CNN's Bash noted that McCain will continue to claim Obama is "going to raise your taxes" -- but not that it isn't true
SUMMARY: CNN's Dana Bash noted that Sen. John McCain "is going to try to hit much more on the idea" that Sen. Barack Obama is "going to raise your taxes," but not that the claim misrepresents Obama's tax plan. Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families.
During CNN's October 15 post coverage of the final presidential debate, congressional correspondent Dana Bash stated that "what [Sen.] John McCain started to do yesterday-- obviously, he did it tonight in the debate, and he'll do it tomorrow -- is on that issue of the economy, he is going to try to hit much more on the idea of that [Sen. Barack] Obama is going to spend more ... and he's going to raise your taxes." Bash did not point out that the charge that Obama will "raise your taxes" -- which McCain has indeed made repeatedly -- misrepresents Obama's tax plan. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families and raising taxes only on households earning more than $250,000 per year. Indeed, the Tax Policy Center concluded that, compared with McCain, "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers." Even McCain's own chief economic policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has reportedly said it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes."
During the September 26 presidential debate, McCain himself noted that Obama would provide "tax cuts," but returned, moments later, to suggesting Obama would "raise people's taxes":
McCAIN: Now, Senator Obama didn't mention that, along with his tax cuts, he is also proposing some $800 billion in new spending on new programs.
Now, that's a fundamental difference between myself and Senator Obama. I want to cut spending. I want to keep taxes low. The worst thing we could do in this economic climate is to raise people's taxes.
From CNN's October 15 post coverage of the presidential debate:
ANDERSON COOPER (host): Dana.
BASH: I'll tell you what John McCain started to do yesterday -- obviously, he did it tonight in the debate, and he'll do it tomorrow -- is on that issue of the economy, he is going to try to hit much more on the idea of that Obama is going to spend more, he's going to -- and he's going to raise your taxes; I'm going to lower your taxes. And where he's going to do it, he's -- just like yesterday, tomorrow he's going to go to the fiscally conservative Philadelphia suburbs because he thinks that that's a place that's going to play. But he's also going to continue to sort of reprise the theme from the end of his Republican convention speech, which is, "Fight with me. Fight with me. Fight with me." That's two-fold: One, it reminds people that he's kind of a patriot, and secondly is to energize that base and to remind people, "Don't give up, because, remember, I've come back from the political dead before."
COOPER: Well, the race continues, Wolf, for another 19 days.
As Joe the F***ing Plumber illustrates, the Republican base is delusional about this issue. Do they really think that they will all be magically elevated to the top 2% of income earners just because they are hard working Amurricans?Pigboy Limbaugh has them convinced that the only reason they're not rich yet is because of those evil Liberal taxes.
Hey, that's cool! I can't even get a link to turn blue; I'm impressed.
I was thinking during the debate that, if he had eyes in the back of his head, his head would just float away. Under the power of those eye lashes.
I think McCain's curious blinking is actually him sending coded messages to Vladimir Putin... ;>)
Have you got one where he's doing that creepy thing with his tongue?
If anyone wants to know what I'm talking about, here's a YouTube video from the first debate.
well, I've got this one about Palin as president. It's gauranteed to keep righties entertained for hours!
http://www.palinaspresident.us/
I just thought he was white as a ghost. I didn't realize he was Blinky
I just thought he was white as a ghost. I didn't realize he was Blinky
Nerz, I think I may have gained some new insight into the wingnuts confusion about Obama's tax plan, thanks to Mike Gallagher's show on the drive in to work this am.
I've been checking out quite a bit of wingnut radio lately, and there seem to be a lot of very scripted-sounding callers concerned about the possibility of a President That One, they're about evenly divided between "small business owners" who won't be able to hire people or give raises, and employees of small businesses who are worried about losing their jobs.
Gallagher had a caller, supposedly a dentist with an office staff of 9 people, who was voicing these same concerns/talking points, as he was beyond that 250k mark.
. Somebody in the studio (possibly an intern or assistant, he sounded fairly young) asked Gallagher what seemed like a pretty obvious question, did the cut-off applied to gross or net. Gallagher insisted that it was gross.
I swear, he's telling his audience that a dentist's office grossing $250,ooo (assuming no overhead, that staff of nine people would have an average salary of under 28k) would be seeing an increase in taxes.
So I have a question for the conservative posters here; Have some of you actually been talked into the idea that a small business, not an individual, making 250k will be getting the tax increase? If you're a reasonable conservative, do you know anybody who believes this?
I know this is embarrassing to admit about our fellow Americans, but maybe the Obama camp needs to really dumb this down for those who can't seem to grasp the difference between gross & net, or the concept of taxable income.
Anybody else seen this same confusion being pushed and/or believed by anybody?
Excellent point...I heard a similar discussion on a local right wing talk radio show. Perhaps this is a Republican talking point being circulated. My impression was that the $250,000 threshhold was net income, not gross. It seems illogical that it would be gross income.
I agree. That's a very good point. If a small business owner has a net PROFIT of $250K I'm really not going to lose any sleep over him paying a couple thousand more in taxes.
It is illogical, Irony, because it's bullsh*t, but I think a lot of working-/middle-class suckers have swallowed this stuff. Theoretically,Joe the Plumber is working for somebody else making 75k a year, then buys the business, which grosses 250k.
The idea that Joew will then be filing 250k of personal taxable income may seem pretty far-fetched to reasonable people, but may actually be the delusion that some of our fellow Americans are voting under.
Colonel, it's so simple, a child could understand it. Heck, a child came up with the idea. Somewhere, an innocent, angelic child, untouched by the corruption of liberal indoctrination recognized that when a third party bully steals part of their milk money, they can no longer afford to buy milk. That puts the lunch lady out of a job. And the farmer. And cows die. And the child grows weak, and can't attend school any more. And teachers are layed off. And finally, the uneducated weak child, his bones degenerated by a lack of calcium and his teeth rotting, can't get out of bed to go see the dentist. Colonel, you advocate the death of a child by defending the liberal taxation bully? How disgusting...
Killing children is not the primary goal of the evil taxation I love so much, it's just a fun little perk.
Killing children is, however, the meat & potatoes of my fanatical pro-abortion position. My favorites are the viable babies that make it out of the womb alive,sometimes long enough to get a sweet taste of Mother's Milk. That's when I really enjoy putting the hammer down.
I know there are some "PC" types who would condemn me for this, but I think they just hate those with different opinions.
That may be the case, or it could be as simple as the fact that Rush Limbaugh is telling them their taxes will go up, and they believe everything Rush says.
I'm pretty sure it's net income. I have a business license and do a little freelance work on the side. If I can show that my business expenses are higher than my income from that business, then I pay no taxes on my freelance income.
I've heard these same callers on Pigboy Limbaugh's show... there was even one guy who swore that if Obama got elected, he was going to fire all his employees and shut down. I think these may be what Pigboy often refers to as "seminar callers". It's hard to believe that there are that many business owners who are that stupid.
As for the dentist.... boo hoo. I went for a cleaning and x-rays last week. $220. They can afford to pay more taxes.
You're missing the point Col. There are 42 million Americans working for "small business". Two thirds of those have gross over the 250k mark. I'm speaking of the small business here not the employee's. A lot of those owners pay their taxes as individuals, not as the "business". Do you think there will be any incentive for growth under Obama's plan? How long will it take America to crawl out from this economic mess? It is predicted that the economy will grow less than the 3.3 % that is has over the last fifty years.
Both candidates plans will grow the economy but at different rates. McCains is based on economic growth and job creation. Obama's is based on tax credits and redistribution of wealth. He will also increase tax rates on capital gains and dividends to 20%.
Both however will increase the national debt.
T-Bone,
I guess you completely missed what Col. was saying. Try a little reading comprehension next time.
Pretty amazing, Skeptical. I'll only bother with one question from that post;
Do you think there will be any incentive for growth under Obama's plan?
Yes.Of course there will. Most people running a small business are sharp enough to realize that they won't make less money by doing more work or having more employees to do work.Why do Republicans have such a difficult time with the basics?
TBone, I think you're missing the point. If a small business owner is taking home 250K after meeting all expenses, then that business owner is doing very well, thank you. They don't fall into the category of "struggling small business" that the Republicans insist will be hurt by this tax increase.
Do you think there will be any incentive for growth under Obama's plan?
Yes - the acquisition of wealth. It would seem that republicans would understand this concept, but their rage at having to pay taxes seems to inhibit their ability to think.
Taxes are not a disincentive to the acquistion of wealth. I'll type it again, slowly: T a x e s a r e n o t a d i s i n c e n t i v e t o t h e a c q u i s i t i t i o n o f w e a l t h .
Let's say that someone's make 250K, and his taxes go up. (actually they don't - under Obama's plan, taxes don't change between 250K and 603K). The business owner has three choices: 1) Live with it. 2) Lay somebody off (repubs will pick this one). This has the added "advantage" of decreasing your income even farther. I think this is Joe the plumbers plan. 3) Drum up more work, hire another employee, and make more money.
Voila - a tax increase created a job.
Have you or anyone else seen this? Haven't really checked into it, but it seems this Joe may be related to Charles Keating...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7474700
I think, to save time, all reporters should just issue a blanket disclaimer that whatever claims John McCain makes about Barack Obama are either distortions or outright fabrications.
Would that include Jeff Christie, Karl Rove, and Sarah Palin, or just John McCain only?
And what about Barack Obama's claims about John McCain?
Tell us what claims Obama has made against McCain, personally, that are outright incorrect? Talking about personal attacks here.
With the economy pretty well insuring that less and less people will have jobs, McCain's tax rhetoric is relevant to fewer people every day.
Stick with it, Mavrick.
Good point...you have to be making money before you should worry about how much of it will go for taxes. John McCain still doesn't get it...
So raising taxes is the answer?
Not "THE answer", but it may be necessary; we still have to pay for President Numbnut's bogus Iraq adventure. Giving rich people huge tax cuts while we were fighting two wars was one of the most irresponsible acts of an irresponsible presidency.
So raising taxes is the answer?
It is not THE answer...but creating jobs and allowing people who need it to keep more of their pay is part of a sound and fair approach. My point is that John McCain appears to be out of touch with the needs of middle class and working families and still favors first taking care of the wealthy. It tells me a lot about a candidate when he is in favor of a plan that would increase his own taxes, because he makes a lot of money, and allowing people who earn less to keep more of their money. Right now those people need it more...
And, BTW, I'm not buying trickle-down economic theories...
Trickle-down economics = capitalism Trickle-up economics = Marxism
(maybe it's a 2D view, but that's how I see it)
I don't think raising taxes is the answer, but I think a better answer (in terms of the ND) lies in reducing government spending. When you're in debt, you cut your spending before considering asking your employer for a raise. To me, the American people have sacrificed enough in this economic situation, and to me, both candidates want the American people to sacrifice even more.
I think the economy would improve if Americans could spend on other Americans (as well as themselves) instead of solely to the government (which either goes overseas or to special interest groups).
In terms of job creation, it's not the government's duty to create jobs, but rather the duty of the aspiring entrepeneur. If jobs are going overseas, OK, now you have a bunch of people looking for a job, and someone creating jobs now has a pool of desiring applicants.
Now we've seen the disasters of "trickle-down economics" time and time again, where there's a dual-class system of the proleterait and the bourgeoisie, which then leads to the proposition of "trickle-up economics", and the disaster of member rotation between the two classes occurs (the poor become rich and the rich become poor, rinse and repeat).
Both candidates want the American people to sacrifice more you say. Well, not if you're in the 95% that don't make or take home $250,000 / year, as with Obama's plan, you get to take HOME more money. With McCain's plan, the rest of us will still be funding the richer amongst us.
It's not the government's job to create jobs, indeed, but they can do things to make it a good environment for doing so.
Thing about trickle "up" economics, is that the poor aren't going to become wealthy, but will have a little more cash in their pockets. With trickle down, as we have seen, the rich get richer, and decide to keep their cash, instead of spending it on creating new jobs and things like that, like we're told trickle down is supposed to support (never happens).
magnolialover posted:
Well, not if you're in the 95% that don't make or take home $250,000 / year, as with Obama's plan, you get to take HOME more money. With McCain's plan, the rest of us will still be funding the richer amongst us.
Not true Mag. Your after-tax disposable income will be higher under McCain's plan than Obama's. This is based on lower taxes and economic growth under both plans over a ten year period. Under McCain it will be over $5100 and Obama's will be around $3300. At the end of the ten year period those rates go up to over $9k for M and $5k for O. These numbers are based on a family of four BTW.
Your source? How is this difference in economic growth between the two candidates calculated?
With this, you're counting the $5000 tax credit that McCain wants to give us to buy health insurance, which won't be take home. You'll spend that on insurance, which for most of us, won't cover us for the entire year. You're quoting direct from McCain's campaign plan, without noting the 5k tax credit that he keeps touting as the answer to all of our health care concerns. Take for example, the fact that I currently pay $120/month for my employer subsidized health care plan. My employer pays another 350 / month for my coverage, bring it to a yearly total of a little over $5600, and that's just for me. Double it if I add my wife to my plan, and hence, 5k comes nowhere near being able to cover both of us for a year. Actually, under the McCain plan, don't they project that we'd have another 20 million people who would NOT have health insurance? Then add to the fact that McCain wants to collect income tax on our health benefits and we're screwed a lot more with his plan, plus he wants to extend, and INCREASE the Bush tax cuts at a time in history when we have more national debt than ever before.
I just got my paycheck. Medical/Dental withheld was $401.42 for my family's coverage. This is pretty basic, middle-of-the-road coverage. That translates to $9,634.08 per year. Health insurance costs have been growing at rates far beyond that of inflation for years now, and there's no rational reason for it. And I don't want to hear any BS about trial lawyers and lawsuits; that stuff has been long debunked.
You're absolutely wrong.
Capitalism is based on the private citizen's right to production and trade. The more that's produced, the more wealth present in the society, and the more that can be used by the government to provide for the common good by providing services that are deemed to be better-managed from a single entity (military, highways, etc.). Labor, and therefore production, is spurred by the promise of wealth in a capitalist society. When that promise of enough wealth is attained so that the laborer can hire other laborers to produce, the former laborer - now employer - gets a share of the profit that the production of his employees returns. If the labor doesn't produce, those at the top will still continue to take their share....of NOTHING. THAT is trickle-up economics. It's not government controlled because it doesn't need to be. The government only regulates the trade of currency, futures, and interests - wealth that does not yet exist. That's what makes capitalism work.
What we're seeing now is the results of trickle-down economic policy because the idea of production has been abandoned. We don't make anything. We speculate and play monetary games with the country's future wealth. The imaginary wealth that accumulates in the form of paper promises and assumption is supposed to trickle down, which means that when someone receives a paycheck, it's a representation of faith of future production, but little else. As soon as the faith becomes unstable, and when there is little actual wealth represented by currency, the economy comes to a halt. That's what makes capitalism fail.
In Communism, production and trade is owned by the state, and bears a more close resemblance to trickle-down economics because the wealth that is distributed is rationed by the government. It could work, but won't because of the nature of men, whose greed will result in less and less wealth being distributed, which does NOT spur production and labor.
This is a brilliant and factual retort. People often forget that its actually labor that generates real wealth in this country. Fat cats pushing paper around creates false wealth that easily evaporates when bubbles burst and the market comes to their senses. Any sensible economic policy should encourage long-term investment while discouraging speculation. That's why capital gains taxes are so important.
Well, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, had Bush not cut taxes, we would have seen a surplus in 2007 - even with the Iraq war.
This whole mantra of "tax cuts pay for themselves" is demonstrably untrue, and even the Bush treasury has concluded this.
http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm
A tax increase that affects the top 2% (not five - everybody assumes that tax increases start at 250K, which isn't true. INCREASES start at 603K) isn't going to hurt the economy. Tax cuts for lower and middle income taxpayers will actually stimulate the economy, because most of them have no choice but to spend it.
Increasing the Capital Gains Tax? Will have little or no impact on the economy. It's not the investor class that creates jobs or drives economic growth. It doesn't affect retirement plans, which is where the vast majority of Americans hold stocks. A cut in the Capitol Gains Tax does just what republicans want - puts more money in the hands of the wealthy, w/o that messy "helping the poor" thing.
I know it would MMFA happy if none of the networks had any reporters covering the campaign from the McCain perspective, and only had those advocating for Obama on their debate or political coverage, but this WITH thread is silly.
Bash is clearly outlining McCain's strategy, she is saying what McCain plans to do. Read your own headline MMFA, "Bash noted.....McCain will.......claim......."
This intolerance for any and all McCain coverage is unbecoming.
They shouldn't be covering the campaign from any certain "perspective". They should be just covering it, and stating the facts, which Bash forgot to do.
She did state the facts, exactly what McCain plans to do. She is covering his campaign, she is telling the viewer what their strategy is. That is what reporters do, for all the candidates.
So she should just fallacies go through? As in, McCain keeps saying that Obama wants to raise your taxes, and here is why that's untrue? Somehow, that would be a bad thing? As in, making McCain accountable (and Obama when he speaks misinformation) for what he says?
You're correct that this "is what reporters do," but the problem is that reporters are ignoring an important part of reporting when they do that. I think that's why MMFA keeps highlighting stuff like this. From the cable news I've seen (and I try to keep that to a minimum) the reporters make a big deal about it whenever they purport to be "fact-checking" what a candidate says. Reporting is supposed to be all about fact-checking, though. It's all but completely useless for a reporter to devote her attention to what candidates say or what she expects them to say if there is not even one comment about the veracity of those statements.
It would be on thing if a report featured a view of the race from one camp's perspective or another as one facet of the story, but it's becoming more and more the case that reporters don't bother to do that.
I watched "All the President's Men" again a few weeks ago, and I was struck by how that could never happen with today's media. Woodward and Bernstein, as young reporters today, would probably write that "there was a burglary reported at the Democratic Party Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. Some say the Nixon administration is involved. Some in the administration state this is crazy-talk." Then they would go off and try to land a scoop on Miley Cyrus.
Sorry for the rant - I do understand your point, I just get frustrated that Bash and almost everyone else on TV don't seem to be doing their jobs.
It's not a rant Jeff, you make good points. In this case Bash is laying out McCain's strategy, she is not condoning it, or validating it, or vetting it, or fact-checking it......she is simply stating what they plan to do. She isn't reporting that Obama is going to raise taxes, she is reporting McCain's claims in the context of campaign strategy. It would be no different than if she said McCain is going to tie Obama to Ayers, simply relaying that strategy is not saying it's true, it just is what it is.
There are plenty of these fact checking segments on CNN, I see them all the time, the "cut through the bull" stuff, and it's a good thing, for it does give the viewer both sides.....but when a reporter is telling me what a particular candidate is going to do via strategy, and clearly identifies the source as coming from "the McCain campaign", then I take it in that context, I don't accept it as truth.
meant to hang this on
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7474700
Oh no, my computer went crazy on me. my reply to myself is on the wrong posting meant for a personal friend of mine who lijkes to read that stuff.
Of course he is going to raise taxes for people making under $250,000. This was the same crap sold to us by Bill Clinton. He was afraid that the American people would think he was too "Far Left" and not vote him into the presidency just as they did for Walter Mondale. Mondale lost out on the presidency because he was honest about his leftist views.
He is? Can you show us where in the Obama tax plan he states that he's going to raise taxes on people making less than $250k? If he does it say, 2 years from now, then you can say that you're right, but currently his policy states anyone making less than $250k / year will get a tax cut.
My point is that his plan is rubbish. He's lying to us! Just as Bush 41 lied and just as Clinton lied. His current plan may not show any taxes for incomes under $250K but it's bull! The day he steps into office his tax plan will change.
That's idle speculation on your part. You are free to express baseless speculation, but don't expect it to be compelling.
Cons go on and on about how the top 5% produces most of the wealth of the country. If so, then it only makes sense to go to these same people for tax revenue we need to balance the budget and pay for the excesses of the Bush Administration. Taxing the people who don't have that much money wouldn't make much sense.
Mag, I think AS is just resorting to what seems to be a pretty popular theme on righty radio these days, valiantly throwing himself into a batallion of strawmen.
Never mind that the best example of a prez. doing the opposite of what he promised on taxes is (as noted) Daddy Bush, and AS hasn't provided any evidence of what he's implying about Clinton's flip=flopping, he's made a strong case against Obama based on a wild-ass prediction of what Obama will do , according to Rush Limbaugh.
Whaddya expect, a discussion of facts?
“If you talk to Warren [Buffet], he’ll tell you his preference is not to meddle in the economy at all — let the market work, however way it’s going to work, and then just tax the heck out of people at the end and just redistribute it,” Obama said. “That way you’re not impeding efficiency, and you’re achieving equity on the back end.” He continued by saying that he thought there was some merit in Buffett’s argument.
If you are in the top 5% you will get little sympathy from the masses. Too bad, so sad. You can go sulk about it in your gold-plated hot tub.
I just got my paycheck. Medical/Dental withheld was $401.42 for my family's coverage. This is pretty basic, middle-of-the-road coverage. That translates to $9,634.08 per year. Health insurance costs have been growing at rates far beyond that of inflation for years now, and there's no rational reason for it. And I don't want to hear any BS about trial lawyers and lawsuits; that stuff has been long debunked.
I just thought he was white as a ghost. I didn't realize he was Blinky