LA Times, Wash. Times uncritically repeated McCain camp's false assertion that Obama "propos[es] to raise taxes on millions of small businesses"
SUMMARY: The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Times uncritically repeated the McCain campaign's claim that Sen. Barack Obama "propos[es] to raise taxes on millions of small businesses." In fact, Obama has proposed rolling back President Bush's tax cuts only on "people who are making 250,000 dollars a year or more," and according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 481,000 -- not "millions of" -- small businesses fall into the tax brackets that would be affected by those increases.
In June 24 articles about Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama competing for female voters, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Times uncritically repeated comments by McCain national communications director Jill Hazelbaker that Obama "propos[es] to raise taxes on millions of small businesses." However, neither article reported that the claim, which McCain and his campaign have repeatedly made, and which has been uncritically reported in the media, is false, according to the results of an independent, nonpartisan analysis of Obama's tax proposal.
In fact, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, Obama has proposed rolling back President Bush's tax cuts only on "people who are making 250,000 dollars a year or more," and according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center's table of 2007 tax returns that reported small-business income, approximately 481,000 -- not "millions" -- of those taxpayers are in the top two income tax brackets -- which include all filers with taxable incomes of more than $250,000 -- short of the "millions" that Hazelbaker cited.
From the June 24 Los Angeles Times article:
McCain's campaign, for its part, criticized Obama for recent remarks on uniting his party after his defeat of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the protracted nomination battle. Obama privately told lawmakers that Clinton supporters would "get over it" once they realized McCain took the wrong side on women's issues, according to a Democratic congresswoman speaking to ABC News.
McCain communications director Jill Hazelbaker said: "When you consider women are a major driving force behind small business start-ups in this country, Barack Obama's proposals to raise taxes on millions of small businesses isn't going to help women voters 'get over it.'
From the June 24 Washington Times article:
The McCain campaign fired back, using Mr. Obama's own words from last week, when he said that once Clinton-supporting women realize "John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it."
"When you consider women are a major driving force behind small business start-ups in this country, Barack Obama's proposals to raise taxes on millions of small businesses isn't going to help women voters 'get over it,'" McCain spokesman Jill Hazelbaker said.
The Conservative Corporate Media has a theme they need to keep pushing. Doesn't matter how much they need to lie, as long as they keep saying something often enough, there will be fools that will believe it.
One of the really hilarious lies these days is how the Los Angeles Times is a "liberal" newpaper.
Any casual and regular reading of it will show many examples of stories being edited to give a particular right-wing slant, especially in the choice of headlines. It's obvious that the editors--not necessarily the writers-- craft these articles, usually by omitting sentences. I would suspect this last article originally included the missing information-- or at least a passing reference to it-- but it was edited out, deliberately.
Often an LAT story will have a right-leaning headline, but when you actually read the piece, the story isn't there at all. This is no accident.
Small businesses fuel the American economy, job creation, income, etc. Why would you want to raise taxes on some 480,000+ small business? Make them raise their prices in a time that their business is already suffering due to the current economic conditions? Raising taxes will raise prices, which will lower sales figures, and decrease employment and the amount of small business.
Yeah, I mean, the economy did terribly during the Clinton years, whne he raised taxes. And those Bush tax cuts did so well over the last eight!
History is against you, my friend.
Actually, not counting the last year with regards to the housing crisis & oil markets - which have nothing to do with taxation, the Bush administrations economy and GDP have been quite well. Now in regards to your Clinton comment, you are clearly leaving out the fact that it was about the .COM boom, and totally negated the fact of that market sector busting as well.
However, I suggest you go look at the total GDP figures, percentage GDP increases, and the year by year standard of living data and then come back to justify your view....it'll be a hard sell.
Wow, another totally off subject wanna-be justification. Get a real argument son, you cannot blame Iraq on everything, just as not everything is caused by Global Warming theory.
But they aren't paying for the Iraq War now.... they got a tax cut.... remember?
Actually they are, they just have decreased taxes....as opposed to many liberals who are not taxed AT ALL.
Again, I dont see your point.
as opposed to many liberals who are not taxed AT ALL.- Columbus1492
There's a Liberal tax exemption? I haven't even been checking that box.Oh, wait, it's a punishment, because liberals love paying taxes.
Just kidding, Dumbus.I know you're just reminding us of the fact that conservatives are all hard working real Americans, and liberals are free-loading ne'er-do-wells.Keep up the good work.
...as opposed to many liberals who are not taxed AT ALL.
Columbus1492's brain is not taxed - in fact, it does no work whatsoever. :-)
"Now in regards to your Clinton comment, you are clearly leaving out the fact that it was about the .COM boom, and totally negated the fact of that market sector busting as well."
Now isn't that grand...who introduced legislation to take the initiative in creating the internet again? Oh, that's right. He "invented" the internet instead. Sorry, right wing talking point absorbed.
So Clinton had nothing to do with the economy for the eight years he was President? Was it all the .com boom, or was it a combination of a myriad of factors, including Clinton's tax increase on the super-rich while giving tax breaks to the middle class so they could afford the computers that allowed the .com boom to happen?
Before Bush was re (sic) elected, not one net job was created. And that wasn't because of 9/11 either. 9/11 cost the economy a grand total of around 140,000 jobs, mostly in the air and transportation industries.
And the Republican majority in Congress, and Phil Gramm specifically, are wholly responsible for the mortgage crisis and the price of oil. They introduced legislation deregulating the mortgage industry to allow this to happen, and Phil Gramm lobbied for the Enron loophole, which allowed the speculators to drive the price of oil.
My neighbors are not in financial difficulty, as they are wise financially responsible people...well, I am assuming most of them.
"My neighbors are not in financial difficulty, as they are wise financially responsible people...well, I am assuming most of them."
You can still be financially responsible and by hap and circumstance, become irreversibly damaged into debt. Happens all the time. One traffic accident can change your entire portfolio.
"And if you choose the cheap levels of insurance, well....you get what you pay for."
And if that's all you can afford, you're screwed any way you turn.
You know, it'd be great if everyone started off on a level playing field...
We do, its called Kindergarten. :-)
Level playing fields are moot points when you factor in motivation, personal responsibility, etc. The fact is, the "will to succeed" is a great self reliance tool, and some people just dont have it.
yep, I think we can guess who the "bootstrap-pullers" are out of these two groups of Kindergarteners.
“Actually, not counting the last year with regards to the housing crisis & oil markets - which have nothing to do with taxation…”---Columbus
The tax cut ---unprecedented during war time---did and are increasing the deficit thereby weakening the dollar globally and is a factor in the cost of oil going up.
Those 481,000 businesses represent less than 2% of all small businesses. It also represents only the most exceptionally prosperous of small businesses. Those who just barely climb over the threshold of the cutoff would see next to no difference in taxes due. Only a tiny core of the most extremely prosperous of those businesses would see any noticeable impact.
The economic impact of this plan on small businesses in general is almost nonexistent.
You're buying into their idiot argument. He is not talking about raising taxes on businesses, he is talking about personal income tax. If someone is personally earning $250,000 from their small business, that's great and I wish them future success. If their personal tax rate is raised by a percentage point or two, it will affect their business not one bit. I defy you to prove to me how it would. Any personal money that they would funnel back into their business development would be a write off no matter what their personal tax rate is.
How can we ask these people to sacrifice any more?
It's been a few weeks, I'm not seeing that Obama love y'all mentioned...
It's kind of hard to show love, when 76% of the american public disagree with his energy policy (or lack there of) when it happens to be one of the most important issues.
Here, go educate yourself on Obama's energy plan. Just saying stupid stuff like he lacks one is getting old...
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
Beatcha by 37 second.
The Problem
Foreign Oil: America's 20-million-barrel-a-day oil habit costs our economy $1.4 billion a day, and $500 billion in 2006 alone. Every single hour, we spend $41 million on foreign oil.
Climate Change: As a result of climate change, glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; more people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct.
Wait, is that actually an "energy plan" to fight oil independance and use our own energy....or a way to use the global warming theory to overlook energy?
Columbus, do me a favor. go back to that page that you pulled that from, and SCROLL DOWN!
you missed this little bit of information:
Barack Obama's Plan
Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Obama's plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change
Oh I read that alright. So we're going to decrease our dependence in 18 years. And seeing as how we can produce much oil on our own turf in 5 years....we ought to just live by the rest of the worlds reigns for an additional 13 years.
Sounds like a plan to me..
That doesn't sound like anything...where'd you get the 5 years idea from? It'd take 10 to even see a return on the investment of building the infrastructure to retrieve the oil we "should" be drilling for.
False - experts have quoted a maximum of 8-10 years for areas where there is no close infrastructure.
Alaska, the Gulf, ND & MT, and Rocky Mtns have close infrastructure to tap into. The further from existing infrastructure, the longer it will take. That 10 year figure is if we drill 200 miles out, and not in line with any infrastructure.
In fact, several of the drilling companies have stated we can see results in as little as 2 years in ANWR, and expansion in the Gulf and off the Florida coast (50 mi out).
"False - experts have quoted a maximum of 8-10 years for areas where there is no close infrastructure."
Okay, Dwight Schrute. Don't you have a beet farm to tend to? Maybe when you come back you'll find your keyboard encased in Jell-O. ;)
?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiAdTBDEjr8&feature=related
It's from the office, and it was a joke. I didn't think you'd get it. Dwight is prone to saying "false" a lot.
Please explain how drilling in those areas represents sound energy policy. If we opened up all offshore areas and ANWR, we would see a reduction of 2.5 cent per gallon at the pump by 2025.
Furthermore, if we raise our national fuel economy by a mere 2 mpg, it would save more oil than we have in any of those areas.
I'll repeat what I said in another thread. The whole spark of offshore drilling arguments is a cheap trick by the oil companies to try and secure leases in as many areas as possible before republicans leave office. They have no intention of starting drilling operations in those areas. They are currently drilling in less than 25% of areas already leased. You are being duped.
let's look at McCain's energy policy:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
Well, I can't seem to find one! Guess it's not important enough for him to actually post it. Vs. Obama, who is courageous enough to do so. Yup, you got us there!
Eh...i suggest you stop looking for bold words and pop up pictures.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/13bc1d97-4ca5-49dd-9805-1297872571ed.htm
so his plan is a) rely on technical genious and prowress (translation: hope like hell someone can figure it out, cause he has no plan), b) push for more biodeisle (translation: we can eat or we can drive, but we can't do both), and c) hope like heck that someone can create a better battery for electric cars (translation: hope like hell someone can figure it out, cause he has no plan).
Got it.
Quite simple - Obama is against an increase in domestic drilling, and against the gas tax (which I also am). In recent polls (last several day) show that 66-80% of the american population favor increase drilling and about 60% favor a gas tax.
Draw your own correlation, or lack there of.
No its not. Its quite relevant. We have the energy, we need to use it. Not using it as an excuse for global warming, that may not even exist, is ridiculous.
After all - it was obama who said that he's glad gas prices are at $4 a gallon, just wished they would have increases slower. Now, go and tell that to the people who dont pay attention to the news or politics, and see what their reaction is...
They are sitting on leased land, that may are MAY NOT have oil beneath it. That land has not been explored yet for oil, nor do they have idea where the oil would be (if at all) in that land. Its all speculation on what may or may not exist. Read up a bit before citing the common left wing rhetoric on that 68 mill acres.
Not to mention, that we have enough oil the rocky mtns through shale to supply us for the next 100 years alone.
Ahh, but not exactly true. We already have experimental facilities out there doing it. The problem with extracting the oil shale, is the environmental rejection from the greenies.
Is it feasible to extract shale oil? Yes. Is it possible to do under the ever increasing environmental restrictions? Not yet.
http://www.ourpubliclands.org/colorado/oilshale
Thank you Laura for the insightful message...
Whomever made this post clearly does not understand the Tax Code and neither does Obama. Unincorporated partnerships will be taxed at the highest tax rate. If they are incorporated, they will also see their taxes rise.
Whomever made this post has no idea what he or she is talking about and to suggest there was any misinformation about McCain simply demonstrates that whomever made this is just uninformed period.
Thank you, Mr. Know-it-all!
I realize it's compliantconsent, the drive-by troll, and none of his posts ever have anything to do with the item, but I'm going to ask anyway, in case I'm missing it;
Did the MMFA item say any of the things that Copeydis claims it was wrong about?Or did he just want to show off his newfound awareness of the word "whomever" ?
Or did he just want to show off his newfound awareness of the word "whomever" ?
And, it might be added, he used it incorrectly.