Fox News anchor Jarrett failed to note study he cited contradicted GOP strategist's false claim about Obama's tax proposal
SUMMARY: On America's Newsroom, Greg Jarrett cited a Tax Policy Center report on Sens. Barack Obama's and John McCain's tax plans but failed to note that the study contradicted Republican strategist Andrea Tantaros' claim that under Sen. Barack Obama's tax proposal, "an average family making $61,000 -- just alone letting the tax cuts expire -- would go up $2,100."
On the June 16 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-anchor Gregg Jarrett quoted the Tax Policy Center's recently published "Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans," saying that Sen. John McCain's " 'tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes. In contrast, [Sen. Barack] Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers.' I mean, so isn't Obama's plan more attractive to the vast majority of voters come November?" In response, Republican strategist Andrea Tantaros falsely asserted that under Obama's tax proposal, "an average family making $61,000 -- just alone letting the tax cuts expire -- would go up $2,100. That's a lot of money for an average family." But Jarrett did not point out that contrary to Tantaros' claim, according to the Tax Policy Center report, a household reporting an income of $61,000 in 2009 would fall into the "middle fifth of the income distribution" and that under Obama's tax proposal, households in that quintile "would receive an average [tax] cut equal to 2.4 percent of income" and pay an average of $1,042 less in federal taxes.
After Tantaros made her false statement, Fox News contributor and Democratic strategist Bob Beckel challenged her to "give me one quote where Barack Obama said he was going to do away with the tax cuts that Bush had for lower-income and middle-income people" and added that her claim was "not true."
From the June 16 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
JARRETT: Andrea, here's the question. Here's the analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center -- trying to be fair and balanced here -- "McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes. In contrast, Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers." I mean, so isn't Obama's plan more attractive to the vast majority of voters come November?
TANTAROS: You know, if you look at Obama's plan, which would be letting the Bush tax cuts sunset, an average family making $61,000 -- just alone letting the tax cuts expire -- would go up $2,100. That's a lot of money for an average family.
JARRETT: Yeah.
TANTAROS: And you know what? Here's the thing: Obama's pretending -- proposing an upwards of 1 trillion in new spending. You cannot simply tax the richest --
BECKEL: Andrea --
TANTAROS: -- 1 percent and cover that tab.
BECKEL: Andrea, you choose -- give me one quote where Barack Obama said he was going to do away with the tax cuts that Bush had for lower-income and middle-income people -- one. Just one to prove what you just said, 'cause it's not true.
JARRETT: Andrea, hold that thought, because we're going to have you guys back sometime in the very near future, 'cause you were terrific and it's an excellent debate.
At least Obama has a position on Tax Policy.
McCain's position is BushWasRight, at least until he changes his mind again.
We desperately need fiscal responsibility! H. Ross Perot had it right:
http:\\perotcharts.com
That's an interesting presentation Kyle. A couple of things jumped out at me.
According to the data in the last four years total tax collections have risen at the fastest pace in the past 40 years, and average of 9.5% per year. I guess the economy and tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 haven't been as bad for the country as liberals would have us beleive.
I also notice that it is not defense, or education, or really any special programs that are bleeding us dry - it is the socialistic entitlements of the "New Deal" and "The Great Society" that are projecting to do us in as the "pyramid scheme" collapses.
1. "According to the data in the last four years total tax collections have risen at the fastest pace in the past 40 years, and average of 9.5% per year."
2. "I guess the economy and tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 haven't been as bad for the country as liberals would have us beleive."
Do you have any verifiable relation between 1 and 2, or is your belief that
1. The past 40 years sun rose in the East.
2. People had sex.
Relation: Sun rising in the East makes people have sex.
There is a thoery that says watering your grass helps it grow. If you water your grass and it grows does it not lend credibbility to the theory? There is a theory that says if you reduce the tax burden investment in business will increase and expand the tax base leading to greater revenue. That appears to have happened. you may not like the results but that is what has happened.
Your sun rising / sex analogy only illustrates your inability to comprehend cause and effect relationships and disqualifies you from any further discussion on the matter. You can keep your 4 cents.
So evolution and CO2 induced global warming are mere theories while the theory of market fundamentalism is rooted in the scientific method. Got it.
Anyway, I noticed you skipped that part about the Iraq occupation in which vast amounts of your and my money isn't being spent, right now, in Iraq, on private contractors. That is wealth redistribution upward of the most morally hazardous incarnation. Our money for cold blooded murder from Blackwater private mercenaries. Our money for the further enrichment of a handful of men who own, in essence and reality, war machine factories.
"I guess the economy and tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 haven't been as bad for the country as liberals would have us beleive."
Right. Sure. All that trickle down. Where is it? Why are corporate profits the highest they've ever been, yet real wages are at their lowest?
Don't even try to tell us the economy is good, not when hard working Americans are stuck choosing between gas or food.
Sorry. Should read...vast amounts of your and my money IS being spent, right now, in Iraq, on private contractors.
Thanks for our daily logical fallacy, a.k.a. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Not all economists agree that Voodoo Economics does what Republicans claim. Federal Tax Revenues almost doubled from 1991-2001. How can you explain that, given Clinton's "Biggest tax increase in the History of the Universe"? In fact, Federal Revenues double approximately every ten years, and have done so since WWII.
You may find this interesting:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/have_tax_cuts_always_resulted_in_higher.html
Interesting that "fiscally responsible" conservatives never seem to have a problem with cutting taxes while waging an obscenely expensive optional war... driving the national debt through the roof. Can you explain how that's a good idea?
I think part of it is the "values" scam.... plus, I think a large number of blue collar Republicans fantasize that they, too, will be Millionaires some day. After all, Rush Limbaugh tells them that all it takes is hard work. Rush's solution to all the laid off factory workers in Michigan a few years ago.... "Start your own business!" See how easy that is? I hear that AmWay has some openings.
"for the life of me I cannot figure why a working class person votes Republican."
Are you serious? I'll sum it up in five words:
RELIGION. RELIGION. RELIGION. RELIGION. RELIGION.
or
Gay Marriage, Abortion, Prayer in School.
For the life of ME I can't figure out why the funny-mentalists won't mind their own effing business and/or can't be effectively marginalized as the nut-cases they are. (You don't like abortion? DON'T HAVE ONE! You on't approve of gay marriage? DON'T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME GENDER! Oh yeah: AND MIND YOUR OWN F-C-I-G BUSINESS!!! Pretty simple equation.)
You want to know why Republicans oppose aborrtion and gay marriage? Simple: IT GETS POOR, UNEDUCATED WHITE FOLKS to vote for the in DROVES, all the while being SCREWED by their union-busting, lack of a health care plan, "fair" (LOL) trade and tax policies.
If you can effectively remove RELIGION for POLITICS the Republicans would be lucky to hold 10% of congress.
If you can effectively remove RELIGION for POLITICS the Republicans would be lucky to hold 10% of congress.
You are ignoring the fact the America is still a predominantly Christian nation, and in Christianity people believe their faith guides them and it guides their politics. There are plenty of Democrats who believe this way also - so don't think it is a party line issue.
NiceGuy is on the mark. Conservatives have been successful in sculpting Christianity to represent their economic, as well as, their cultural assumptions.
Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
I'll be happy to explain it to you. Note the Jesus does not tell us it is impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, but practically impossible. God does not want people to worship money.
Like Repub;icans, Conservative and Evangelicals do, you mean? [Jesus]also wouldn't be to happy with a politican claiming that "Jesus would vote for [him.]" Jesus would probably be more likely to thwack that politican between the eyes with his staff than vote for him, regardless of party. And from my observations, precious few Democrats would be getting thwacked in that way.
(continued from above)
God does not want people to worship money. Too often people have to put aside God and Godly values topursue the almighty dollar and engage in sinful practice along the way. It is possible to honor God first and be wealthy, but not easy.
How does that square with your explanation?
And later on in that same section it says that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. What's your point?
Matthew 25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth
I know you'll say something like "that's not what it says!" but just remember that everything in the bible is open to interpretation - and boy do people re-interpret it. Shakers, evangelicals, mormons... they all have different takes on the same words.
why do so many conservatives chafe at the idea of paying their fair share of taxes
I am going to take this out of the context of our previous discussion because not all conservatives are rich. I can also not speak for all conservatives, but generaly we believe government exists for the good of the people and taxes need to be paid to support the proper functions of government. What we usually disagree about are what are the proper functions of government and what do we consider a fair share.
In the interest of saving space and time please review my response to CARN regarding "Fairness" and taxes. Do you see my scenario as a "fair" system of taxation?
I was addressing the anti-tax stance of the over-riding majority of conservatives and how that doesn't line up with the principles of the prosperity theology that you so kindly expanded upon. I mean, if much is required of those who have much, (and this applies to flat tax idea) then why shouldn't the 1% of our country, who own 90% of our wealth, be pleased to chip in more than the same 30% as the middle, who share the reamining 10% of our wealth?
I was picking up on you notion of paying a "fair" share. When everyone pays the same rate then ther is little room to argue unfairness. In the example I gave the upper income earners are paying significantly more than the lower income worker and are indeed paying greater portion of the services they are benefiting from.
You are also ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of the rich are philanthropic (sp?). Conservatives believe that people are better delegators of their earnings than the government. I would much rather donate money to a homeless shelter, a university, a medical center, than have the government take it frm me and distribute it as it sees fit. It's human nature - try taking some candy from your children and see the reaction you get - then try asking for it and I'm confident they will give it with a smile.
Also, I don't believe that the wealthy are always philanthropic for altruistic purposes, they get nice tax breaks for giving (I'm OK with that). I just think that a truer form of philanthropy would include paying living wages to employees and keeping jobs in this country
And that myth of the individual being better suited to delegate their earnings ignores the the massive organizational disadvantages the individual is subject to when negotiating with say, the health insurance industry. (On a related note, If I were to call the CEO of Anthem, or some such, everyday to complain about the quality of service, that is harassment. But if were covered under a national health plan, I would have a constitutional right to call my representatives to lodge ny complaint. It's about accountability.)
Shared risk and shared reward is the way to go. It's a noble sacrifice to willingly give a little more for the greater good of all. And because private charities are not required to distribute their services equally, they can impose whatever agenda they may have, they can discriminate who they will or will not serve. That's not cool.
There is plenty of room to argue unfairness when everyone pays the same rate. 30% of my earnings and 30% of John McCains earnings is the difference between a year essential health insurance premiums vs. a ninth mansion.
When you look at it form an outcome based perspective you will see unfairness. At that point you are looking to government to regulate how much a wage earner should be allowed to keep, and not what they should pay. I proposed a system where a uniform rate results in a worker earning 10x more paying 45x more in taxes - but yet that's not enough for you. Your statement above reveals class envy - and that's where the class warfare begins.
Someone who claims to reserve his judgment of people and how they reoncile their actions ( "Whether the people you mention have reaped the rewards of God or have manipulated the system to their advantage is not for me to judge - that right is reserved for God.") is getting pretty judgmental about how I reconcile my actions.
But my friend you have been taken in by the real class warriors who say that policies that benefit wealthy Americans are good for average Americans. It simply isn't true. Policies that benefit average Americans are good for average Americans.
And no, "At that point you are looking to government to regulate how much a wage earner should be allowed to keep, and not what they should pay."
I said that 30% of my income is a matter of life and death, in that my 30% is equivalent to the cost of an essential component of true prosperity: health insurance. (I believe that true prosperity is a measure of well-being, not just a person's net worth. That however, is somewhat beside the point.) Meanwhile, 30% of McCain's income is equivalent to the cost of a luxury item: another mansion. I made a moral values argument and you attempted assign some form of venal motive to it. Come on. Give me an honest effort here.
Also, I challenged your notion of philanthropy. Thank you for offering no counter to it. I will take your silence as a concession. Nor did you offer any defense to my observation that individuals are at a disadvantage when negotiating with big businesses. Thank you for that concession as well. I will take the liberty of surmising that you selected a narrow slice of my overarching theme to use it as a last ditch effort to accuse me of class warfare.
Honestly, the conservative gameplan is too tired.
Why not compare secular conservatives to Christian liberals, or Christian conservatives to Christian liberals also? Probably because the raw data doesn't support his partisan agenda.
His is a sloppy science that doesn't first seek to disprove his assumptions, but one that only seeks to prove his assumptions.
Not all christians believe in what you believe in, so it's false to say that the christians in this country act as one or have one ideal other than calling themselves christian.
You are ignoring the fact the America is still a predominantly Christian nation
America may be a nation made up predominantly of Christians, but it is in no way a Christian nation. The Founders on purpose put no mention of Jesus Christ in any of the documents that make up the heart of the country. They only mention a nebulous "Creator," and it was a fight to get that in there.
"total tax collections have risen at the fastest pace in the past 40 years, and average of 9.5% per year
This is not a fallacy - it is fact supported by the information presented in the presentation Kyle linked to. Sorry to disappoint you.
Interesting that "fiscally responsible" conservatives never seem to have a problem with cutting taxes while waging an obscenely expensive optional war... driving the national debt through the roof. Can you explain how that's a good idea?
Do not misinterpret what I am about to say as agreement with the current war situation. In reference to the information Kyle linked to, which is what my original comments were related to, it is not the war spending that is leading us to financil armageddon but the socialistic entitlements - the collapsing pyramid scheme.
The question supply siders cannot answer is whether the revenues are that much higher than they would have been without the tax cuts. They pretend to know, but they don't.
The article I linked above states that the one case where lower tax rates may actually cause increased revenues is when corporations keep their factories in the United States intead of moving them overseas to avoid taxes. However, I don' t see anything profoundly scientific about that.... it's predictable human behavior, based on greed.... or desire for maximum gain, if you prefer.
There is no evidence that lowering the income tax on billionaires causes an increase in Federal Revenues. Corporate Taxes may be a little more complicated.
Agreed. That is a very interesting idea. It's a very Progressive idea. It's centered in the kind of community stewardship our business schools used to teach before they were infiltrated by profit first, economic ideologues. I like the idea because instead of throwing money into people first social programs, it also uses the inherent power of our government to affect change on behalf of we the people.
But I better stop there before some con comes along and calls me a socialist. ;)
One of the favorite arguments of conservatives is to pull out the stat that the top 10% pay something like 80% of the taxes. What they never tell their sheep is that the top 10% hold 90% of the wealth.
Yep. The rich pay more in taxes by virtue of the fact that most of the wealth goes to them. The 5 percent of a millionaire is worth far more than the 20 percent from a family making $80,000, but it'd be wrong to claim that the former is paying their fair share. It's simply disingenuous to suggest that we're "soaking the rich" in taxes.
but it'd be wrong to claim that the former is paying their fair share
When something annoints you as the arbitor of what is fair we'll get back to you.
The other argument supply side proponents like to use is that the majority (80%) of tax cuts given to the rich goes to job-creating small businesses. It's total BS. The majority of upper income folk get their income from salaries, capital gains, stock dividends and interest.
A report from the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress is responsible for the bogus 80% statistic. They distorted the definition of a small business so that it included big accounting firms, law firms and real-estate partnerships, and occasional rental income from a corporate chief's ski condo. Just reading the article I linked (it's also factcheck.org), you could tell the author was amused at the suspect methodology involved in the study:
A Republican committee staff member confirmed to FactCheck.org that their report is counting anybody who made even one dollar of profit from a hobby business as a “small business owner” if they reported that income on Schedule C of their federal income-tax returns...
And that’s not all. Also counted as “small business owners” would be:
--A corporate executive who made $500,000 in salary and bonuses, and who also had $3,000 in income from renting out his yacht.
--A TV anchorwoman making $1 million in salary and reporting $25,000 in speaking fees as Schedule C income.
--A partner in a national accounting firm who has no side business at all, but who gets a big chunk of his income as a share of the giant partnership’s profits.
It’s silly to call any of these “small business owners,” but Gillespie went even beyond what the report said. He said 80% of the tax relief went to “small businesses,” (as opposed to “owners”). Not even the Republican staff report can back that statement.
Wow, nice work. You guys did a thorough job of covering the whole right-wing tax mythology in a very short thread.
As much as I like this website for it's liberal policies regarding opposing views,it is amazing how much factual info. can be discussed when 3/4 of the comments aren't a bunch of links to Townhall or wingnut think tanks , folowed by a bunch of links to reliable sources debunking those links, mixed up with 20 or 30 excruciating explanations of the fundamental idea of the thread.
Thanks for sitting it out, whoever the conservative poster at the top of the thread was.Good choice.
That cherrypicking of a report is as disingenuous as citing all welfare is bad because 20% abuse it. If I can find 10 people who have handicaped parking permits who do not deserve them is the whole program a waste? Get real.
The majority of upper income folk get their income from salaries, capital gains, stock dividends and interest.
When company ABC decides to expand it's operations and increase production where does it go to get it's capital funding? Sorry to tell you but it's rich people. Rich people are buying the stocks that fund the operations, rich people are depositing their money into the banks that lend the money to business. The dividends and intrese are the rewards for their risk.
It is thrie investments that allow companys to expand, hire more workers, ourchase more materials, etc.
It is thrie investments that allow companys to expand, hire more workers, ourchase more materials, etc.
Whoa. Slow down. I never said that cutting taxes on the wealthy won't produce any additional jobs at all. The point is that conservatives inflate the actual number to prove that supply side is really effective. Don't accuse others of cherry picking when you do the same.
Wow - I didn;t realize how butchered my typing was until you posted it - sorry and thanks for weeding through it.
The increases in tax revenue over the past four years speak for themselves. Do you believe it a coincidence that the increase in revenues coincide with the tax cuts? Do you believe the Patriots lost the Superbowl because the Giants played a great defense, or is it a coincidence the Giants played great defense on a day the Patriots lost?
When something annoints you as the arbitor of what is fair we'll get back to you.
20% tax rate is larger than a 5% tax rate. No need to annoint anyone to figure out that's not fair. FYI, those percents were just examples and not based on actual tax rates.
CARN - I posted this question the other day and got no response - perhaps today you will indulge me.
If the country were to go to a flat tax, say 30% on all income above $40,000, a worker earning $50K annually would pay $3K in income taxes. Under that same system a worker earning $500K would pay $135K in income taxes. Worker 2 earns 10x more than worker 1 but pays 45x more in income taxes. Add in worker 3 who earns $5M and pays $1.488M in income taxes, earning 100x more than worker 1 and paying 496x more in income taxes. Is that a fair system to you?
Your numbers are arbitrary. Set the cutover point at 2 million, and they're paying the same percentage.
You're constantly trying to shift the frame of your questions to make the picture look the way you want. The days of Conservatives doing that is over. Your years-long tactic is transparent.
The premise is that everybody pays the same rate. That is the ultimate in fairness. Even in doing that the high income earners pay significantly more for the benefits of society.
Come back when you can actually refute something - your posts don't indicate that you can.
Everybody paying the same rate is NOT fair. The rich can AFFORD to pay higher tax rates. They can also certainly afford to pay higher tax rates without affecting their standard of living. The obscenely wealthy are getting richer on the backs of everybody else--the fact is that since 1980 the rich have been getting richer at the expense of the rest of us, that is not fair. The government has been enabling this, and the Republicans are actively supporting it. This is not even close to being fair.
There is a thoery that says watering your grass helps it grow. If you water your grass and it grows does it not lend credibbility to the theory?
Yes, but there is scientific evidence that water provides nutrients to plants. and stimulates growth.
There is a theory that says if you reduce the tax burden investment in business will increase and expand the tax base leading to greater revenue.
A cut in capital gains only creates a short term spike in revenue, that's all. The article Nerzog provided proves it:
"For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost."
Your sun rising / sex analogy only illustrates your inability to comprehend cause and effect relationships and disqualifies you from any further discussion on the matter. You can keep your 4 cents.
Nope. He was mocking your flimsy argument, which Nerzog correctly pointed out to be a logical fallacy. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc essentially means "since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." You're arriving at a conclusion based solely on the order of events rather than providing evidence to prove that it's the case. It's not cause and effect at all. It may not even be a correlation.
Economists have been debating this subject for ages and will continue to do so. To believe the suipply side naysayers in light of the data provided is to throw aside your common sense to support a baseless argument. Like ot or not, this time around, the supply side tax cuts seem to have worked - deny it all you want - the revenue numbers prove it.
He was mocking your flimsy argument,
Tax cuts and tax revenue are related by economic theory. Cause and effect are stated and the results are measurable. There is no theory relating sun rises to sex. The analogy was idiotic and for you to defend it is foolish.
He didn't defend the analogy. He defended the fact that the analogy was the same as what you posted, and that you were the foolish one.
And he was correct.
Dems, the flat tax would probably work if we cut back spending on many social programs\services, which I am generally against. A progressive tax system will typically bring in more revenue to help pay for these things since high-income earners are taxed at a higher rate. This is why I think it's wrong for some people to characterize progressive taxation as "revenge against the successful" or "class warfare" or some other nonsense.
It's not about punishing the rich, it's the issue of who is more able to bear the burden of taxation, assuming we have a relatively large bill. I am all for getting rid of govt. waste and redundant programs, but since I'm a liberal, my definition of what constitutex useless differs greatly from yours.
So, a uniform tax rate is acceptable only if everyone agrees that govt. programs will need to be cut to make up for the substantial loss in revenue.
Now on to your other post. You said: Like ot or not, this time around, the supply side tax cuts seem to have worked - deny it all you want - the revenue numbers prove it.
"Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have "increased revenues." He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. That’s highly misleading.
In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product."
So, a uniform tax rate is acceptable only if everyone agrees that govt. programs will need to be cut to make up for the substantial loss in revenue.
I think we can agree on this. Our tax system is terribly broken. It will require a painful overhaul.
Sorry, I forgot the link: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
And here's another qute from the same article:
“Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts,” Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute told the Washington Post last October. Viard, who worked in the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush, told FactCheck.org that “nobody can absolutely prove that.” Proof would require time travel and a reversal of tax policy. “But among economists, there’s no dispute.”