Wash. Post uncritically reported false McCain claim that Obama "would raise taxes"
SUMMARY: The Washington Post uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's false claim that Sen. Barack Obama "would raise taxes." In fact, the Tax Policy Center concluded that, compared with McCain, "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers" -- those households earning more than $250,000 per year.
In an October 1 Washington Post article, staff writers Anne E. Kornblut and Michael D. Shear reported that "[Sen. John] McCain, still stung by the defeat of a [bailout] compromise he had championed, changed the subject slightly on Tuesday to focus on tax policy, hammering [Sen. Barack] Obama with the oft-repeated charge that the Democratic nominee would raise taxes." But Kornblut and Shear did not mention that McCain's "oft-repeated charge" is false. In fact, the Tax Policy Center concluded that, compared with McCain, "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers" -- those households earning more than $250,000 per year. Indeed, McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has reportedly said it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes."
During the September 26 presidential debate, McCain himself noted that Obama would provide "tax cuts" but then returned moments later to suggesting that Obama would "raise people's taxes":
McCAIN: Now, Senator Obama didn't mention that, along with his tax cuts, he is also proposing some $800 billion in new spending on new programs.
Now, that's a fundamental difference between myself and Senator Obama. I want to cut spending. I want to keep taxes low. The worst thing we could do in this economic climate is to raise people's taxes.
From Kornblut and Shears' October 1 Washington Post article:
McCain, still stung by the defeat of a compromise he had championed, changed the subject slightly on Tuesday to focus on tax policy, hammering Obama with the oft-repeated charge that the Democratic nominee would raise taxes.
And in other news today, the sky was blue and the leaves in the east are turning colors.
Maybe MMfA should have a link bar to the side of the page with topics covered, where they could put these posts instead, once its the 30th on the topic.
Maybe misinformation is misinformation and it's useful to note who promotes it, even if others have done it before.
And it's especially important to not conservative misinformation coming from supposedly left-wing sources such as the NY Times and the Washington Post.
That should have read as follows:
And it's especially important to note conservative misinformation coming from supposedly left-wing sources such as the NY Times and the Washington Post.
Who said it wasn't misinformation? It's just nothing new.
"Maybe misinformation is misinformation and it's useful to note who promotes it, even if others have done it before."
That means that all misinformation is worthy of highlighting, it doesn't mean you suggested it wasn't misinformation.
Think about what you're saying for a minute, as far as people who take note of the general trends of behavior for media outlets here. If CBS (for a random entity) waits until several other media sources have spouted out some bit of misinformation, then it will get buried when they do it. Then we'll hear that CBS is reliable or even liberal because you never see any items about them.
Well Dex, Idiots like you continue to fall for it every time. You never learn from MMFA's corrections of the misinformation.
Since I'm a relatively conservative poster, I can only assume that, by referring to me as an "idiot", you are a Nazi.
Since I'm a relatively conservative poster, I can only assume that, by referring to me as an "idiot", you are a Nazi.
I call "Godwin's Law". Since Dex had to resort to a Nazi reference, he automatically loses the argument. Victory for Skeptical.
Dex,
Only an idiot would continue to post things that are so, idiotic! How you get Nazi out of any of this is quite beyond the realm of logic, but being that you are an idiot, it fits nicely into your realm.
"Maybe MMfA should have a link bar to the side of the page with topics covered, where they could put these posts instead, once its the 30th on the topic."
Maybe the media should pull its collective head out of its backside and start analyzing McCain's lies instead of simply repeating them, then MMFA will have fewer items to post.
Ditto, Pete592! If the media DID start to analyze McCain's lies and either refuse to repeat them or, even more responsible, REPORT that they are lies we wouldn't NEED Media Matters. As to your following post, no, I CAN'T imagine John McCain actually being honest about ANYTHING. He hasn't yet.
Can you imagine John McCain actually being honest about Barack Obama's proposals in front of a crowd of blue-collar folks in rural Deer Creek Falls Cornwall?
"My friends, Barack Obama wants to lower your taxes and raise mine. That's not change we can believe in."
If you put lipstick on tax raise, it is still a tax raise:
"...pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers"
Do "high income taxpayers" not count? Sounds like wealth distribution to me.
What? A 700 billion dollar blank check going to these Wall St. punks isn't distribution upward?
I mean really. How out to lunch is McCain? And how stupid does he think we are? We tax payers almost gave these Wall St. derelicts nearly a trillion of our dollars, with damn little return for our investment, to cover their malfeasant asses. And along comes John McCain talking about lowering taxes on the same jerks who are bending us over the table. Where is the money going to come from John? China? Santa Claus?
No the truth is the next president will have to raise taxes. The question is who's gonna get hit? McCain is going to take it out of our hide and he's going to take it out of employer based health plans.
Obama is going to go after those who have benefited most from the Republican economy and those who most deserve to pay for this disaster.
Sounds like wealth distribution to me. (Goofella)
Yes. Every financial transaction in the world, since the beginning of time, is designed to distribute wealth. Did you just now have the light bulb go on ?
Col. Harlan Sanders: "Every financial transaction in the world...is designed to distribute wealth." ? I guess I snuck outside for a smoke when they were doin' the distributin'. I think you probably meant that "some" transactions distributed wealth among those who already had it. Discuss.
Hey Maddog, if I wasn't clear, I only meant that the only reason money exists is to be distributed. It represents wealth, and, outside of behavior due to mental disorders like hoarding, wealth has no relevance if not "distributed".