Wash. Post headline highlighted reported effect on deficit of Obama's plan, not McCain's, which would add $1.6 trillion more
SUMMARY: The headline of a Washington Post article read: "Obama Tax Plan Would Balloon Deficit, Analysis Finds." But while the headline focused on Sen. Barack Obama, the article itself reported that the Tax Policy Center found that Sen. John McCain's tax plan would add $5 trillion to the national debt while Obama's plan would add $3.4 trillion.
The headline of an August 10 Washington Post article read: "Obama Tax Plan Would Balloon Deficit, Analysis Finds." But while the headline referred to Sen. Barack Obama and not Sen. John McCain, the article itself reported that the Tax Policy Center found that McCain's tax plan would add $5 trillion to the national debt while Obama's plan would add $3.4 trillion. The article stated in its third paragraph that "[a]ccording to a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Obama's tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, including interest, by 2018." The 10th paragraph stated that "[a]ccording to the Tax Policy Center, McCain's tax plans would increase the national debt by at least $5 trillion over the next 10 years."
In a July 2008 report titled "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans," the Tax Policy Center stated:
Both campaigns have complained that our analysis is incomplete because we fail to consider the effects of their spending cuts on the budget. If federal spending evolves as CBO predicts, the tax cuts would translate into substantial increases in the national debt. Senator Obama's plan as described by his economic advisers would increase the debt by about $3.4 trillion by 2018; Senator McCain's plan would increase it by $5.0 trillion. And the health proposals and campaign promises not in the official descriptions could increase the costs still further.
An August 10 DailyKos diary by bradams previously noted that the Post headline highlighted the Tax Policy Center's finding about Obama's tax plan while ignoring its findings about McCain's plan.
Dawuss,
Sadly I agree, but that's not the point of this thread.
Some folks scan newspaper headlines but don't take the time to read the article.
If one only took the headline at face value the reader would assume : ONLY Obama's tax plan will increase the deficit.
A better headline would state: Both candidates Tax Plans Would Balloon Deficit, Analysis Finds
Bottom line: This debt's getting bigger, the dollar will plummet that much further, and we're one step closer to being a second-world nation, and it doesn't matter which candidate we vote in. Got it.
Actual borrom line: Thanks to eight years of fiscal mismanagement and corruption by George W. Bush and his accomplices in the Bush Misadministration, coupled with runaway spending on an illegal war in Iraq and a total lack of oversight by a rubber-stamp GOP-controlled Congress, we're screwed.
Yet another reason to VOTE DEMOCRATIC this year. We have to reverse course in order to survive. And Gramps McCain will not make the changes that are needed.
DAWUSS....
"Bottom line: This debt's getting bigger, the dollar will plummet that much further, and we're one step closer to being a second-world nation, and it doesn't matter which candidate we vote in. Got it."
If Grampy McSame gets in... it will be another four years of the rich not paying a fair percentage of the tax burden and likely another round of tax cuts for the top money makers to pay even less of the tax burden!
I think its obvious that trickle-down economics (aka: Reaganomics) DOES NOT WORK!! The last 28 years have proven that.
With Obama, rest assured that the tax burden on the top will be reversed to, if there is any justice, to pre-Reagan numbers, more likely to Clinton era percentages..... which means a better working and more productive economy! The dropping and repudiation of the WTO, NAFTA, and CAFTA by the USA would be the next best thing to happen!
So basically DAWUSS..... please keep coming in here at MMfA, we're glad to have you.... we are always in need of the less informed to come in here and say things that make no sense and/or are straight out of the rightwing talking point memo from the White House!
Capt posted:
With Obama, rest assured that the tax burden on the top will be reversed to, if there is any justice, to pre-Reagan numbers, more likely to Clinton era percentages..... which means a better working and more productive economy! The dropping and repudiation of the WTO, NAFTA, and CAFTA by the USA would be the next best thing to happen!
I thought Clinton supported and pushed NAFTA and WTO through with a democrat led congress? This should be good right? Why is Barry Hussain Obama running from it now?
Hog,
Your right.... I didnt mention how it was a Democratic president that pushed through NAFTA and the WTO non-amended treatries (which means we can simply walk away from both and CAFTA as well), but they were not pushed through until after 1994.... which means it was a Republican lead Congress that was in charge! So nice try on attempting to blame the minority Democrats in Congress at the time.......
Clinton was a fool to have allowed NAFTA and the WTO to be any form of law in the USA.... thankfully..... even the Republicans were not so stupid to amend them.... as I said... we are not legally bound to them, in that we can simply walk away from them! But for as foolish Clinton was about NAFTA and WTO... he also recognized that taxes will need to be raised on the top money earners, to offset the loss of revenue that he knew would result from NAFTA and WTO against those of us that struggle to make ends meet..... Neither treaty was nescesary for America.... all they did was open the flood gates to corporate domination and that is bad for democracy, freedom, human rights in general!
Obama will be in great position to fix the damage done by Reaganomics, the Clinton mistakes of NAFTA and WTO, and Bush's incessant push for tax cuts for the very wealthy during a war (something NEVER done before in the 6000 years of civilized history of man!)..... as a supporter of Obama .... I will be doing my part of holding his feet to the fire and hope that he can truely be a change to how things are done in DC!
I have the audacity to hope, but am not foolish enough to hold my breath and you should at least try and recognize that Obama represents a true change from corporate cronyism and Grampy McSame does not! I held my nose voting for Clinton the second time around and for the most part, it worked..... For the first time, I find myself voting for someone that doesnt make my nose feel funny while I vote!
Obama may not be the best of all those that ran.... but he is by far a better choice than who the Republicans have!
Good points Capt. Time will tell if Barry can do what you expect of him. His job should be easier if predictions about congress come true this fall also.
Check your time line for NAFTA though. I thought that went through in '93 with the Dems. You are correct about WTO. Newt helped usher that through with the Rep Revolution in '94.
It's what they do, Kyle, but they don't run on it. Like most issues, the GOP SOP is to promise the exact opposite of what they've historically done, then deliver the exact opposite of what they've promised, i.e., the same thing they've always done.
That may sound crazy to you and me, but it somehow gets them millions of votes. If it ain't broke....
What MM doesn't tell you is that so-called "non-partisan" Tax Policy Center is a production of the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.
So of course they're going to like Obama's plan better!
What you mean like this?
(Cartoon by Steve Greenberg.)
It's so wonderful not having to worry what history actually was.
"Gop good, DEM bad." Why don't you just cut and post that, as 99.6% of your posts reduce to that basic statement.
clinton did not have surpluses for the first years of his administration. when he passed his tax increases on the wealthy, there was not one vote for it by the republicans. instead they predicted a severe recession, even depression. this graph shows how the debt grew, or did not grow, under various presidents. it was leveling off the last few years of clinton, and shot up again after bush2 took office, as it did when reagan took office. what we need to do is return to the tax rates of the clinton years [and i would pay a few hundred dollars more] and yes, cut spending and yes, make sure any new programs are paid for.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
If [Clinton] truly had a surplus, the deficit would have gone down, which it didnt. - science101
Actually, if you have a budget surplus, that means that you don't have a deficit. You can't have both. What I think you meant to say is that the nation's debt would have gone down. You're correct that it should, but you're incorrect in that it did.
If you look at a chart that simply shows absolute dollars, it just rises, though you see it level out a lot during Clinton's term. However, most will agree that adjusting either to GDP, the above link does, or to inflation, as this link does (about 2/3 of the way down), gives a better picture. On those, you clearly see the dip.
What a crock lol. Everyone knows...(Arts & Crafts 101)
Let this be a warning to any youngsters out there who may be considering dabbling in right wing propaganda. Sure, you just want to "experiment", get some "kicks". All the hip Country stars make it look pretty glamorous.
And, Daddy-O , is it cool to tune out. When Rush does that phony laugh to dismiss an issue that he doesn't want to address, your whole body goes limp, and reality just fades away. Lol, indeed. Laughing makes it all seem so silly, and erases any need to think.
And when Rush says "We all know...", well, it's unanimous.If we all know something, it must be true. No need to go digging up facts, or applying any critical thinking to the subject. You've got the warm, fuzzy comfort of a hallucinatory majority.
And it all seems like harmless fun in small doses. Like a nap from the neck up,a little mini-vacation from the cold hard facts of planet Earth.
Until you hit rock bottom. That's when you start actually believing that saying "lol" and "what a crock" makes things that are real go away.
You start to convince yourself that saying "we all know..." makes things that are false true.
And you get so disoriented that you log onto websites, using screennames that describe the exact opposite of your thought process ("science" for "emotionally based nonsense", for example).
& then the under-the-skin insects come.
"If federal spending evolves as CBO predicts, the tax cuts would translate into substantial increases in the national debt. Senator Obama's plan as described by his economic advisers would increase the debt by about $3.4 trillion by 2018; Senator McCain's plan would increase it by $5.0 trillion."
You have to show how this statement is false to prove your point. If they're accurately relaying what the CBO says, then what difference would that bias make?
Brab,
What I think is the dirty little secret is that Obama's plan calls for increases in deficit spending, but only making the deficit somewhat less than McCain, since Obama is going to tax some of the people more.
Is all this talk about fiscal responsibility by the Democrats a bunch of worthless campaign promises?
Doesn't the current administration keep the full amount of defence spending OFF the budget? How much would it be if you added on all the "Emergency" bills that keep on being asked for?
I'm still surprised at your sneering that someone who is planning to keep your country's defecit lower than his opponent is somehow worse than what is planned by McCain. I was always taught that the definition of madness was doing the same things over and over while expecting a different result.
OMG.....Science101 actually said something that almost makes sense......
Almost..... but let me add to it so that it might...
"I dont see either candidate being fiscally conservative unless they cut spending" (my add on) ---> and since it has been shown that the whole concept of a Homeland Security Dept is a sea of several billions wasted and since it is also been proved that trusting private contractors is a waste, I say we disband the HSD and hire a crap load of agents to go find our lost billions in Switzerland and the Caymen Islands, and since the Bush regime seems to just love the concept of retroactive immunity, we can change the treaties we have with these countries to allow us to see what they have in those accounts and then have them either show the accounting for all that money they got with those publicly known contract amounts or fine them or arrest all the war-profiteers and force them to pay back the equivelent amount they got minus a set table of expenses they would have occured before this cronyism was allowed to go unfettered, oh and by simply making no-bid contracts illegal!
And this would just be the start in finding all our money..... and only Obama will have the audacity to try it? Certainly McSame won't!
AA and Science,
If you have two candidates and one is going to grow the deficit less than the other, which one is more fiscally responsible?
Yeah, good luck with that. Unfortunately, a candidate who meets your fiscal-responsibility standards isn't on the menu this year. What are you going to do, threaten to hold your breath?
And, do you really think that (after their endless sermons on the subject) the Republicans have made a good case for being the "responsible adults?" How about the idea that they're such great businessmen, and so uniquely equipped to manage the economy? Still buying that one?
It is to laugh.
Fair point Oscar, but if one is called out for it and the other isn't and is drunker, is the article biased?
I have an idea for Republicans: when your spending gets out of control, raise taxes and pay for the things that are your priorities so my generation won't have to!
Is all this talk about fiscal responsibility by the Democrats a bunch of worthless campaign promises?
Speaking of worthless campaign promises:
The 2000 GOP platform promised a new era of honor, purpose and accountability "As idle indulgence gives way to a new Republican president in the coming new 'period of consequences,' the United States can again regain the hope it lost eight years ago. We can restore our country’s sense of international purpose and national honor."
The 2000 GOP platform accused the Clinton administration of engaging in stonewalling, evasion, deceit and cover-ups"The rule of law, the very foundation for a free society, has been under assault, not only by criminals from the ground up, but also from the top down. An administration that lives by evasion, coverup, stonewalling, and duplicity has given us a totally discredited Department of Justice."
The 2000 GOP platform blamed the Clinton administration for America’s low standing in the Middle East -- and for high gas prices "What happened? Eight years ago, the nation was energy confident. Our standing in the Middle East was at its zenith. The oil cartel was in retreat; gasoline was affordable, even as automotive progress reduced emissions from cars. Today, gas prices have skyrocketed, and oil imports are at all-time highs."
The 2000 GOP platform accused the Clinton administration of alienating America's allies "The arrogance, inconsistency, and unreliability of the administration's diplomacy have undermined American alliances, alienated friends, and emboldened our adversaries."
The 2000 GOP platform asserted that the Clinton administration was sending soldiers on back-to-back deployments and jeopardizing retention rates and morale. It also criticized the administration for equipment shortages and soldiers’ inadequate training "When presidents fail to make hard choices, those who serve must make them instead. Soldiers must choose whether to stay with their families or to stay in the armed forces at all. Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless missions rapidly saps morale. Even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, inadequate training, and rapidly declining readiness."
The GOP platform promised that Republicans would defend the First Amendment"The First Amendment enshrines in our Constitution and guarantees indispensable democratic freedoms of speech, press, and association, and, the right to petition our government. The Republican party affirms that any regulation of the political process must not infringe upon the rights of the people to full participation in the political process."
That'll be a subjective figure from almost anybody.
Who would you trust to give you the straight info?
"Obama has criticized Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility, and now he's using Bush's baseline as a yardstick by which to measure fiscal responsibility," said Leonard E. Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. "Congress hasn't agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts because they don't have the money to pay for it."
LOL. What biased, liberal hack this Burman guy is. What the hell does a "co-director" do at an "institute" anyway? Go get a real job, you hippie.
"Wash. Post headline highlighted reported effect on deficit of Obama's plan, not McCain's, which would add $1.6 trillion more"
I'm guessing the Washington Post wanted to point out how flawed Obama's plan was on its own merit as opposed to contrasting it to McCains’s; which is fine.
For example, suppose you really hated President Bush’s foreign policy; couldn’t you hate it all on your own without contrasting it with say that of Jimmy Carter’s? Hmm?