Those kind of bizarre untruths were like a series of small gifts for political watchers and late-night comedy writers alike. But just because some of its more colorful wheels have come flying off, that doesn’t mean the GOP clown car isn’t still moving down the road toward the November elections.

We thought we’d take a look at some of the brazen falsehoods offered up by the candidates who remain standing today.

1. Mitt Romney: No Apologies

Mitt Romney wrote a book called “No Apology,” and has repeatedly said on the campaign trail that Obama took a world tour at the beginning of his presidency to issue mea culpas to dastardly foreigners everywhere. This lie is so brazen not only because it never happened, but also because Romney uses the talking-point in speech after speech.

Ironically, as James Taub noted in the New York Times, “In a major speech in Cairo in 2005, Condoleezza Rice, then Mr. Bush’s secretary of state, said that ‘for 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East — and we achieved neither.’ What was she doing if not apologizing on behalf of the United States — and vowing to put an end to a pattern of misguided policy?”

2. Newt Gingrich: Christmas Warrior

Why should the nutjobs at Fox News have all the fun? In Davenport, Iowa, on December 19, Gingrich revealed the results of something he said he’d “been investigating … for the last three days.” What was it?

Apparently if the president sends out Christmas cards, they are paid for the Democratic or Republican National Committees because no federal official at any level is currently allowed to say ‘Merry Christmas.’ And the idea, I think, is that the government should be neutral. … I’m going to go back and find out how was this law written, when was it passed. We’ve had this whole — in my mind — very destructive attitude in the last 50 years that we have to drive religion out of public life.

Guess what? Yup – he just pulled that one out of… perhaps one of those mass emails your crazy right-wing uncle keeps forwarding you.

3. Ron Paul: New Poll Shows That Everyone Agrees With Me!

We’d guess that most Americans haven’t given much thought to Ron Paul’s quixotic quest to return the United States to the gold standard and the regular cycle of booms and crushing busts that long accompanied it.

But on January 3, Paul told his supporters, “today there was a national poll that came out and they were talking about how many people supported the gold standard. How long has it been since they’ve taken a national poll on the gold standard? And guess what? The majority of the American people believe we should have a gold standard and not a paper standard!”

Politifact asked Paul’s campaign to provide some documentation, and they were pointed to a column that referenced three polls showing slim majorities of respondents holding a favorable view of the idea, but they were polls of only Republicans and Republican leaners, and they were conducted in just three states. A real national poll, meanwhile, found that the gold standard is on the wish-list of a minority of Americans.

4. Santorum: A Dingo Is Eating Your Baby! (Or Something)

Rick Santorum is obviously a man who is fascinated with dead babies and inflammatory rhetoric.

Last March, he married the two in an attack on Obama at the Iowa Faith and Freedom conference. Speaking of a wingnutty bill that would require doctors to treat fetuses after “botched abortions,” Santorum said that Obama had opposed the measure when he was in the Illinois state senate, which was true, but then went on to claim that Obama had “said in fact that any child, prior to nine months of gestation would be able to be killed.” He added: “Think about that: any child born prematurely, according to the president, in his own words, can be killed. Now, who’s the extremist in this abortion debate?”

There are some things that shouldn’t even need to be debunked. Obviously, no politician would ever go on record saying something so crazy – that’s just common sense.

But if you really need to verify that Obama never suggested anything of the sort, here’s the fact check.

5. Romney’s Tax Fairytales

Mitt Romney said he wouldn’t release his returns, then he said he’d release them in April and then Newt Gingrich gave him a hard time and he folded. It’s courage like that which makes one wonder how he’d deal with North Korea.

Anyway, the returns show that the “unemployed” candidate made over $40 million in 2010 and 2011, and paid 13.9 percent in taxes on those sums. A paltry figure, and Romney is responding to the criticism he’s received on the topic with two age-old and wholly dishonest conservative talking-points, and an additional sleight-of-hand, all rolled into one juicy bundle of mendacity.

Via Think Progress, this is what he told Univision’s Jorge Ramos in an interview this week:

ROMNEY: One of the reasons why we have a lower tax rate on capital gains is because capital gains are also being taxed at the corporate level. So as businesses earn profits, that’s taxed at 35 percent, then as they distribute those profits as dividends, that’s taxed at 15 percent more. So, all total, the tax rate is really closer to 45 or 50 percent.

RAMOS: But is it fair what you pay, 13 percent, while most pay much more than that?

ROMNEY: Well, again, I go back to the point that the, that the funds are being taxed twice at two different levels.

Mendacious talking point, the first: “double-taxation.” We don’t tax “funds” in this country, we tax transactions. If a company turns a profit on its transactions, it pays taxes on that profit. When it pays money out to investors as dividends, or when investors sell stock at a profit, those transactions are also taxed. No transaction is taxed twice.

Mendacious talking point, the second: that 35 percent tax rate. That’s the top corporate tax rate on the books, but because businesses take advantage of all manner of loopholes, the effective rate – what they actually pay — is actually far lower. It’s a classic conservative talking-point that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but the reality is that we collect less in corporate taxes than most developed countries. Studies of some of the biggest companies have shown their effective tax rates to be, on average, less than half of what’s on the books.

And the sleight-of-hand: Bain Capital is a Limited Liability Company. This is what’s known as a “pass-through” structure, meaning that the company pays zero in corporate income taxes – the partners’ shares are taxed as income or losses on their personal returns, and in this case, most of the gains are investment income taxed at 15 percent.

In other words, even if we bought the “double-taxation” nonsense and the 35 percent rate, his talking-point still wouldn’t be true.

6. “Nancy Pelosi May Destroy the Entire Gop With a Single Wave of Her Wand”

That headline is borrowed from Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent, who reports on a dark conspiracy theory Mitt Romney has embraced to argue that Newt Gingrich is unelectable.

Sargent explains:

There seems to be a very persistent belief in some Republican and conservative circles that Nancy Pelosi is in possession of secret and damning information about Newt Gingrich that would immediately cause his presidential campaign to implode if she leaked it.

A little while ago, Pelosi said in an interview that she was familiar with “a thousand pages” of documents related to the ethics probe of Gingrich that got him bounced from Congress. That triggered the first round of right-wing conspiracy-mongering….

But, alas, she was just talking about the House Ethics Committee’s report on Gingrich’s corruption, which is already widely available. In fact, if you want to read Pelosi’s “secret” treasure-trove of damning info, it’s available online right here!

7: Gingrich: Conservative Republicans Are Secret Liberals

Speaking of which, Newt himself is offering a big lie about his ethics troubles. He said this week that he’d been wholly exonerated in the investigation – an odd claim given that he was sanctioned by the House and it fined him $300,000 to cover the costs of the investigation.

Romney and his partners then exploited a loophole in the tax code that allowed them to pay just 15 percent of their growing fortunes in taxes — a rate less than what many of their companies’ employees forked over to Uncle Sam.

“By and large, [government] gets in the way of creating jobs,” Romney said during a GOP debate last year. But, as the Los Angeles Times noted, “during his business career Romney made avid use of public-private partnerships, something that many conservatives consider to be ‘corporate welfare.’”

On the campaign trail, Romney often touts a successful investment in an Indiana steel company called Steel Dynamics, but he doesn’t mention that the firm had taken advantage of “generous tax breaks and other subsidies provided by the state of Indiana and the residents of DeKalb County, where the company’s first mill was built.”

But that’s a small part of the public largesse Bain enjoyed. Most of the big money the firm brought in during those years was extracted through “leveraged buy-outs,” a reality that Romney doesn’t like to talk about on the campaign trail. Instead, he wants to talk about Staples, which was one of a small handful of Bain’s venture capital deals. The 89,000 people employed at the office supply chain go a long way toward the campaign’s dubious and unsourced claim that Bain “created 100,000 jobs” under Romney’s tutelage. But venture capital represented a small share of Romney’s deals, and it’s important to understand the distinction between venture capital and leveraged buy-outs.

You won’t hear much criticism of venture capital deals like Bain’s investment in Staples. It’s a very basic free-market transaction — investors put money into a company at its early stages in exchange for a share of the company. If the start-up doesn’t pan out, the investors lose their stake; if it grows and matures, they make healthy profit, usually when the company goes public or is sold off. In venture capital deals, investors only make a profit when the company that receives their cash does well.

Leveraged buy-outs are a different creature entirely. Leveraged buy-out firms became so closely associated with the most rapacious and unsustainable form of capitalism in the 1980s, that the entire industry rebranded itself as “private equity” to escape the stigma.

Leveraged buy-out artists also deal with risky companies — usually those struggling to stay afloat — but they don’t actually take on much risk themselves as they structure the deals so they profit whether the target company becomes healthy and grows or collapses, often under the weight of debt piled onto it by the private equity firm itself.

Here’s how the deal works. The leveraged buy-out firm will put down a fraction of the cost of buying an ailing company. The balance of the transaction is borrowed, but the debt goes onto the books of the target company, not the private equity firm — the struggling company basically finances the lion’s share of its own sale.

And here’s the key point: The target company’s debt payments increase significantly, and those debt payments are then written off, reducing its tax burden significantly. This subsidy increases short-term revenues — at the expense of long-term debt — and that, in turn, is paid out in dividends to Bain’s investors and a fat stream of management fees that Romney and his partners skimmed off the top.

(The industry-standard structure of these deals is known as “2 and 20.” Management gets 2 percent of the capital that they invest as a fee, and 20 percent of the profits that the fund realizes. That 2 percent represents between 2-4 times what the average management fees for a mutual fund usually run, and is collected regardless of how the fund does.)

Josh Kosman, author of “The Buyout of America, “How Private Equity Is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy,” told Mike Konczai that a typical leveraged buy-out deal decreases a target-company’s tax burden by half. A recent study by researchers at the University of Chicago estimated that the average tax benefit of these companies’ increased debt-loads in 1980s equalled “10 to 20 percent of firm value,” which, as Konczai noted, “is value that comes from taxpayers to private equity as a result of the tax code.”

This is important to understand as it lays bare the defenses Romney’s spinmeisters have employed to fend off criticism of his past as what Rick Perry called a “vulture capitalist,” and Newt Gingrich described as a business based on “figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company.” (Let’s pause here to savor the hypocrisy: a Texas teachers pension fund, one of the largest in the state, is an investor in Bain, and all of its trustees are Perry appointees, and Gingrich himself sat on a board of Forstmann Little. A major competitor of Bain Capital.)

First, those criticizing what private equity funds like Bain do are not assaulting the “free enterprise” system. To the contrary, they are calling out a gamed tax system which guaranteed that Romney and his partners would make healthy profits, regardless of whether the companies they acquired went belly-up. Romney claims that he took risks and shouldn’t be criticized for reaping the rewards, but the game Bain played was in fact antithetical to the free-market model.

Second, one need not be “envious” of Romney’s fortune to be bitter about the means by which it was accrued. Contrary to the line Romney and his flacks have adopted, critics are not begrudging him riches won by hard work and prudent investment. Bain is deserving of our opprobrium for its rent-seeking at the expense of workers at the companies it bought out and through a series of tax subsidies, and Romney’s hypocrisy in suggesting that he was simply a free marketeer must be called out.

Romney talks a lot about “creative destruction” — about how he made the hard decisions that would allow troubled, inefficient firms to grow. But Bain’s interest was to its investors, and it flipped companies quickly, reaping huge profits and often leaving them saddled with debt — often high-interest debt financed with “junk bonds” — that they struggled to service.

That short-term focus didn’t necessarily serve its acquisitions well. Another steel mill, one Romney doesn’t discuss on the campaign trail, is South Carolina-based GS Industries. Bain acquired the company for $24.5 million in 1993, and by the end of the decade Bain estimated that its partners had made $58.4 million on the deal, including “multimillion-dollar dividends” and “annual management fees of about $900,000,” according to the Boston Herald. Bain left the company saddled with over a half-billion in debt, and it filed for bankruptcy in 2001.

“We were doing well and then Bain Capital bought us and they took everything they could out of the company without making the investments we needed to stay competitive,” James Sanderson, who had worked at the mill since 1974 told the Herald. “They ran the company into bankruptcy.”

Sanderson said the fund “replaced longtime managers who had built Georgetown Steel with bean counters looking for ways to cut costs.”

Along the way, 1,750 workers lost their jobs. According to the Herald, “less than a year after taking a controlling interest in the Georgetown plant, Bain Capital cut the employees’ profit-sharing plan twice — lowering the plan’s hourly rate from $5.60 an hour to $1.25 per hour.” The profit-sharing plan was soon phased out altogether.

Layoffs and benefit cuts led workers at the company’s Kansas City, Missouri plant to strike for the first time in four decades. A state legislator accused Bain of union-busting during the 10-week dispute. Sanderson told McClatchy in 2000 that Bain “forced a labor dispute at every location.”

This is the model of “free-enterprise” that Mitt Romney brags about, and on which he built an estimated $200 million fortune. It’s the model on which he continues to make millions of dollars today. According to the New York Times, “the final deal of his private equity career” was a “retirement agreement with his former partners that has paid him a share of Bain’s profits ever since.”

It’s vulture capitalism — one of the many ways in which our bloated financial sector extracts wealth from the productive economy. And we can thank a couple of craven Republican candidates for the fact that we’re talking about it.

To borrow the loosely defined terms that define the Occupy movement, these ordinary citizens have shifted the conversation away from what the “1 percent” — the corporate right and its dedicated media, network of think tanks and PR shops — want to talk about and, notably, paid good money to get us to talk about.

Peter G. Peterson, a Wall Street mogul and Nixon administration Cabinet member, has reportedly dedicated a billion dollars of his fortune to the effort since the 1980s. How successful have he and his fellow travelers been? In 2009, the Washington Post came under fire for running an article – in its news section, not its opinion pages – written by Peterson’s Fiscal Times, which the watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting described as “a propaganda outlet … [formed] to promote cuts in Social Security and other entitlement programs.” (It was Peterson Foundation employees, among those from other outside groups, who staffed Obama’s “bipartisan deficit commission.”)

As I noted back in May, a study done by the National Journal that month quantified what the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent described as a “deficit feedback loop,” in which “the relentless bipartisan focus on the deficit convinces voters to be worried about it, which in turn leads lawmakers to spend still more time talking about it and less time talking about the economy.”

According to the Journal, “major U.S. newspapers have increasingly shifted their attention away from coverage of unemployment in recent months while greatly intensifying their focus on the deficit.”

The analysis — based on a measure of how often the words “unemployment” and “deficit” appear in major publications — portrays a dramatically shifting landscape of coverage over the past two years, as the debate over how to fix the federal deficit has risen to prominence and the question of how to handle still-high unemployment has faded from the media’s consciousness.

Consider the impact that relentless focus on the deficit – and declining coverage of the jobs crisis and housing meltdown — had on public opinion until very recently:

(click for larger version)

Now fast-forward five months, and we see an entirely different media landscape. According to the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, the economy dominated last week’s news, grabbing 24 percent of the mainstream media’s “news hole.” Occupy Wall Street accounted for 10 percent of the news hole, up from 7 percent the week before, and 2 percent the week before that. (The death of Libyan leader Moammar Ghaddafi drew more attention to foreign policy issues this week, but the economy continued to be a dominant topic.)

Last week, Zaid Jilani of Think Progress offered some data that tell the tale of a dramatically shifting media landscape. He noted that “at the beginning of August, when Washington, DC was debating the debt ceiling crisis, the national debt dominated the airwaves.”

While it was appropriate for the media then to be covering the deficit due to the debt ceiling debate at the time, there was a stunning lack of coverage of the jobs crisis. A ThinkProgress review of the media coverage of the last week of July found that the word “debt” was mentioned more than 7,000 times on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, and “unemployed” was only mentioned 75 times.

But, writes Jilani, a recent “review of the same three networks between Oct. 10 and Oct. 16 finds that the word ‘debt’ only netted 398 mentions, while ‘occupy’ grabbed 1,278, Wall Street netted 2,378, and jobs got 2,738.”

This sea-change can’t be attributed only to the Occupy movement – it also correlates with the White House’s “pivot” toward jobs and the economy – but there is no doubt that Occupy Wall Street has played a major role in bringing attention to the plight of working America. Even House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., acknowledged the occupiers’ grievances when his office announced that he would be giving an address “about income disparity and how Republicans believe the government could help fix it.” One would be naïve to believe Cantor would ever support such measures, but it nonetheless marked a dramatic departure from the GOP’s usual class-war stance. (Cantor later canceled the speech when he learned he would be greeted by protesters.)

The real-world impact of this shift is difficult to predict, but the problems on which our mainstream discourse focuses are the ones most likely to be addressed.

LeGreca achieved a bit of viral fame himself when he confronted a Fox News reporter at Zuccotti Park earlier this month. The footage never made it onto the network, but another camera was rolling at the time – a protester’s – and in the end the segment was viewed on YouTube by hundreds of thousands of people. “It belies the truth of fair and balanced,” LaGreca told AlterNet. “If it doesn’t fit the narrative that they’re trying to create, then it ends up on the cutting-room floor.”

The other purpose is to keep the police honest. “I tell people to document everything, record everything – it’s really the best way to keep ourselves safe,” LaGreca said.

Cameras are changing the way protests are being viewed around the world. In February, the New York Times ran one of 1,000 stories about how protesters in the Middle East were using cellphone cameras to “upstage government accounts” of the “Arab Spring” and draw “worldwide attention to their demands.” The humble cellphone camera, noted the Times, “has become a vital tool to document the government response to the unrest that has spread through the Middle East and North Africa.”

And so it has been during what some have dubbed the “American Fall.” There are currently more cellphones in the United States than there are human beings. Digital cameras are everywhere – they’re small, cheap and ubiquitous at protests — and they’re creating a sea- change in the way the public views dissent here at home. “It’s a lot harder for police to sweep allegations of abuse under the rug when it’s on video and on YouTube,” Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told AlterNet.

“Public video recording has dramatically changed the landscape of police accountability – no question about it,” Lieberman said. “And it’s also impacted the standing of the police department and the police commissioner.” She added that during the now-infamous crackdown on protests surrounding the 2004 Republican National Convention, her organization viewed the ever-present police surveillance cameras as an effort to intimidate protesters, but, “what we learned in the aftermath of the RNC, was that the police department’s own video was a double-edged sword, because not only did it serve their interests, but it also carried the promise of a ‘pictures don’t lie’ kind of record of what went on.”

Lieberman noted that video evidence had led to the dismissal of charges against 227 protesters from one location alone during the tumultuous week of demonstrations. “We’ve already seen that the videos of what happened on the Brooklyn Bridge are being used to urge dismissal of those hundreds of arrests there,” she added.

Protesters’ cameras have created many of the iconic images of this movement: NYPD supervisor Anthony Bologna pepper-spraying several women at point-blank range; a protester – later identified as activist Felix Rivera-Pitre – being spun around and punched in the face by a cop; a legal observer being run over by a police scooter and then hit with a baton by another cop; a Marine – and Iraq vet — yelling at befuddled cops that ‘these are American citizens and they have no guns.’ These images helped propel a small movement into a global phenomenon. Lieberman said of the pepper-spraying incident, “I think it was among the many factors that galvanized the public to stop cheering from their computer screens and go down to Wall Street to be part of this protest movement.”

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told AlterNet that the video of the women writhing on the ground in agony might end up having an effect similar to that of the infamous civil rights-era footage of Bull Connor setting dogs on black protesters in the South. “That just changed how Northerners viewed the Southern struggles,” he said. “And I think we’ll see this as more and more videos emerge of people being beaten, sprayed and unlawfully caged during these protests.”

Video offers a way for ordinary citizens to hold law enforcement accountable. “Self-policing by the police department is absolutely hopeless,” says Ratner, a veteran defender of Americans’ civil liberties. “We have a civilian complaint review board here [in New York] – completely hopeless. It’s a culture that I think will never correct itself.” But, he added, “despite the fact that we’ve seen a lot of violence — more violence than I would have ever wanted to see – our hopes are that there is less violence than there would have been but for the video cameras.”

Cameras have become an integral part of activists’ legal strategy. “We just encourage everyone to get out there with their cameras,” says Ratner. “Let the cops push you around, let them slap you, let them arrest you, but it’s absolutely crucial to get your cameras out there. Because all the lawsuits we can bring, which we should resolve five years from now, won’t make the same difference as putting that stuff on YouTube and the evening news will do.”

Cameras aren’t just shining a light on aggressive crowd control. Videos of police abuse at traffic stops, “stop-and-frisk” incidents and just about everywhere else litter YouTube, and according to the New York Daily News, the constant scrutiny is having an effect on rank-and-file officers. “The morale in the whole department is in the crapper,” a veteran Bronx cop told the paper. “You can’t be a police officer no more,” he said. “You’re a robot. You’re under the microscope. You’re under video surveillance. We feel like the perpetrators now, the way we’re being displayed.”

For photographer Carlos Miller, who runs the website Photography Is Not a Crime, which catalogs instances in which citizens are harassed or arrested for recording in public spaces, the answer to that is simple. “It’s when they act like idiots that these videos go viral,” Miller told AlterNet. “If they acted professionally, the video would be boring and nobody would care. I have a friend who’s a captain in a local police department, and he tells his guys that they should just always assume they’re on camera,” he said. “If they abide by the law, then there shouldn’t be a problem.”

Miller became an activist after being arrested for photographing public spaces in Miami in what he dismissively terms “the whole post-9/11 environment,” and since then he has tracked efforts to punish citizens for recording what they see around them. In three states – Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois – people have been arrested on felony eavesdropping charges.

In Maryland, a motorcyclist named Anthony Graber was shocked when police raided his home, confiscated his computer and charged him with a crime punishable by up to 16 years in prison for recording a traffic stop. Thankfully, a judge threw out criminal charges in the case (leaving Graber with several traffic violations), ruling that a police officer on duty should have no expectation of privacy.

“We saw a sharp increase in those arrests last year,” said Miller, “but less this year because a lot of these cases were being thrown out of court and city attorneys began issuing memos saying, ‘you really can’t arrest people on wiretapping in these circumstances.’ But they still happen.” What’s more, “a lot of times you’ll hear police threatening people with it. We had a video recently where this arrogant cop in Pennsylvania came up and threatened to arrest these people on wiretapping charges, but in Pennsylvania, there isn’t even a law on the books.”

In Massachusetts, secretly recording police is a crime, but doing so openly is not. An Illinois law that requires police officers to give their express consent before being recorded is being challenged by the ACLU and other groups. “There’s been a lot of litigation on whether we have the right to video the cops doing their job,” said Michael Ratner. “And it’s been litigated for a reason: The last thing the cops want is to have the light put on them.”

That raises a question: Given that cameras are everywhere, and police feel, rightly, that they’re operating under great scrutiny, why do we still see these apparently abusive acts ending up on YouTube? Are they unaware of the bad P.R. that flows from these images of abuse? NYCLU’s Donna Lieberman thinks it’s what you might call the “reality-TV effect.” The police department “is very conscious of the fact that they’re under the microscope,” she said, “but as with any situation where you tell somebody, ‘we’re taping all the time,’ you can’t keep your guard up and be conscious of your behavior every second of the day and at some point you forget that you’re in front of the camera and just behave like yourself.” She added that while “the vast majority of officers behave professionally, some number lose it, and the video cameras cry out for them to be disciplined.”

I recently offered a less Orwellian definition, arguing that real class warfare is when those who have already achieved a good deal of prosperity pull the ladder up behind them by attacking the very things that once allowed working people to move up and join the ranks of the middle class.

But there’s another way of looking at “class war”: habitually vilifying the unfortunate; claiming that their plight is a manifestation of some personal flaw or cultural deficiency. Conservatives wage this form of class warfare virtually every day, consigning millions of people who are down on their luck to some subhuman underclass.

The belief that there exists a large pool of “undeserving poor” who suck the lifeblood out of the rest of society lies at the heart of the right’s demonstrably false “culture of poverty” narrative. It’s a narrative that runs through Ayn Rand’s works. It comes to us in bizarre spin that holds up the rich as “wealth producers” and “job creators.”

And it affects our public policies. In his classic book, “Why Americans Hate Welfare,” Martin Gilens found a striking disconnect: Significant majorities of Americans told pollsters that they wanted public spending to fight poverty to be increased at the same time that similar majorities said they were opposed to welfare. Gilens studied a number of different opinion polls and concluded that the disconnect was driven by a widespread belief that “most welfare recipients don’t really need it,” and by racial animus — “perceptions that welfare recipients are undeserving and blacks are lazy.”

That narrative ignores two simple and indisputable truths. First, contrary to popular belief, we don’t all start out with the same opportunities. The reality is that in the U.S. today, the best predictor of a newborn baby’s economic future is how much money his or her parents make.

It also ignores the fact that living in an individualistic, capitalist society carries inherent risk. You can do everything right — study hard, work diligently, keep your nose clean — but if you fall victim to a random workplace accident, you can nevertheless end up being disabled in the blink of an eye and find yourself in need of public assistance. You can end up bankrupt under a pile of healthcare bills or you could lose your job if you’re forced to take care of an ailing parent. Children — innocents who aren’t even old enough to work for themselves — are among the largest groups receiving various forms of public assistance.

Of course, there are always people who game the system, but they represent a tiny minority of recipients; a Massachusetts study found that fully 93 percent of all cases of “welfare fraud” were committed not by the “undeserving poor,” but by vendors — hospitals, pharmacies, nursing homes, etc.

Smearing those who face real structural barriers to achievement or who will inevitably face real and random misfortunes in a “dynamic,” capitalist society — that’s some real class warfare. Here are six excellent examples of the form.

1. Registering the Poor to Vote Is “Un-American”

Matthew Vadum is a very special wingnut. His current preoccupation is attacking Zombie ACORN — an organization that sane people know to have been killed off last year by James O’Keef’s selectively edited videos but which Vadum insists is alive and well and looking to undermine America by organizing poor communities.

Vadum recently wrote a very special column in the American Thinker, in which he railed against efforts to get poor people registered to vote. What made the column noteworthy is that Vadum skipped the usual conservative blather about “voter fraud” — a problem that’s virtually nonexistent — and offered a refreshingly honest take on the subject. The problem, according to Vadum, is that “the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.”

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country — which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

Rarely has so much wrongness been packed into so few words. Less than half of those receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) — the most significant anti-poverty program remaining in our welfare system after the Clinton-era “reforms” — are unemployed. About a quarter work jobs that earn poverty wages, and the rest aren’t in the workforce because they’re disabled, caring for a relative or their children. In fact, almost half (48.1 percent) of all TANF families receive benefits only for the kids, not the adults. It’s true that children are, in strictly economic terms, “nonproductive,” but they will be productive someday, and more so if they receive adequate nutrition, housing, healthcare and the like.

The other problem with this argument is the idea that the poor vote for “redistributionist politicians.” First, because all politicians are “redistributionist” — it’s what government does — and second, because, as Martin Gilens discovered, while Americans hate the word “welfare,” large majorities — 71 percent of Americans; not just the poor — believe that spending on anti-poverty programs should be increased (as long as you don’t call it welfare).

Contrary to Vadum’s beliefs, there is only a small number of true reactionaries who desire to live in a society that doesn’t care for the poor and disabled, and it is in fact they who are “profoundly antisocial.”

2. Unemployment Benefits Have Created a “Nation of Slackers”

Media Matters says, “It’s taken three years, but America has finally graduated from being
“a nation of whiners” in 2008 to “a nation of slackers” in 2011 — at least, that’s what Rep. Steve King (R-IA) believes we’ve accomplished.” King, a right-winger’s right-winger, took to the floor of the House to deliver this word-salad:

The former speaker of the House, Speaker Pelosi, has consistently said that unemployment checks are one of those reliable and immediate forms of economy recovery, that you get a lot of bang for your buck when you pay people not to work, and they will go out and spend that money immediately, therefore we should pass out unemployment checks and stimulate the economy. That statement is ridiculous where I come from, Mr. Speaker. To pay people not to work, and somehow in that formula it stimulates the economy….

The 80 million Americans that are of working age but are simply not in the workforce need to be put to work. We can’t have a nation of slackers … We’ve gotta get this country back to work and get those people out of the slacker rolls and onto the employed rolls.

Here, too, we have a shining gem of wrongness. And a common one — the belief that unemployment benefits discourage people from working is widespread on the right.

Here’s a simple reality-check: There are no jobs! According to the Economic Policy Institute, “there are 6.9 million fewer jobs today than there were in December 2007.” Of course, the working-age population has grown by over 4 million in that same time. Do the math. As Mike Thornton noted on AlterNet, when you add people who are working a part-time gig but want a full-time job to the unemployed, you get 25.4 million workers vying for 3.2 million full-time job openings, “or 8 unemployed or underemployed workers per job.”

This is more of the same: King’s painting a picture of the undeserving poor living the good life on the tab of hardworking Americans. So it’s worth noting that among developed countries, the U.S. offers some of the stingiest unemployment benefits around — only two countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) replaced a smaller share of a worker’s earnings than the U.S. in 2004, and only the Czech Republic offered unemployment coverage for a shorter time.

In 2008, those unemployed Americans who qualified for benefits got $293 per week, or about 35 percent of their lost income, and that’s why conservative spin that the jobless are living it up on their unemployment checks instead of trying to find work is so ludicrous. (There is, however, some evidence that this is actually true in places like Scandinavia, where people who lose their jobs still take in 70 percent or more of their income, and in some cases can do so for an unlimited amount of time.)

King drives his point home using a classic tactic: take big numbers out of context to distort reality. There are in fact 85 million “Americans that are of working age but are simply not in the workforce,” and he would have you believe they’re all “slackers.” But that figure includes stay-at-home spouses, people who live off of investment income rather than a job, entrepreneurs, and of course the disabled and ill — people who can’t work. Back in January 2001, when the unemployment rate was just 4.2 percent, there were 69 million working-age adults who weren’t in the labor force. And the working-age population has grown by about 22 million since then.

And, of course, Nancy Pelosi was right that unemployment benefits have a huge amount of stimulus bang-for-the-buck — King is not only a brazen class warrior, he’s also economically illiterate.

3. You Can’t Really Be Poor if You Have a Color TV!

Is it not the height of class war to make a conscious effort to erase the poor from the public’s view? That has been a long-term project on the right, and one of the classic, if shopworn arguments goes like this: Back in the 1930s (or 1950s, or 1970s, depending on the speaker), most poor people didn’t own color TVs, but now 97 percent of them do! So the poor really should stop bitching — they’re living the high life!

Now, as of this writing, Craigslist offers the following items for free in the San Francisco Bay area: several TVs, multiple armchairs, a set of swivel bar stools, a stainless steel refrigerator, a Nordictrak elliptical trainer, a bunch of sofas and bed-sets — including a “like new” leather couch — a countertop grill, a “beautiful pine armoir” and some “Hydro Massage Soaking Tub and Sinks.” Those are just the listings posted in one morning. We create a lot of goods and people want the shiniest, newest things, so there are a ton of obsolete but still functional items like TVs and washer-dryers out there that one can get for nothing or next to nothing.

Perhaps my favorite example of the genre is the claim, accurate but divorced from context, that our poor have it good because they don’t necessarily live in shoe-boxes. As the Wall Street Journal was happy to point out, “The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.” Case closed! American-style capitalism for the win!

Well, not really. This is a simple matter of population density: In the EU-15, there are 120 people per square kilometer; in the United States, we only have 29 people per kilometer. And that average obviously includes people living in sparsely populated rural expanses. I live in a tightly packed U.S. city, and given that most middle-class people here can’t even dream of affording 1,200 square feet, I don’t think our poor folks can either.

4. Food-Stamps: “A Fossil That Repeats All the Errors of the War on Poverty”

Sometimes what passes for an “argument” is just stating a simple reality in an ominous tone. Consider this string of English words, offered by the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector:

“Some people like to camouflage this by calling it a nutrition program, but it’s really not different from cash welfare,” said Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, whose views have a following among conservatives on Capitol Hill. “Food stamps is quasi money.”

There are strict limits on what can be purchased with food stamps, which isn’t true of money, but, yes, they do contribute to a household’s financial health in the same way that cash does. That doesn’t negate the fact that it is, indeed, a nutrition program. But Rector wasn’t done — it gets better:

Arguing that aid discourages work and marriage, Mr. Rector said food stamps should contain work requirements as strict as those placed on cash assistance. “The food stamp program is a fossil that repeats all the errors of the war on poverty,” he said.

Perhaps this works in the same magical way that gay marriage “discourages marriage” — I don’t know. But what is clear is that, in the words of one anti-hunger activist, “Without food stamps, we’d have starvation.” According to the USDA, “14.5 percent of households were food insecure at least some time during” the past year, and “5.4 percent of households experienced food insecurity in the more severe range, described as very low food security.” It’s also the case that about a third of those who are eligible to receive nutritional assistance don’t, in part because of the stigma that people like Robert Rector has worked so hard to encourage.

These are real people experiencing very real problems making ends meet, yet Rector and his ilk would make it more difficult to get assistance because they’ve embraced the fact-free idea that the poor are plagued with a “culture of dependency.” That’s some serious class warfare.

5. “The Main Causes of Child Poverty Are Low Levels of Parental Work and the Absence of Fathers”

On Wednesday, the New York Yankees clinched the American League East title. On Thursday, it rained in New York. There is a correlation here, but only a fool would suggest that the Yanks’ victory caused it to rain the following day.

Yet, the Heritage Foundation (it happens to be Robert Rector again) sees a lot of poor, single-parent households, and would have you believe that “the main causes of child poverty are low levels of parental work and the absence of fathers.”

This gets the causal relationship wrong. The number of single-parent households exploded between the 1970s and the 1990s — more than doubling — yet the poverty rate remained relatively constant. In fact, before the crash of 2008, the poverty rate was lower than it had been in the 1970s. So, as the rate of single-parent households skyrocketed, poverty declined a little bit. Saying single-parent homes create poverty is therefore like claiming that the Yankees victory caused the sun to shine the next day.

As I noted recently, this is an essential piece of the “culture of poverty” narrative, and it is nonsense. Jean Hardisty, the author of “Marriage as a Cure for Poverty: A Bogus Formula for Women,” cited a number of studies showing that poor women have the same dreams as everyone else: They “often aspire to a romantic notion of marriage and family that features a white picket fence in the suburbs.” But low economic status leads to fewer marriages, not the other way around.

In 1998, the Fragile Families Study looked at 3,700 low-income unmarried couples in 20 U.S. cities. The authors found that 90 percent of the couples living together wanted to tie the knot, but only 15 percent had actually done so by the end of the one-year study period. And here’s the key finding: for every dollar that a man’s hourly wages increased, the odds that he’d get hitched by the end of the year rose by 5 percent. Men earning more than $25,000 during the year had twice the marriage rates of those making less than $25,000.

Writing up the findings for the Nation, Sharon Lerner noted that poverty itself “seems to make people feel less entitled to marry.” As one father in the survey put it, marriage means “not living from check to check.”

6. Taxing Working People Less Than the Rich Is “Perverse”

That half of Americans “pay no taxes” is a simple lie that will never die, regardless of how frequently it is debunked. It’s pure class war, feeding into the narrative of the parasitic poor feeding off the blood of the industrious. And it is totally divorced from reality — in the real world, the working poor and the wealthy have virtually the same tax rates.

Yet the belief that only a minority pay taxes is ubiquitous among conservatives. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said last month, “I don’t want to tax the truly poor, those who would help themselves if they could, but you can’t tell me that 51 percent of all households are the truly poor.” And here’s where the lie was created: “No matter what these Democrats tell you,” he said, “the wealthy and middle class are already shouldering around 100 percent of the nation’s tax burden and 51 percent pay absolutely nothing in income taxes.”

Note the sleight-of-hand. Federal income taxes make up only 18 percent of the taxes collected in this country. It also happens to be among the more progressive taxes, and with median wages stagnating for years, many people today don’t earn enough to have to pay them.

Hatch takes this fact, which again pertains to less than a fifth of the country’s total tax burden, and transforms it into “the wealthy and middle class are already shouldering around 100 percent of the nation’s tax burden” — completely and totally untrue. If we looked only at the regressive payroll tax, and dishonestly pretended that no other taxes exist, we could make a similarly twisted argument that the wealthy pay virtually nothing in taxes — billionaire investor Warren Buffett doesn’t pay a penny in payroll taxes.

When you include all taxes — not just those that erase working people’s contributions — you see that we really have something close to a flat tax. That’s the conclusion of a 2007 study by Boston University economists Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David Rapson, who found that when you add it all up — state and local taxes, federal taxes and excise fees — “The average marginal tax rate on incomes between $20,000 and $500,000 is 40.3 percent, the median tax rate is 41.8 percent, and the standard deviation of all of those rates is 5.3 percentage points. Basically, most of us pay about 40 percent, plus or minus 5.3 percentage points.”

Class War

All of these narratives are designed to protect a status quo that’s serving the interests of a rarefied elite, but is obviously not working well for the working majority in this country. All are intended to distract from the structural causes of poverty and inequality, or to ignore the fact that some people will always experience genuine misfortune — the myriad surprises in life that can happen to anyone — because they’d choose low taxes over caring for them.

But it’s also a narrative that denies the very existence of class differences in this country. As noted earlier, the United States is anything but a true meritocracy. What millions of white working-class Americans understand — intuitively, even if they can’t articulate it — is that class still matters. And by erasing the very idea of class, of structural barriers to getting ahead in this economy, they are left with a nagging sense of grievance against those they perceive to be bringing them down: foreign powers, immigrants, people of color and liberals, with their “job-killing” regulations and the like.

Ultimately, to deny the very existence of an entire class of citizens is to wage some very real warfare against them.