AP uncritically quoted McCain claim that Obama will "raise taxes" on homeowners
SUMMARY: The Associated Press quoted Sen. John McCain claiming that Sen. Barack Obama will "raise taxes" on homeowners. In fact, Obama has proposed "at least $80 billion a year in tax cuts to middle-class workers, homeowners and retirees," and specifically called for "extending a mortgage credit to taxpayers who do not itemize, generating about $500 in savings for 10 million people."
In a March 26 Associated Press article, reporter Delvin Barrett uncritically quoted Sen. John McCain claiming that Sen. Barack Obama will "raise taxes" on homeowners: "I'll do whatever's necessary to help the homeowner, the legitimate homeowner, and we may have to do more. ... But raise taxes as Senator Obama wants to do or some kind of massive bailout that is a needless expenditure of taxpayer dollars is obviously something that I don't support." In fact, as The New York Times reported, Obama has proposed "at least $80 billion a year in tax cuts to middle-class workers, homeowners and retirees," and specifically called for "extending a mortgage credit to taxpayers who do not itemize, generating about $500 in savings for 10 million people."
Barrett also quoted McCain's March 25 comment on the housing crisis that "it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers." Barrett omitted, however, McCain's statement that he does not think the Federal Reserve acted improperly by extending a $30 billion line of credit to facilitate the acquisition of the near-bankrupt investment bank Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase. In a separate March 26 AP article, reporter Liz Sidoti reported that the Federal Reserve "essentially bailed out the investment house Bear Stearns," and that McCain disagreed with the suggestion that the Federal Reserve "went too far in helping" the bank, saying: "It's a close call, but I don't think so."
From Barrett's March 26 AP article:
On Tuesday, McCain derided government intervention to save and reward banks or small borrowers who behave irresponsibly and offered few immediate alternatives for fixing the country's growing housing crisis.
"John McCain has admitted he doesn't understand the economy as well as he should, and yesterday he proved it in giving a speech on the housing crisis," Obama told an auditorium of supporters.
Obama pointed out that McCain "said the best way for us to address the fact that millions of Americans are losing their homes is to just sit back and watch it happen. In his entire speech yesterday, he offered not one policy, not one idea, not one bit of relief to the nearly 35,000 North Carolinians who are forced to foreclose on their dreams in the last three months."
North Carolina holds its primary May 6 with 115 delegates at stake.
"John McCain may call helping struggling homeowners pandering, but I don't think the families in North Carolina who are losing their homes would see it that way," said Obama, who is due to give what aides are billing as a major economic speech Thursday in New York.
In response, McCain said he clearly is in favor of doing more for homeowners.
"I'll do whatever's necessary to help the homeowner, the legitimate homeowner, and we may have to do more," McCain told reporters in California. "But raise taxes as Senator Obama wants to do or some kind of massive bailout that is a needless expenditure of taxpayer dollars is obviously something that I don't support."
In California on Tuesday, McCain said he wants to leave the door open to an array of proposals to address the problems and seemed to suggest he might even be open to solutions that stray from the GOP line.
"I will not play election-year politics with the housing crisis," he said, adding he would evaluate all proposals. "I will not allow dogma to override commonsense."
But the small-government advocate and four-term Arizona senator also put restrictions on how far he was willing to go, saying: "it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers."















I love kidding myself, and thinking I understand my place in the Jurisdiction of Law (and taxation)...
I hate it, when I am straightened out, and find myself ignorant.
I never knew property taxes had anything at all to do with the Federal Government.
Does "homeownershp" have anything to do with the U.S. tax code?
It shouldn't.
if you have a mortgage you can, unless you are in amt, deduct the interest. certainly you know that.
to that extent, the tax code has something to do with home ownership.
McCain will do whatever it takes to help the homeowner so long as it doesn't require shared sacrifice. That massive bailout you frame as a needless waste of taxpayer dollars is an investment in our longterm security, nitwit. It's our money, put it work for us. Give us the benefit.
What are you gonna do with it, sicko? Spend it on some other hundred year occupation?
For what it costs to sustain one day of the Iraq ocupation we could have sent 6,883 high school graduates to four fully funded years at public universities.
Republicans are pigs. They are completely unqualified and lack the requisite trustworthiness to be good stewards of our tax dollars.
"Or are you at some point going to make the same mistakes all over again knowing that a bunch of politicians are going to bail you out again - at the expense of someone else who’s living up to their commitments? Kinda like Pavlov’s dog, huh."
I'd like to hear JP Morgan's answer to that...seeing they are the beneficieries of the government's bail-out of Bear-Stearns. Will they make the same mistakes that BS did...know that a bunch of politicians are going to baile THEM out again...at the expense of someone else who's living up to their commitments?
So yes, I'd take the bailout just like the Wall St. guys are doing. The only difference is I would be grateful. And I like so many other people, yet unlike the Wall St. jagoffs, would learn the lesson.
See, I find it apalling that people who could never pay back the loans were given loans in the first place. Where was, where is the responsibility of the lenders in this mess? They get a bailout, why? Because they're too big to fail? Too interconnected and sprawled out in our economy to let go belly-up?
What? American families are not as valuable as some monstrous Wall St. entity? That's why the moral hazard argumet doesn't fly, sorry. Americans trying to do the right thing were taken advantage of by unethical salesmen and letting ordinary people sink while the Bear Stearns executive class, the guys who were deep into the deception, are getting a hand up is repugnant to me.
Executives may be putting their weekend home on the market, but several hundred of them are getting offers of cash and stock from JPMorgan to make up their for their losses. They'll probably keep their jobs too, or land in jobs that pay as well or even better.
It is my conviction that America stands for equality. In the spirit of the Bill of Rights the person who has prospered is fundamentally no better a human being than the person who struggles to survive. By that logic the guy living on Main St is the equal of any highly trained professional working on Wall St, why is ones labor valued more? It's ridiculous.
So to wrap it up, if Wall St. execs are too valuable to let fail, why am I of so much less value that guys like you would let me fail?
I heard a report that lenders were actually taught how to manipulate the computer system to show that someone was approved for a loan, when they clearly couldn't afford it.
If someone has a link...
Sen McCain and other republicans would like to concentrate wealth at the top. f people struggling at the bottom end go down then so be it. A proper allocation of resources would benefit all, not just the few.
Although the mortgage interest deduction is sacrosanct to many< I would like to see it limited(250,000-500,000 maybe for starters) since the benefit disproportionately benefits the wealthy and upper middle class. This has resulted in the construction of larger homes that are inefficient users of energy and deseerve not to be subsidized by Federal tax laws.
One thing move another, the ultimate Toll! Forget taxes, we see the schmucks.