LA Times uncritically quoted McCain falsely claiming that Obama will "raise your taxes"
SUMMARY: The Los Angeles Times uncritically quoted Sen. John McCain asserting of Sen. Barack Obama, "[H]is plan is to raise your taxes and spend more of your money," without noting that the claim is false. Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families, and McCain's own chief economic adviser has reportedly said it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes."
In an August 8 Los Angeles Times article, staff writer Bob Drogin uncritically quoted Sen. John McCain asserting of Sen. Barack Obama, "[H]is plan is to raise your taxes and spend more of your money," without noting that the claim is false. As Media Matters for America has noted, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families, and McCain's own chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has reportedly said it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes."
A recent analysis of the candidates' tax plans by the Tax Policy Center found that "Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes," while "Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers."
From Drogin's August 8 article in the Los Angeles Times:
Earlier Thursday, McCain used a town hall in Lima, Ohio, to step up his attacks on Obama.
"Sen. Obama says he's going to change Washington," McCain said, reading from prepared remarks. "But his plan is to raise your taxes and spend more of your money. It's not my idea of a solution to what troubles Washington. In fact, it sounds a lot like the problem."
Obama's words, he said, "for all their eloquence and passion, don't mean all that much."
"And that's the problem in our nation's capital. It's not just the Bush administration, and it's not just the Democratic Congress. It's that everyone in Washington says whatever it takes to get elected or to score the political point of the day," said McCain, who has served 26 years in Congress.
It's that everyone in Washington says whatever it takes to get elected or to score the political point of the day," said McCain,
Quote of the day. ;D
Wow. Hey John, this is probably not the right way to go back to driving the Straight Talk Express.
"And that's the problem in our nation's capital. It's not just the Bush administration, and it's not just the Democratic Congress. It's that everyone in Washington says whatever it takes to get elected or to score the political point of the day," said McCain, who has served 26 years in Congress.
Why not just run down to Obama campaign headquarters and have them tape you ad libbing for their next ad set? It couldn't possibly be worse.
..."[H]is plan is to raise your taxes and spend more of your money," without noting that the claim is false."
In the next paragraph:
"Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers."
Isn't that a contradiction? The claim of 'raising taxes' is true. Sounds like the LA Times is correct.
1. Readers: Please take the time to look at the LA Times article. Once again, MM clips a single sentence buried in an article that is very critical and unflattering of McCain. They then paint an utterly false impression that the LA Times is helping McCain. Nothing can be further from the truth. The LA Times' cheerleading for Obama has been very well chronicled.
2. MM conveniently fails to inform their readers that Obama voted to increase taxes on those with taxable income of $41,500 or more.
3. Goodfella57 is right. Obama will be raising your taxes, if you're in the so-called "rich" target bracket. Who knows what bracket (or brackets) that would become if Obama ever took office.
So a $200,000 income makes one rich?
Buy a house, a car for the working wife and one for myself, and put 3 kids through college...and then see who's rich.
My wife and I work our butts off to get where we are and we're not going to "share" our hard-earned income with a bunch of money-grabbers. You want socialism? Move to Europe.
Keep your hands off my stack.
The LA Times' cheerleading for Obama has been very well chronicled.
Where? I read it every day, and they are flacks for republicans, especially in the news articles, where headlines are clearly set up to tell a story from the repub spin.
Their editorials? hardly. They always take an economic royalist spin-- vehemently anti-union and anti "Sacramento," which is code for Dems.
When the chips are down and the issues are serious, the LAT is a morbidly pro-Republican paper-- always have been. They just know that if they are blatant about it in L.A., people will read the NYT instead.
"[T]hey are flacks for republicans, especially in the news articles, where headlines are clearly set up to tell a story from the repub spin."
idon't understand how any clear-thinking person could ever think that. As for extensive documentation on the LA Times' bias for Obama, try: a, b, c. (additional links in the article)
extensive documentation on the LA Times' bias for Obama
OK, shoes, I was dumb enough to check your links, thinking maybe you'd have your first valid point ever(I'm very fair that way)
They're all pictures about Obama traveling around with Oprah.Just pictures. What's the bias?
Like I said, there are several more links inside the articles I've linked. Plus, it seems that you just clicked one of the links. Click the other two.
OK, the second one is Newsbusters claiming that the LA Times is fawning over Obama. Why don't you actually put up a quote showing what you claim, instead of these clumsy links where you expect people to go off on exponentially more distant wild goose chases?
3 links and you think reasonable people are going to check the links within those links, going on some sort of treasure hunt to find the point you're trying to make?
Please.Put up or shut up.
Isn't that a contradiction? The claim of 'raising taxes' is true. Sounds like the LA Times is correct.
It's a misrepresentation of Obama's tax policy. By saying, "raise your taxes", McCain is making it sound like it's going to be an increase for everyone, when that's not the case. I admit that MMFA would have been better off with the phrase "mislead" or "mischaracterize". McCain is speaking half-truths.
Well, Snoop,
I hope it doesn't take Obama a week to respond this time. He should use most of his ad money to rebut Grandpah's filth.
Since he voted to eliminate Bush's tax cuts, of course he tried to raise the 25 percent bracket back to 28. So the "tried" to raise their taxes but failed.
Also, during the Hillary debates he said he was going to raise social security taxes on anything about $97,000. Now he has pushed it back because of the heat he has received on the idea.
You can try to hide from his record, but the fact is he has voted, supported and campaigned on raising taxes on the middle class.
but McCain never defined, "your."
Zackly, Roundhouse. It's obvious the ad is directed at the Republican base, the moneyed elite. If commoners choose to watch it, well, they're free to, but if they assume Grampy is talking to them, that's their mistake.
Talk to them? Ha! The GOP barely even considers the middle class human.
This is a tactic that the Republican party has been using since America starting taxing. Obama wants to raise taxes on people who make $200,000.00 or more a year and lower taxes on everyone else. Republicans know this, but purposely leave the facts out of there stupid debate. If I was Obama I would raise the point that Republicans only count people that make at least $200,000.00 a year as an “American”. I guess the rest of us folks that make up the rest of the country (an overwhelming majoring I might add), just don’t count as “Americans”. It is nice to know that Republicans care so much about the majority of Americans.
Lets see... Obama wants let the Bush tax cuts expire...
Hmmm.. that sounds like higher taxes to me. I don't think it means lower taxes does it?
Obama wants to increase taxes on capital gains and dividends.
Again, sounds like higher taxes to me.
Somehow the promise by Obama of offering tax credits to some does not take away the fact that the above are still tax increases.
It is a shell game pure and simple with a little class warfare thrown in for good measure.
It's cool though, in their minds, to give our money to millionaires.
Taxes are just going BACK to pre-Bush levels, when our economy was doing pretty good.
You're view of the situation is, once again, simplistic and faulty.
Snoop,
That is the biggest bunch of hooey I heard here in a long time. Expired or new, it is a tax increase.
No amount of double talk will get around it.
A sale just expired at the local Target. Does that mean that they're raising prices?
That is the biggest bunch of hooey I heard here in a long time. Expired or new, it is a tax increase.
Nooooooooo
ex·pire (k-spr) v. ex·pired, ex·pir·ing, ex·pires v.intr.
1. To come to an end; terminate: Your membership in the club of Bush's economic stupidity has expired.
Except several of you are missing the point.
The Bush tax cuts are going to expire. That doesn't mean that nothing else will take their place, and Obama has said that what will take their place will not raise taxes on people making lower incomes.
It's like a school district saying that they're going to stop offering free lunches to kids, and will replace those free lunches with a voucher card that will allow kids to buy lunch with that voucher card.
If you were to say that they were going to stop offering free lunches to kids, you'd only be telling half the story. When they talk about Obama letting the Bush tax cuts expire, that's only telling half the story as it relates to the taxes paid by the people referenced.
Awww, "class warfare", how precious. Is it class warfare when pension funds are raided to provide golden parachutes for incompetent executives? Is it class warfare when the board knows the books have been cooked to paint a false picture of prosperity and they all sell their shares before the scheme is revealed? Is it class warfare when jobs and bank accounts are moved to other countries?
No, it's only class warfare when the underclass fights back.
Moonbat,
You obviously don't know what "class warfare" is, otherwise you wouldn't use the examples you provided. Is it class warfare for baseball players to be paid millions? Is it class warfare for rock stars to do the same? Who made you the final authority on how much is too much for executives, rock stars, and pro athletes make?
Do some people in corporate America cheat and steal? Of course. However when they get caught and convicted, they go to jail too.. (Please disregard the Marc Rich buyout by the Clintons.)
You don't realize it, but you are as guilty of class warfare as Obama by your examples.
If you think moon is 'guilty' of 'class warfare' for just posting a comment, then your definition of 'class warfare' is absurdly broad. I have to hand it to conservatives for pulling off this particular rhetorical trick: now, they argue, to even begin to talk about differential treatment based on class position is to already engage in class warfare.
Vys,
Pitting one class against another fits the bill nicely. Arguing that some people make too much money so we need to "tax the rich" is classic class warfare.
"Pitting one class against another fits the bill nicely."
No, that would be attempting to incite class warfare.
Class warfare is when different classes work to undermine one another because of their underlying competing interests -- and giving a tax break to the wealthiest individuals and corporations during a time of increased national expense fits the bill nicely, because it increases the proportionate burden to the middle and lower classes.
You want good examples of class warfare? Strikes. Union-busting. A justice system that looks the other way if you have enough disposable income.
Proposing a new tax structure? That's not class warfare. That's not even instigation of class warfare. That's a legitimate topic for public debate. That's actually democracy. And if you think democracy is class warfare, then you'll find good company among the Communist Party.
No, I'm far guiltier of the horrible crime of participating in class warfare than Obama is. Note I didn't anywhere state that I should have any sort of authority over what a person should be paid, so that's just in your head.
But you must have something seriously wrong with your cognitive functions if you think that it's reasonable for a person who was incompetent at their job to get paid a bonus and multi-year salary package with a stock buy in set at the lowest price the company stock has ever been available for and a buyout set at the highest price. You must be isolated from the world if you think all the white collar criminals get caught and jailed and their victims compensated.
Are rock stars and athletes worth what they are paid? Probably not. But the number of executives on the face of this planet worth an 8 figure salary per year can likely be counted on the fingers of one hand.
This is class warfare because these people exploit the labor of those below them in order to enrich themselves. There was a time in this country that one could get a good job and expect to keep it if they performed well and look forward to a pension and a good medical plan. There was time when improving your efficiency and productivity meant you'd be noticed and rewarded appropriately. These days the reward for that is to have the guy down the hall fired so you can do his work too.
Maybe you've never heard of a poor man signing anybody's paycheck, but you've also never heard of a poor man transferring his financial assets to a Cayman Islands bank account so he won't have to pay taxes to the country that provides him the opportunity to make his living.
The miracle of post WW II America was the creation of a prosperous and growing middle class and the economy that went with having it. The shame of post millenial America will be the death of the middle class if things don't change.
And that, "my friend," is a rant.
AA, if you'd take a breath, read, and try to comprehend before going into panicky defense, you might get in an occasional good point here. Moonbat clearly understands the meaning of "class warfare", you're a little shaky.
First, you'll want to free up a little wasted time. Here are some things you can cut out of your act;
Thanking other posters for "proving your point" after they've refuted your point.
Telling other posters that they don't realize what they're saying or doing, especially when they're much more lucid than you are.
The problem with both of the above bad habits/defense mechanisms of yours? Condescending is bad, condescending to your superiors is worse.
If you're holding your own in a discussion, and it may happen someday, it will be evident, and you won't need to hype it.
Another thing you can do to free up some time is to forget the dopey smiley faces at the end of every post. Moderation, my friend.
Now this free time you have can be used to study up on facts and put together a quality position on the issue. You'll find, if you do this, you'll have to spend much less time panicking and "explaining" what you believe is happening to others. You may even join the rest of us in the reality-based community for short periods.
I hope I've been helpful.Good luck
Do some people in corporate America cheat and steal? Of course. However when they get caught and convicted, they go to jail too.. (Please disregard the Marc Rich buyout by the Clintons.)
AA, stop with all the old school stuff, your Republican friends have given you a huge list to choose from.
How about we start with: Blackwater Worldwide for killing unarmed Iraqi civilians, hiring paramilitaries trained under military dictatorships, and using its close political and financial ties with the Bush Administration to secure lucrative contracts.
Blackwater founder Erik Prince comes from a wealthy, politically-connected family. The Prince family was a major funder of the Republicans during the 1990s, and Prince himself has contributed generously to our current president and his allies. Since 1989 Prince has donated over $151,250 to Republicans . Prince's sister, Elizabeth, was the head of the Michigan Republican Party until early 2005, the former finance chairwoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), and married Dick DeVos, the son of billionaire Amway co-founder, Richard DeVos. Amway has donated roughly $7.5 million to Republican candidates since 1990.
Go read it again, AA. Tax cuts expire for HIGHER INCOME EARNERS ONLY. Don't make me go get the stupid stick...
Please forward this e-mail to Bob Drogin
8/8/08
Dear Bob,
In your August 8 article you quote Sen. McCain saying of Sen. Obama: “But his plan is to raise your taxes and spend more of your money. …”Aren’t you doing a great disservice to journalism when you allow McCain to make misleading (or outright false) statements like that? Isn’t it your job as a journalist to present the real facts to your readers, and not act merely as a transcriber for John McCain campaign commercials and misinformation? Obama has only talked about raising taxes on the top 5% of earners, correct?
A recent analysis by the Tax Policy Center found that McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit the rich, while the bulk of Obama’s tax cuts would go to low- and middle-income taxpayers (with an increase in taxes on high-income individuals).So, if it’s not too much to ask, would it be possible for you to get a crowbar and pry your head out of your ass (some conservatives have also told me mineral oil is effective), and start informing the American people what they need to know to make a decision this election?
Have a good weekend,
Snoop,
Only if you believe him. Obama voted for a resolution rolling back all the Bush tax cuts
The Associated Press: Budget Resolution "Would Have Allowed Tax Rates To Return To Pre-2001 Levels, Meaning That An Individual With Taxable Income Of About $32,000 Would Have Faced A Tax Increase." "At issue is Obama's vote on a non-binding budget resolution in March that called for President Bush's tax cuts to expire. Such a step would have allowed tax rates to return to pre-2001 levels, meaning that an individual with taxable income of about $32,000 would have faced a tax increase. Taxable income is what's left after taxpayers account for deductions." (Liz Sidoti, "Obama Dismisses Conservative Criticism," The Associated Press, 7/12/08)Next time you're gonna post something, try not leaving out pertinent information.
ANALYSIS: The McCain campaign's oft-repeated assessment of Obama's tax proposals is based, in several instances, on outdated material that has been widely debunked. Obama has said his plan would raise taxes on single people making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000, which by all measures doesn't add up to middle class.
The ad's most specific assertion - Obama voted to raise taxes on people making $42,000 - is based on a nonbinding Senate budget resolution early this year that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 be allowed to expire in 2011 as scheduled. Obama has criticized the Bush tax cuts and called for ending them for the wealthiest taxpayers.
Please tell me what non-binding means...
And just for shats and giggles let's see McCains flip flop on the subject:
McCain didn't support Bush's tax cuts when they were passed but has said he supports them now. He contends that to allow the cuts to expire would be tantamount to a tax increase.
If your taxes go back to Clinton levels under Obama, you'll never know it happened. But the economy will be gangbusters.
Tax increases worked so amazingly well last time, I say let's do it again.
Class warfare? Really? Talking about tax plans now constitutes class warfare?
Wow. We've really diluted our definition of 'war', haven't we...
Lets see... Obama wants let the Bush tax cuts expire..
He'll let the tax cuts expire as well as not allowing any new taxes on those who don't earn very much. The fact that the Bush tax cuts will expire doesn't mean that nothing else will be done.
Obama has already said he'd do several things, not just let the Bush tax cuts expire.
Hey, Roundhouse, check this out. I'm still reading through some of it even though I had it in my favorites for a while.
The Bush tax cuts are simply out of balance and unfair to the middle class and poor. But they're thoroughly consistent with the Republican worldview of rewarding wealth, not work.
It makes sense, Bush was simply rewarding his "base", the haves and the have mores, with these tax cuts. I mean just look at the hiring malfeasance in the Justice Dept. Republicans like to say they are all about the meritocracy, but just like the Justice Dept., they reward loyalty, not ability. That's what these tax cuts were about. Loyalty rewards.
Republicanism today is disgusting.
And you can count on McCain to continue the unfair tax code.
MM conveniently fails to inform their readers that Obama voted to increase taxes on those with taxable income of $41,500 or more. - Shoes89
Better, But Still Deceptive
We are pleased to see that in this ad McCain has corrected one earlier misrepresentation. He and others in his campaign have been saying for weeks that Obama once voted for a Democratic budget bill that McCain falsely claimed would raise taxes on persons making as little as $32,000 a year. We challenged that false claim in an article posted July 8. In this ad, McCain says Obama voted to raise taxes on persons making "just $42,000 a year," which is true for some but not all. Yet the ad still misleads.
A Misleading Picture
The measure Obama supported contained a provision – which is not part of his current tax proposals – that would have increased the rate paid by those who have taxable income high enough to fall into the 25 percent tax bracket. The 25 percent rate would have increased to 28 percent, as it was before the Bush tax cuts. The effect would have been to increase taxes for a single taxpayer with as little as $32,550 in taxable income in 2008, after all deductions and exclusions from total annual earnings.
But that works out to be $41,500 a year in total income for a single taxpayer with no dependents who takes the standard deduction and exemption allowed by the tax code. So it's true that a single taxpayer making $42,000 this year would see an income tax increase – of $15. That assumes the provision Obama voted for had been enacted and assumes further that the taxpayer did not qualify for more than the standard deduction.
But the McCain ad misleads with a strong visual message. The $42,000 claim is true for a lone taxpayer, but it is not true for the woman who is pictured in the ad while the announcer is speaking. She's reading to two small children, apparently her own. If she is supposed to be a single mother of two, then she would be able to make as much as $62,150 in total income in 2008 without being affected by the measure Obama once supported. She would file as a "head of household" with more generous tax brackets and standard deductions than for a single filer, and she would also qualify for exemptions for herself and her two children. (She would also qualify for a $1,000 credit for each child, since they both are obviously under 17, but this would be true whether or not the 25 percent bracket had been increased to 28 percent.)
Source: factcheck.org - McCain misrepresents Obama's tax proposals again. And again, and again.
Since the tax rates under Clinton were 15 and 28 and Bush's were 10,15 it is doesn't seem mathmatically possible that difference could only be $15 on over $30k of income simply going back to Clinton's brackets.
factcheck would have to provide the math because on the face of it is impossible for the difference to be so small.
Snoop,
That is the biggest bunch of hooey I heard here in a long time. Expired or new, it is a tax increase. No amount of double talk will get around it. -AA
I guess factcheck.org is engaging in "double talk" as well, since they agree with Snoopy.
Actually, there’s nothing "new" about most of these taxes. As we’ve noted before, Bush’s major 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2010. It’s a bit misleading to say that not changing the current law would be enacting a tax hike.
Both Sens. Obama and Clinton have said they would extend some of the Bush tax cuts but allow those that apply to people making more than $250,000 a year to expire. (Just 2 percent of U.S. households are projected to earn more than $250,000 next year, according to the TPC.)
Source: The new McCain loves tax cuts. But many of his claims about them are off.