco, for example, are not necessarily designed to reduce consumption. It is to generate a revenue stream to offset the social costs of a behavior that imposes an expense on society in the form of higher health care costs.
With regard to gasoline, taxes pay for infrastructure improvements, directly funded by those that use the infrastructure. Sounds fair to me.
As for taxes on investment or income, what alternative is there for funding basic governmental functions, especially those that citizens cannot do on their own, for example, military spending, law enforcement, food inspection, etc?
Apart from Ron Paul, what candidate has proposed to reduce military spending? Romney wants to increase it.
Then we look at recent history. Clinton raised taxes while Bush lowered them.
Yet Clinton oversaw far more growth and job creation.
Rhetorical flourishes are nice. Facts are nicer.
Rhetorical flourishes are nice. Facts are nicer.
I agree. If only you'd presented a shred of evidence that you understand what Scott Drum was saying, let alone provided a single relevant fact.
Taxing soft drinks or tobacco, for example, are not necessarily designed to reduce consumption.
Yet, that's how these sin taxes are sold to the public. That's the point.
As for taxes on investment or income, what alternative is there for funding basic governmental functions, especially those that citizens cannot do on their own, for example, military spending, law enforcement, food inspection, etc?
It has not yet been established as a fact that the items on your list cannot be privately provided, so I'd go easy on that. However, since that's not the point, I'll leave it. It has also not been established that income taxes are the only way or even the best way to fund government. A consumption tax, in my opinion, would be far superior. But, that wasn't Scott's point either.
If too much of the next dollar you toil to earn is taxed at too high a rate, then you will not toil to earn it. You will spend that time instead with your children, your friends, your spouse, or your dog. The dollar will not be earned and the tax will not be collected. The higher the rate is, the lower your incentive to produce taxable income.
Yet, we are sold a story by the Democrats that taxing cigarettes creates incentive to consume less of them and taxing income provides no incentive to produce less taxable income.
In the rest of your comment you confuse correlation with cause. There was a lot more going on than just tax rates.
Taxing soft drinks or tobacco, for example, are not necessarily designed to reduce consumption. It is to generate a revenue stream to offset the social costs of a behavior that imposes an expense on society in the form of higher health care costs.
It seems to me that having people pay for their own care is a much better alternative. And if you have a lot of people dying earlier your total costs are lower because they do not collect as much SS and do not have the chronic diseases that drain Medicare for years and years.
With regard to gasoline, taxes pay for infrastructure improvements, directly funded by those that use the infrastructure. Sounds fair to me.
But it isn't fair because money is wasted by the government and used to finance activities that drivers may not support. A monopoly collecting a tax to finance itself is never fair.
As for taxes on investment or income, what alternative is there for funding basic governmental functions, especially those that citizens cannot do on their own, for example, military spending, law enforcement, food inspection, etc?
You could have users pay for the services that they want. The state is never as efficient at delivering services as the market so I do not see why it needs to be involved at all.
Apart from Ron Paul, what candidate has proposed to reduce military spending? Romney wants to increase it.
True. Both parties are for the warfare state.
Then we look at recent history. Clinton raised taxes while Bush lowered them.
Clinton cut capital gains rates by almost a third. And helped to reform welfare. While he was a terrible president he looks good compared to Obama and Bush.
Yet Clinton oversaw far more growth and job creation.
That is what happens when you cut capital gains taxes. Of course, the Fed helped for a while by inflating and inflating the money supply. And it did not hurt to have a military budget cut as the USSR failed and central planning was discredited. Peace is good for an economy.
"True. Both parties are for the warfare state"...
Whereas Canada is cintent to let someone else take care of their defense needs...
"With regard to gasoline, taxes pay for infrastructure improvements, directly funded by those that use the infrastructure. Sounds fair to me"...
Yeah and those same taxes will finance fairy dust, unicorn purchases, and all manner of wonderful things...
Keee-rist you liberals sure do fall for the fairy tales...
V:
"They promised to pass laws that would change the boiling point of water to 80C. Imagine how much energy that law would save? But they weren't just about materials and wealth. They cared about social justice too. For example, to help the people who were ashamed of their weight they would pass a law to change the value of the gravitational constant. That would mean that heavy people would weigh far less than they do today and could feel better about themselves without going on a diet or having to exercise."
LOL Great ideas. hard boiled eggs would be a thing of the past, as nobody would want to wait for them to cook at 80C.
I always wondered why those handy height vs weight charts on scales fell out of favor. I can remember weighing myself and marveling at how tall I was getting.
"Hmm. today I'm 7'4".
"What gets to me is why we don't hear such promises from the GOP or the Democratic Party. After having watched (in pain) some of the primary speeches the typical voter is likely to like such progressive ideas. What do you think?"
I don't watch political speeches because there is no value to them and it's time I can never get back. At my age I need to consider opportunity costs carefully.
I did watch the Reason TV interviews at the link Che Is Dead provided, and my head nearly exploded. I never knew the word "choice" had so many definitions.
"We make people buy social security because if we did not do that - they'd get old and destitute and we'll all have to pay taxes to keep them from living in cardboard boxes.
Social Security protects other taxpayers, eh?"
Give it a rest, Larry. You go on endlessly with this bullshit without ever getting a clue. SS is a pay as you go Ponzi scheme - period. A transfer of income from young workers to older retirees. There is no way you can spin it to make it anything else.
This comment has been removed by the author.
It seems to me that having people pay for their own care is a much better alternative. And if you have a lot of people dying earlier your total costs are lower because they do not collect as much SS and do not have the chronic diseases that drain Medicare for years and years.
When you have a politician that agrees with you, let me know. Until then, it's an exercise in fantasy.
But it isn't fair because money is wasted by the government and used to finance activities that drivers may not support. A monopoly collecting a tax to finance itself is never fair.
Waste is in the eye of the beholder. Hypothetically, I may think that the Iraq war was a waste. You may think it was great.
That the sovereign has the power to collect taxes isn't really a debatable issue, at least until now...
You could have users pay for the services that they want. The state is never as efficient at delivering services as the market so I do not see why it needs to be involved at all.
Flesh out the mechanism that you foresee implementing that.
Clinton cut capital gains rates by almost a third. And helped to reform welfare. While he was a terrible president he looks good compared to Obama and Bush.
Obama has faced challenges that Clinton didn't. I happen to believe in a low cap gains rate, and it's lower now than it was under Clinton.
And despite Romney's probably false claim, Obama has toughed the work requirement for welfare, as per the request made of governors.
By the way, as I didn't listen to the speech, does anyone know if Obama again promised to stop the rise of the oceans?
"but that's why we make them put money aside themselves....
so they'll have it later and we won't have to take up the slack."
More BS. As you well know, there is no "money aside". It is put directly into the checks of retirees.
There is nothing to "be there" when workers retire except what then current workers "contribute".
Methinks
"Yet, we are sold a story by the Democrats that taxing cigarettes creates incentive to consume less of them and taxing income provides no incentive to produce less taxable income."
I'm not sure it's only Democrats, but apparently for some the word "incentive" has a number of different definitions just as "choice" does.
Whereas Canada is cintent to let someone else take care of their defense needs...
It that were only true. Canada has meddled and continues to meddle. Its idiotic government just closed down its embassy in Iran and has expelled the Iranians out of the country. It has funded al Qaeda in Libya and is Syria and has seen too many of its soldiers killed needlessly in Afghanistan. Canada does not need a large military because it is difficult to attack and occupy.
When you have a politician that agrees with you, let me know. Until then, it's an exercise in fantasy.
That was my point; so is your explanation of the way things are.
Waste is in the eye of the beholder. Hypothetically, I may think that the Iraq war was a waste. You may think it was great.
In the real world it is easy to understand what is waste and what isn't. If you want to use your earnings to fund a war in Iraq than you obviously don't think it is a waste. If you do you consider it a waste. Same for public transportation, health care, etc.
The trouble with you liberals (and conservatives are not much better) is that you want to pay for the things that you want with someone else's money. If you think that some of these programs, whether welfare or warfare, are so great why not use your own money?
That the sovereign has the power to collect taxes isn't really a debatable issue, at least until now...
Nobody is disputing the fact that thugs with lots of guns and a monopoly on initiating power can use those guns to collect tribute.
Flesh out the mechanism that you foresee implementing that.
How about the supermarket model? Or the insurance model? Those mechanisms work much better than government monopolies and consumers have the choice of provider.
Obama has faced challenges that Clinton didn't. I happen to believe in a low cap gains rate, and it's lower now than it was under Clinton.
Obama is an economic illiterate who lives in a fantasy world that is occupied by likeminded socialists and national socialists. Harding inherited a much bigger problem and managed to end the crisis by allowing the liquidation that Obama was afraid to let happen. Sharp contractions are not a rare phenomenon in American history. Because of certain limitations in the economies of the past and government meddling with the creation of credit (even under a hard money standard) there were periodic busts that drove numerous adjustments in the general economy. When governments let the market liquidate lousy investments the economic contractions ended quickly. When they didn't get out of the way the markets could not do their job and the malaise went on and on.
And despite Romney's probably false claim, Obama has toughed the work requirement for welfare, as per the request made of governors.
This is the typical spin coming from the Democrats. Yes, the GOP lies a lot. But on this issue it is a lot closer to the truth than Obama.
"It has funded al Qaeda in Libya and is Syria and has seen too many of its soldiers killed needlessly in Afghanistan"...
Wow vangeIV! You really do have a rampant sense of imagination...
“If those places are so damn good larry g how come people aren't pulling up stakes and moving there from this oh so horrible country?” seriously you think so? Look here rynekzlota24.pla
Wow vangeIV! You really do have a rampant sense of imagination...
Not at all. The facts are what they are, not what YOU imagine them to be.
"The facts are what they are, not what YOU imagine them to be"...
Therein lies your problem vangeIV, your lack of facts...
"The facts are clear. There were no WMDs. Bush lied. The Iraq war was harmful to the US economy"...
Again vangeIV as you've been shown numerous times before nothing in that sentence has any relation to reality...
The only liar is you and you're seemingly under the impression (ala pseudo benny) that more times you repeat a lie it will somehow morph into a fact...
"The facts are clear. There were no WMDs. Bush lied. The Iraq war was harmful to the US economy"...
Again vangeIV as you've been shown numerous times before nothing in that sentence has any relation to reality...
The only liar is you and you're seemingly under the impression (ala pseudo benny) that more times you repeat a lie it will somehow morph into a fact...
I guess that Bush was lying when he said that there were no WMDs then. Or that everyone else in the military who said the same thing lied.
Here is the liar in-chief himself admitting that Iraq had no WMDs and had nothing to do with 9/11. If you can still make the same stupid claims that Iraq had WMDs and that it had something with 9/11 you better send him a nice letter and send him the evidence because he is certainly looking for redemption.
Post a Comment
<< Home