During Dem debate, ABC's Gibson suggested middle-class families would be hurt by proposed rollback of Bush tax cuts
SUMMARY: During the ABC News-Facebook debate, moderator Charlie Gibson suggested that the Democratic presidential candidates' proposals to roll back or let some of President Bush's tax cuts expire would affect middle-class families, adding, "If you take a family of two professors here at St. Anselm, they're going to be in the $200,000 category that you're talking about lifting the taxes on." According to the U.S. Census, however, the median income for a U.S. household is $48,451, and the mean household income is $65,527; and only 3.4 percent of U.S. households have an income of $200,000 or more.
During the January 5 ABC News-Facebook Democratic debate at St. Anselm College, in Manchester, New Hampshire, moderator and ABC's World News anchor Charlie Gibson suggested that the Democratic presidential candidates' proposals to roll back or let some of President Bush's tax cuts expire would affect middle-class families. After Gibson noted that the Democratic candidates are "all talking about letting some of the Bush tax cuts lapse," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) replied that they would roll back "tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans, not the middle class." Gibson continued: "If you take a family of two professors here at St. Anselm, they're going to be in the $200,000 category that you're talking about lifting the taxes on." In fact, contrary to Gibson's suggestion that $200,000 is a typical, middle class household income in the United States, the U.S. Census Bureau's data for 2006 -- the most recent year available -- place the median household income at $48,451, and the mean household income at $65,527. According to the Census data, only 3.4 percent of U.S. households have an income of $200,000 or more.
Gibson did not cite a source for his assertion that a family of two St. Anselm professors would make more than $200,000 in taxable income, an assertion that was met with laughter from the audience and the remark from former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) that: "I don't think they agree with you." According to the American Association of University Professors, a full professor at St. Anselm in 2006-2007 had an average salary of $77,400 (not including other taxable benefits given to St. Anselm faculty).
From ABC News' January 5 broadcast of the ABC News-Facebook Democratic debate:
GIBSON: Senator Edwards, I will take this question to you -- but you raised the issue of the economy right now. And we have a housing crisis in this country.
CLINTON: Yes, we do.
GIBSON: We have an energy problem in the cost of energy, and we now have a jobs problem. We have, when we are -- and you raised the 'R' word, recession -- when we are approaching recession, it is consumers who have spent us out of recession in most cases. You're all talking about letting some of the Bush tax cuts lapse.
CLINTON: Yeah, but Charlie, the tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans, not the middle class tax cuts. One of the problems with George Bush's tax policy has been the way he has tilted it toward the wealthy and the well-connected.
GIBSON: If you take a family of two professors here at St. Anselm, they're going to be in the $200,000 category that you're talking about lifting the taxes on. And --
[laughter]
EDWARDS: Oh, I don't think they agree with you.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): I'm not sure that that --
CLINTON: That may be NYU, Charlie; I don't think that's St. Anselm.
GIBSON: Two public schoolteachers in New York?
EDWARDS: Charlie --
GIBSON: But that is -- you're in a situation where you're taking money out of the economy.
CLINTON: Look, if we set the cap where I'm saying, at 250,000 and above, that's a very small percentage. And what I want to do is fix the alternative minimum tax; create these new job opportunities, primarily through clean, renewable energy; but also, get back to where middle-class families get the kind of tax relief that they deserve, which they really haven't been getting under George Bush.
EDWARDS: Can I say --
GIBSON: Go ahead, yeah.
EDWARDS: Thank you. What you see happening in America today -- if you're president of the United States, and you're looking at this from altitude -- is you see very few Americans getting wealthier and wealthier. You see the biggest corporations in America, profits through the roof. Exxon-Mobil just made $40 billion -- record profits. All of that happening at the same time that we have 47 million people with no health care; 37 million who will wake up in this country tomorrow worried about feeding and clothing their children.
Tonight, 200,000 men and women, who wore the uniform of the United States of America and served this country honorably, will go to sleep under bridges and on grates. It's time for us to say, and it's time for the president to say, "Enough is enough." This is a battle for the future of our children. This is a battle for the middle class. Let's take jobs, which we haven't talked about. We've touched on a lot of other things, but we haven't talked about jobs. We've had a trade and tax policy that is bleeding American jobs, and all it has done is pad the profits of the biggest multinational corporations in America. You talk about professors here at this college. Let me say --
GIBSON: Well, I shouldn't have done that, apparently.
Charlie, boy you're out of touch bro.
It's one thing, as a questioner, to be a "Devil's Advocate" and state a question in terms of existing policy, or even suggesting a contrast with a candidate's opponent's proposals.
But Gibson was an ADVOCATE of Rightwing talking points. He was pimping for Bush's tax cuts here, stating rightwing talking points as if they represent REALITY, and using examples that show Gibson to be as out-of-touch with average Americans as GW Bush and crew are.
But most obviously, Gibson's bias was evident when he questioned the panelists on the topic of "the Surge", which Gibson INSISTED was "working". Gibson's advocacy mirrored McCain's, which amounts to "Now that it is TRUE that the surge is WORKING, how can you stick to a plan to get out of Iraq?"
Gibson went candidate to candidate, bewildered that he couldn't get a reaction to his PREMISE, which he personally believed to be true; that they surge was "WORKING".
Hillary pointed out that the SURGE was never intended to be an end in itself, that it was a MEANS to a specific GOAL: To settle down Baghdad in order to provide lawmakers IN Baghdad a calmer atmosphere in order to complete difficult POLITICAL agreements to set up Iraq as self-governing.
Richardson pointed out that our military has NEVER fallen short of doing THEIR part, and being successful in MILITARILY accomplishing their goal, but that for the surge to have "WORKED", the goal of Political Progress would have to be realized ... and that goal utterly FAILED.
Despite these responses, a bewildered Gibson clung to his premise, stunned that he wasn't getting the answer he desired (that the Dems had changed their minds about Iraq being a disaster ... i.e. the Administration's position and claim.)
Charlie Gibson, just another MSM tool of the rightwing, posing as an "objective" journalist.
At least we can take heart in the fact that our candidates have gotten beyond accepting the right wing frames and have begun to propel the debate on their own terms.
That's a huge step. The sooner we lefties stop repeating the conservative memes and begin placing the debate in our arena, the sooner the country will get behind the reality based Progressive candidates. Not just Presidential politics will be affected, but local politics, where the rubber meets the road, will Progressive change begin to move the country to a better future.
LET'S NOT OVERLOOK THE MAJOR IMPLICATION OF GIBSON'S GAFFE:
Rightwing POLICY is based on their "world view", their notion of what is "average", their beliefs about the nature of society as a whole.
For rightwing POLICY to be the correct policy for America, their notions of REALITY need to be correct ones. If rightwing policy makers base all their national decisions on the realities of THEIR OWN LIVES alone, or base them on portraits painted by rightwing talking points over the years (like Reagan's mythological "Cadillac Driving Welfare Queen"), biased stereotyped and fictional characterizations ... then their POLICY for America will be entirely based on FALSE PREMISES, lies, and myths.
Policy based on such FALSE notions of reality simply CANNOT BE CORRECT POLICY. Such fantasy notions of WHAT IS causes a myriad of logical errors that lead to WRONG choices and policy that will HARM rather than help America.
Gibson has no personal financial problems, we can easily guess by his multi-million dollar salary, and so he believes NOBODY has money problems. Gibson has no doubt done very, very well under Bush's policies. If anyone DOES have money problems, he can concede, it's their own damn fault for not becoming a news anchor.
Such arrogant, head-in-the-sand evaluations of America's social situation would lead a person to believe there are no problems to be solved, and that status quo should reign for perpetuity. After all, I don't have any problem, so what's the problem?
Bottom line: Gibson is the personification of the Rightwing mindset: They don't KNOW reality, so are totally unprepared to THINK about problems and solutions. It's not in their databases, their experience, their consciousness. They aren't even AWARE of being ignorant, because THEIR OWN reality is all the reality they need in order to function.
It has always been thus with the "noble classes", the "aristocracy". Marie Antoinette said, "let them eat cake", and the only nod to any societal problems were wrapped up with infrequent fits of "noblesse oblige", where the nobleman would deign to toss a few coins to the beggers in the street as he passes from one castle to another.
Republicans cannot be trusted to "lead" in America, because they have no idea what America is all about. And, like Donald Rumsfeld classically admitted, they "don't know enough to know what they don't know."
Absolutely on the mark, Tex.
Gibson... like so many of his talking head brethren... is a direct and personal beneficiary of the Bush tax cuts. If those cuts are allowed to expire, it will personally cost him a sh*tload of cash. He's going to do whatever is within his considerable power to keep that from happening.
The unfortunate thing is that he chose to be dishonest in his advocacy of maintaining those tax cuts. He attempted to argue that it will hurt the MIDDLE CLASS, rather than it will leave HIM with a little less money stuffed into an already bulging trust fund. He was motivated by greed and self interest, and his journalistic ethics were tied up, gagged, and shoved in the trunk of an ABC limo as a result.
We can expect far more such displays as we get closer to November. Television 'pundits' and 'journalists' are paid such enormous amounts of money, that they inevitably gravitate toward whichever party will protect THEIR narrow interests rather than those of the nation as a whole. Empty right wing talking points will again replace reality as the basis of their questions, as was clearly the case the last two presidential elections.
Brace yourselves, everybody.
Aha! So, to Gibson and his Corporate Media bosses, the "middle class" is everyone in the top 3% of incomes, except the to 0.1%?
I think I finally understand!
Congratulations Conley! You have cracked the elitist corporate media code.
Hey, My family is middle class. I guess Cahrlie means to give us a raise to $200.00.00 a year. I'll take it by gosh and the taxes that come with it before or after GWB!
Meant Charlie,. The other guy Carhile knows what middle class people make. ;-0
What Middle Class people? Are there still any around?
I also loved Gibson's concern over those "two" married professors who make $100,000 a year each, too. How many of those familes are there? -- most profs I know are part-timers who live in their cars all day!
My sister has a PhD from Harvard and is a professor at a small university in the south. She isn't making anything close to that.
My family has no class, but we'd love a raise like that too. I think we could budget properly to accomodate for any tax rate.
So Gibson figures a Middle-Class couple is one pulling in a combined salary of $200,000? Well damn, I guess I just found out we must be poor...
Do we qualify for food stamps?
Not yet, you have to own a couch so you can be stereotyped as a couch potato first. It might be a good idea to learn a few cuss words too, I hear the right wing says poor people can't order iced tea without them! ;)
OT, but this car is so cool! It runs on air and can do 70 MPH.
That is a cool car Snoop, I'd like one just for tooling around town...not sure I'd like it for the highway though...a big ole tractor trailer might run me over :-O
Well I own a couch & I know me some cuss words, so can I please get my food stamps now that Mr. Gibson has knocked me out of the Middle-Class ;-)
Gibson's obvious out of touch attitude comes from the fact that HE makes at least $8 million per year, which means he makes 165 times more than the median household income.
His uninformed question reminds me of a Nelson Rockefeller press conference from the early 1970s. Rockefeller began his response to a question about tax policy "now, take the average family making $40,000 a year..."
In 1973, the median income was about $10,000, so Rocky was WAY off in his estimate. In fact, to see just how far off he was, his $40,000 figure in 1973 is equivalent to about $187,000 in 2007.
Only in Republican politics can the top three percent of incomes receive the benefit of tax cuts. Only in the so called liberal media can that elite be referred to as the "middle class."
Gibson and others in his profession obviously have forgotten or have no idea what it's like to work 40 hours a week for ten dollars an a hour, a salary that's more than the minimum wage, but yields the "living wage" of just $20,800 a year. They spend more than twenty grand a year on incidentals.
Mind you, I have no problem with people making money and getting rich. Just don't forget where you came from, and remember to do what you can to make sure others get a similar opportunity.
Right on. Well put.
Nelson Rockefeller press conference from the early 1970s
Even more recently: In 1982, Ronald Reagan called $50,000 a year "a low to moderate income." At the time, median income was in the 30s.
(applauding)
You guys are cracking me up.
Are you trying to say you want your taxes raised?
A very small percentage of us qualify for a tax increase under any of the Dem proposals. However, we all live with the overhang of national bankruptcy proposed univerally by Repugnants.
Coulda been "universally". If I had an "s" on that old keyboard of mine. This new one has as "s", but it ocassionaly sticksss.
You bet your ass I do.
If you're waging a war in my name, I should be willing to pay for it not my grand children.
If we want to live in a civilized "society", we need to pay for a safety net for those who've fallen through the cracks.
I know, I know, a "benevolent" unfettered corporate friendly government would mean that riches would "trickle down" on those who need help the most.
You want eternal war, get off your ass and pay your share of the tax bill required for it.
No eejit. We want the "median" salary of $200,00.00. Only in Republicant speak could you discern anything else.
I thought stranger said he was disappearing after the holidays. Guess he's a MM addict; can't quit while he's behind. At this rate, he'll need a post hole digger to retrieve his forlorn talking points.
i think what we are saying is throw the bums out who misspent the taxes collected and are now screaming " tax hike '. History will record GW Bush and the idiots that elevated him to republican sainthood are the real thieves here.
I guess this stuff still works on the 30%ers (Hi, The Stranger!), somehow creating the image of that typical two professor family making 200K (damn liberal professors!) and implying that they are being taxed to death.
I caught a little bit of Huckabee stumping tonight (on Fox, I think), and decided to listen, as I'm trying to see any good in the GOP candidates, in case the Dems decide to give it to them, as some have suggested on another thread.
Huck started into an anecdote about a guy working two shifts at a machine shop, with a daughter in Grad School at Cornell.
"All right!" I thought to my hopeful, naïve self, "he's going to talk about education spending and the erosion of the middle class."
Wrong. He went on to explain how that Blue-collar guy was being taxed 100 different ways.Capital Gains tax, Estate (for those of you moving your lips while reading this "Death") Tax, everytime the guy sold a company or dumped his portfolio, he was being taxed again, and forced back onto that swing shift to run the lathe.
It would be funny if you didn't know they survey and test this bullsh*t, and they know they can get people making 50k a year or less really pissed off about taxes that wouldn't affect them if they made 30 or 40 times their income this year.
I'm going to spend the next year trying to have faith in my fellow Americans, and hoping that the GOP isn't too successful in mobilizing the Idiot Vote.And I'm still pushing for some sort of basic entry test for the right to vote.
Call it elitist, I just think a very fundamental quiz, open book, notes provided, wouldn't be a bad idea for handing over something just as important as a driver's license.
"You guys are cracking me up. Are you trying to say you want your taxes raised?"
Yes, because as Shaw said, taxes are your best investment.
Are you trying to say you want your taxes raised?
There is an important but almost invariably overlooked point here: Letting the tax cuts lapse is not a tax increase. It will return tax rates to where they were before what was specifically labeled a temporary cut went into effect.
If a grocery has a week-long sale on chicken, would you think it made sense to storm into the store the day before the sale ended and denounce all and sundry for their "intent to raise the price of chicken" come tomorrow?
I very much doubt it. But that is exactly the argument that's being made re: taxes.
Hey, anybody and everybody whose taxes will "go up," you got a deal, you got a break, you took advantage of a sale. But the sale should end and you should be happy for what you gained during it and stop griping about things going back to the way they were.
Yes, the capitol gains tax is really going to hurt; almost as much as the estate tax. Please save the middle from these hardships.
I meant middle class.
You guys are cracking me up. Are you trying to say you want your taxes raised?
No.... We want YOUR taxes raised, if you make more than 200K. Get it?
STRANGER:
Taxes are a relative thing.
IF I made an offer here, I have a job opening, it pays $20 million a year, but there is a catch: The TAX rate on that $20 million is 80%!
Do you suppose the 80% tax rate would make people say, "That tax is just TOO HIGH, I'd never work a job just to pay that rate!"??
Would you really? The "TAKE HOME" pay from such a job would be $4 MILLION. Do you really think ANYONE would turn down this offer, just because of the TAX RATE? Would YOU turn this job down (strictly because of the TAX)? Be honest, now!
So, a discussion of TAX RATE is completely relative, because it depends entirely on other circumstances. Simply calling always for "lower taxes" is utterly meaningless. The discussion is ALWAYS about other factors.
For example, polls have asked "Would you pay higher taxes if America had universal health care?" The response is overwhelmingly "YES!"
Also, Americans polled about, "Would you want a tax cut, even if it meant raising the nation's DEBT an equal amount?" say overwhelmingly "NO!"
Taxes are relative, Stranger. The old GOP canard that tax cuts are an end in themselves, and ALWAYS a winning policy ... is just WRONG. It DEPENDS.
YESSSS!!!!!
My wife and I don't make that lucrative college professor salary, but I am completely willing to pay a little more in taxes. It is the best investment I could possibly make. In what other way could I pay a few extra dollars a paycheck to get safe food, a clean environment, safe drinking water, roads, parks, libraries, etc., etc.
Oh I forgot, the free market would take care of all of those things! If a company poisons people by contaminating drinking water, the families of the dead and diseased people could sue for damages. Oh I forgot, we have tort reform also, so they can't even do that. Well, I guess clean water isn't that important, right?
Here in lies the big problem. Most of us here realize that $200,000 is above middle class in this country. But the Politicians and the Media stars (those with a national wide audience, not the locals) tend to "earn" so much that they feel $200,000 is middle class. Few of them, Pols and Media Stars, live now, nor have ever had to live, like you or I. This is the cause of the one of the largest disconnectsin this country, as I see it. I see the same problem on a local scale also, even though we are looking at something on the scale of 1/3 to 1/2 of Gibson's figure. This is in an area where the median income is 60% of that listed above. I would like to see for one or two years, all income above Gibson's figure taxed at 100%, perhaps then the Pols and Media Stars would have some idea as to how the rest of the country has to cope.
Sounds just like one of my "old" tax proposals, except *I* wanted 110%!
In the long run, I started to concentrate on only inherited wealth - $5mil ($10mil for disabled or other special cases) to any except spouse, no taxes; 100% above that. My calculations showed that since we turn over the entire country each 50 years, that would have nearly replaced the income tax - in present circumstances, would at least pay the interest on Bungle's borrowings.
I wonder sometimes if those that make over $300,000 even remember what its like to pay their fair share of the taxes paid by the rest of us "mythical little people" (Thanks Trent Lott for that bit of wisdom)....
With few exceptions (Warren Buffet to name one)......
Those that work with/at the corporate run media have decided that their precious million dollar contracts are more important to hold on too than the truth that could ultimately save this country!
They have way too much to gain in a Republican victory, and that's why they are slamming Democrats. It takes great strength of character for a rich man to advocate trimming his own sails, and-- no surprise-- these guys ain't that kind.
I think Gibson meant to say that he would be hurt by a rollback of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.
BULL'S EYE, LOONZ!!!
LOONZ:
You have the terminology wrong.
Gibson would not be HURT by a rollback of Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy ... he would be PUNISHED.
The GOP is all about their base constituency (the very wealthy) being VICTIMS, who are PUNISHED for being ACHIEVERS.
So don't say HURT, say PUNISHED. Charlie would have to dramatically alter his current lifestyle, if Bush's bonanzas were curtailed. If you would allow this punishment, you must be eaten up with CLASS ENVY.
It's important to get the terminology right.
"...PUNISHED for being ACHIEVERS."
Don't forget "successful", Tex.And "Wealth Re-distribution". ;0)
HBL:
LOL. Yes, the ONLY measure of a person's "success" is their pocket book. Forgot that one.
As to "wealth redistribution" ... it's the entire goal of the Bush Administration. They wish to take cash from your pocket and mine, and REDISTRIBUTE it into Halliburton's offshore accounts. THAT "redistribution" has been highly successful, shifting TRILLIONS from the "middle class" and transferring it to the wealthy.
Mission Accomplished!
I don't know where Charles Gibson got his salary figures, but they sure don't agree with what's reported by teh Bureau of Labor Statistics for postsecondary teachers. According to what I found on their web site, less than ten percent of college professors earn six-digit salaries:
I think Charlie likes those tax cuts because he benefitted from them personally.....
WZ,
As you clearly show, the facts have a liberal bias.
WZ,
As you clearly show, the facts have a liberal bias.
By definition, facts are liberals and lies are conservative.
End mega-corporate welfare, don't reward muti-national corporations for moving offshore, and roll back the reagon tax cuts for the wealthiest, making them pay their fair share of their use of the commons, as Thom Hartmann says. Then we could be progressing instead of regressing.
Pretty sad that the most overexposed talking heads, commentators and alleged journalists on the tube are the most wealthy and clueless about their fellow citizens.
The major broadcast media don’t even hide their zeal to trash the largest threat to their globalist corporate owners and advertisers, Hillary Clinton – for she is a doer, not simply an orator. Having neutralized Hillary, we’ve seen signs of going after Obama – after all, any democratic ground swell must be “managed” so as not to capture too much the American psyche. Any “rumor” pervading the offices of a news organization that “progressive politics do not positively impact our operations” sends a clear signal to news segment producers acting like pundits (Charlie Gibson/Chris Mathews) the stance their editorializing should take … lest they find their show budgets slashed.
A scary thing is how blatant the media were in not covering Hillary’s clear dominance in Saturday night’s debate relative to her detailed perspective of the issues.