LA Times, Chicago Tribune uncritically reported McCain's misrepresentation of Obama's tax plan
SUMMARY: The Los Angeles Times uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's claim that Sen. Barack Obama "proposes" to raise taxes on small businesses, while the Chicago Tribune reported McCain's accusation that Obama "clearly wants to" raise such taxes. In fact, as FactCheck.org wrote in response to a prior McCain claim that Obama would increase taxes on small-business owners: "[T]he overwhelming majority of those small-business owners would see no increase, because they earn too little to be affected."
In an October 20 article, the Los Angeles Times uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's October 19 comment at a campaign rally that, "I won't raise taxes on small businesses, as Sen. [Barack] Obama proposes, and force them to cut jobs." Similarly, the Chicago Tribune uncritically reported that McCain said, "If I'm elected president, I won't raise taxes on small businesses, as Sen. Obama clearly wants to do, and force them to cut jobs." In fact, as FactCheck.org wrote in response to a prior McCain claim that Obama's plan would increase taxes on small-business owners: "[T]he overwhelming majority of those small-business owners would see no increase, because they earn too little to be affected. Obama's tax proposal would raise rates only on couples making more than $250,000 or singles earning more than $200,000."
According to a September 30 Tax Policy Center report, "Under current law, the 10 percent income tax bracket will disappear in 2011 and the 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent brackets will increase to 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent, respectively. ... Senator Obama would extend the 10, 15, 25, and 28 percent tax rates but restore the 36 and 39.6 percent rates imposed on the highest income taxpayers." These changes would apply to small-business owners who pay individual income taxes on their profits. According to an April 27, 2007, Tax Policy Center study, only 1.5 percent of tax units with small-business income fall above the current 28 percent tax rate. Additionally, Obama has proposed tax cuts for small businesses, including the "Obama Small Business Health Tax Credit," a "refundable credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees."
By contrast, an October 20 Associated Press article reported that while McCain "told Fox ... that small businesses would be forced to cut jobs under Obama because their taxes would climb," "[o]nly a small percentage of American small businesses generate incomes above $250,000, and most owners of such enterprises would not be affected under Obama's tax plan."
Additionally, the Los Angeles Times reported, "In Toledo, which is near the town where Joseph Wurzelbacher challenged Obama on his tax plan, McCain cited the now-famous plumber to press his argument that his opponent's agenda would hurt businesspeople in a time of economic stress," but did not note that Obama's plan would not increase his taxes according to reports of Wurzelbacher's income and of the income of the company he has expressed interest in purchasing. According to an October 16 report by The Blade of Toledo, Ohio, "Court records from a divorce show Mr. Wurzelbacher made $40,000 in 2006." In an October 16 blog post, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper wrote that according to ABC News' Chris Bury, Wurzelbacher "acknowledged that he wants to purchase the plumbing business for $250-280,000, not that he would net that much in profits. He would make much less, he said." Tapper also noted that "Wurzelbacher this morning told ABC News' Diane Sawyer that he was talking about, in Diane's words, the prospect, the hope that someday he would make $250,000." Further, in an October 17 article, The Wall Street Journal reported that the company Wurzelbacher has expressed interest in purchasing "reported sales this year of $100,000."
From the Tribune article:
In Ohio, McCain cast himself as the better choice for middle-class workers and small-business owners.
"If I'm elected president, I won't raise taxes on small businesses, as Sen. Obama clearly wants to do, and force them to cut jobs," McCain said at a rally at Otterbein College. "I will keep small business taxes where they are, help them keep their costs low and let them spend their earnings to create more jobs."
From the LA Times article:
The Republican candidate held two rallies in Ohio, rushing through his standard speech so quickly that he left both ahead of schedule. At the convention center in Toledo, which was half-full, the crowd barely responded at times to his applause lines.
In Toledo, which is near the town where Joseph Wurzelbacher challenged Obama on his tax plan, McCain cited the now-famous plumber to press his argument that his opponent's agenda would hurt businesspeople in a time of economic stress. "I won't raise taxes on small businesses, as Sen. Obama proposes, and force them to cut jobs," he said.
McCain had invited Wurzelbacher to join him Sunday, but the burly Everyman rebuffed the offer and instead took his son and father to New York City, where he appeared on a Fox News talk show hosted by former GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee. McCain is scheduled to campaign in the area again at midweek, and aides said the invitation stood.
Wurzelbacher has acknowledged that his taxes would actually be cut under Obama's proposal, but McCain and Palin continue to intone his name frequently to try to connect with swing voters who are increasingly skeptical that the duo can be trusted to fix the economy.
Look folks, Obama's tax plan is pretty easy to follow. If you make less than $250k / year, you're going to get a tax cut, you know, that thing that republicans always promise, but then give to the rich folks. I mean, for Pete's sake, it really is that easy. So easy, that most of us, meaning the 95% figure they keep quoting, will see MORE money in our paychecks than before. If I was making over $250K, I wouldn't mind ponying up a little more, but I don't.
I would think that made aware of the facts, most, if not almost all (re 95% of Americans) would be in favor of this. And the people crying socialism the loudest, such as folks at McCain-Palin rallies, would benefit the most from this.
John's plan seems easy to follow as well. He wishes not to raise taxes on anyone. Whether he will or not is up for debate....Maverick and all. The problem I'm having is neither candidate wishes to reduce spending. You can't lower taxes without reducing spending somewhere unless you just want to shift more of the burden onto someone else. I'm not pulling for either candidate, as they both have issues, but until someone running for President makes a promise to reduce spending, taxes will go up. The only difference is who gets the "hit". IMHO, both of these nominees are lightweights.
Haven't we recently, during the Bush administration, spent so irresponsibly that we actually DO need to raise taxes to start making back some money? McCain doesn't want to raise the taxes on anyone, but what he does want to do is cut more taxes away from the wealthiest people in the country, by keeping, and then extending what Bush did. We also keep hearing from the republicans about how we're at war. I don't remember anyone ever cutting taxes during a time of war. Obama's plan wants to cut taxes though for 95% of us, and then take away all of the giganticly huge tax breaks that highly profitable companies in the US get from the government, for no real reason (Oil corporations come to mind of course as some who get huge tax breaks, but have quarterly profits in the 10s of billions of dollars). Obama's plan does increase spending, but he covers it. McCain increases spending, but doesn't cover it, or even come close to it. There is a big difference there methinks.
It's ironic that the McCain campaign and it's supporters are in favor of cutting taxes and waging this war until "victory" is achieved. I think your right Mag, no one has cut taxes during wartime.
Many of these people are all for war as long as they don't have to pay for it or fight in it.
Its the same "cut taxes and spend a fortune on defense" angle they have been doing since at least Reagan. At least the tax and spenders can do math. Which is why the deficit climbed so much more under Reagan and the Bushes than under Carter and Clinton.
Is MM serious??
The LA Times and Chicago Tribune have enthusiastically endorsed Obama after nearly two years of wildly cheerleading for his campaign.
"Conservative misinformation"? LOL!
-
Everything you post here is "conservative misinformation", Shoes.
Excuse me, ma'am. You seem to be lost. I couldn't help but notice you commenting on unrelated topics and LOLing at nothing in general. Are you on any medications? Can we contact yur caretakers?
Conservatism at its finest...
Is MM serious??The LA Times and Chicago Tribune have enthusiastically endorsed Obama after nearly two years of wildly cheerleading for his campaign."Conservative misinformation"? LOL!
Here's how the LAT works.
The editorial staff is fairly progressive, sometimes, and there is still a news/editorial wall present. But the news division has become heavily politicized towards the right the last few years or so, thanks to the Sam Zell takeover.
What happens is that news editors out-and-out censor reporter's copy, even to the point of deliberately omitting material, or re-writing headlines and subheads that give a purposely conservative slant to the articles.
That's how Rpublican misinformation and propaganda gets injected into the LAT news division. In fact, a year ago, even Bill O'reilly celebrated the "big change" in the LAT, that the news division was being run separately from the Op/Ed staff. In his view that was a good thing-- so what else do you need to know about the discrepancy?
Yes, we have spent irresponsbly. Taxing the wealthiest among us will not make a dent in that debt. And NO I've never heard of anyone cutting taxes in a time of war either. My point is that both candidates wish to raise spending. How can a candidate wish to bring the debt down without reducing spending? Taxing is a no brainer for both candidates...both will....but its a matter of who gets hit with the higher taxes. BO already promised to increase mine, Johnny Mac may or may not, but until either one says or promises to cut costs, we will get highr taxes.
And as a side note, I'm not for any company getting corporate welfare, and I was not in favor of this war.
Cutting spending is the only way to reduce taxes.
The world's tiniest violin plays for those making over $250,000 a year. We have empathy, we really do. Thankfully, you guys are such a tiny voting block that you won't prevent Barack from winning the election.
So eliminating $300 BILLION in tax breaks to the top 1% and richest corporations won't "dent" the debt, but eliminating $18 billion in earmarks (the excessive spending McCain always harps on) will? Sounds like Karl Rove's new math all over again.
Not convinced? Add saving $10 billion a month by leaving Iraq and that's $420 BILLION we're not giving away. Then cut the Defense budget in half and that's another $250 BILLION in the bank. Then get rid of that stupid giveaway to Big Pharm that the GOP passed. That's another $50 billion in the bank per year we save.
Total: $720 BILLION save and not one dime starved from a worthy program.
Randy
Randy,
I have no problem with any of your suggestions. As I posted, I have no problem with eliminating corporate welfare, the war expense, leaving Iraq, etc. The problem I have is that by raising the taxes on those of us making more than 250,000 will somehow eliminate the debt. I think that is BO BS.
I don't think anyone is really saying that taxing those of us making over $250k / year will eliminate the debt. What Obama is proposing, as I think others have mentioned, is the elimination of corporate welfare, at least to those companies that don't need it, along with a small increase in the tax rate of those amongst us who have been lucky enough to do well, will help, or aide in reducing the debt, and paying for the programs that we need for our country. I don't know if anyone would argue, with a straight face, that increasing the taxes on the most well to do is going to cut back our debt. I do agree with you though, that spending, unnecessary spending, does need to get cut back. Thing is, it's hard to do.
Take your problem up with the straw man, then. Nobody is arguing that raising taxes on wealthy people will eliminate the debt.
It sounded like your problem, as of your first two posts, was that the candidates need to show how they are gonna reduce spending, not just re-distribute wealth.
Randy showed you some examples of how Obama's administration would reduce spending. Then, you showed your true colors. So you'd like more of the overall tax burden to be on the lower- and middle-classes?
" Nobody is arguing that raising taxes on wealthy people will eliminate the debt" -- I'll be more than happy to take up that position.
Obama won't raise taxes enough to eliminate the debt because he's a milquetoast in a lousy political climate, but it could be done.
Clinton got the deficit to 0 with a top rate of 40%. That rate could go as high as 70% without the economy or jobs feeling a thing. We have 1920s-era inequality right now, and the super rich are sitting on a pile of money so enormous that it defies comprehension.
I'm not advocating that we actually raise taxes to 70%. But if we did, doomsday would not happen. Quite the opposite. Please get a sense of history, people. We've done this before.
"How can a candidate wish to bring the debt down without reducing spending? "
Suddenly, the "debt" is "our" debt? Too funny, you corporate communist.
You claim you were not in favor of invasion, but if you want what McCain wants, you want victory. Victory costs, buddy. If you didn't want war, you should not have voted Republican. Nothing about the right says diplomacy or military restraint. You got what you voted for, even if you don't want to pay for your vote. So stop groveling about spending and pony up what you owe to the rest of the country that your rightwing pals still call traitors and not patriotic. Myopic fools that you are, you jerkwad rich bastards overwhelmingly voted for Bush because he promised to lighten your tax burden. He promised behind closed doors, by way of tax relief, to the, 'have mores,' aka his base, to shift the tax burden to the working, lazy have nothing peons. Then after ignoring the August 29th warning signs and castigating sensible protesters who (read: not you, Dave, for you do not protest profit over people, blood for oil or the status quo) knew in their bones that occupying Iraq was a fatal error in judgment: he and his Republican thugs voted in lockstep, to a man, to invade Iraq. Along the way, they cowed about a third of the so called "liberal" Democrats to go along to get along on Iraq.
No. screw that. This is your debt. This is the debt of all the smug, talented capitalist predators who voted for a "muscular" foreign policy and a small, non-intrusive government.
But if you want to talk about what's wrong right now, it ain't taxes, it's low wages and high costs. While Bush was giving you such a sweet deal, you punks couldn't be satisfied with making tons of profits, you had to have obscene profits, so you outsourced your jobs to the lowest, most degrading slave labor economies on the planet. Thank God for that long, long green, eh Dave? You're comfy ain't ya? Ya hard working, smarter than the rest, SOB. Right? You and your capacious estate, gated community, country club buddies raced wages to the bottom of the barrel in the face of a broken American labor force. After all, the cats who didn't like working for you guys couldn't go to their union steward, they could just go find the door, couldn't they? Even though the American labor force is the most productive labor force in the world, you good ol' boys didn't care. You would not share. Shoot, labor is expendable, you're the real reason this economy hums ain't ya? You are just so much more entitled to it all than some uneducated, bare-knuckled, father of three, slob in a trailer park in Pennsylvania.
You must be so proud.
If you are so much more entitled to owning all the wealth, then I would contend that you are so much more responsible for the implosion of prosperity.
Go tell somebody else about spending. You don't spend anything on anyone but yourself.
Tax and spend is far more responsible that borrow and spend. The latter has been practiced by the Reppublicans for decades to ill effect.
I have no respect for people who try to claim that these two candidates are somehow the same thing. It's an argument by weasels who want to maintain the right to complain about whomever gets in. Pick a side and stick with it already.
Its also ironic that they ignore Bush having the government buying stakes in the banks while crying socialism.
Wookie, while I agree that Bush signed the bailout into law, it was highly approved by both sides of the aisle.
True. And look at this statement from McCain yesterday:
McCain, too, in his interview with Fox's Wallace, said the bailout was not tantamount to socialism.
Watch why McCain relishes his underdog status »
"That is reacting to a crisis that's due to greed and excess in Washington," he said, summing up the bill, which he criticized for bailing out banks rather than homeowners.
"But you voted for that," Wallace said.
McCain replied, "Of course. It was a package that had to be enacted because the economy was about to go into the tank."
He added, "That's the reason why we have governments, to help those who need help, who can't help themselves, and in a time of crisis, to step in and do what's necessary to preserve the lives and futures of innocent people. It wasn't Main Street America that caused this; it was Washington and Wall Street." iReport.com: Send your questions for Sen. John McCain
So John; why when Obama wants to help out the majority of the country it's socialism, but when you want to help out corporations and banks, it's not? His last paragraph or statement above sure sounds like socialism as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/20/campaign.wrap/index.html
well, Gramps and Cramps are banking on their base to pull them through this election, dontcha know?
Now on PBS: Religious Voter: I can't imagine a President being named Obama
By John Amato Monday Oct 20, 2008 10:00amAnd Tracy Kerlee is supposed to be a Christian.
A 'religious' voter? Isn't that insulting to most religious people? Why don't they just say 'closed-minded' or some other nice euphemisim for racist?
I have to agree, Obama's atheist-style name frightens me a little.
Sure thing science101. Why don't you try posting your racist drivel under your own pseudonym, coward?
Hey, Snoop, that was me just being facetious. I think the troll got booted.
Hey, Snoop, that was me just being facetious. I think the troll got booted.
He'll be back - they always come back, usually with numbers after their user names......
Looks like he was successful in sowing seeds of mistrust. Sorry Col. If I thought it was the real you I wouldn't have said anything because I know how you think.
I did send a letter to MMFA and asked them if they can protect the change username feature or just eliminate it. I really don't see why anyone needs to change usernames anyways.
I changed mine just for the hell of it. I never pretended to be anybody else, and I didn't do it to be annoying. I think that has to be a judgement call by the site, some sorry punk like the one yesterday using other peoples' screen names to post would find it difficult to get back on here if I was running things.
Sorry Mag,
I am going to have to disagree with you on McCain's governmental position as being socialist.
It helps far too few to be socialist.
I's say it is more of a corporatist oligarchy stance. The few and powerful helping themselves to another slice of the pie off the backs of the middle class. Are you feeling a degraded as a nake woman getting sushi eaten off you by strangers? You should because of the way this law was written most of us just paid for the Ahi. And no tip for you except the knife they slid in.
"And the people crying socialism the loudest, such as folks at McCain-Palin rallies, would benefit the most from this."
As Ed Schultz would say...... "I call those people, low information voters."
I concur with that definition of the majority of people that show up at these Palin/Grampy rallies.
Let me ask you a simple question, if 35% of Americans do not pay taxes how can 95% get a tax cut? I'll tell you, they will get a check, not a rebate, a check, like welfare.
Which will help offset their payroll taxes.
if 35% of Americans do not pay taxes...
Fail... begging the question.
how can 95% get a tax cut ?
I believe it's 95% of taxpayers.100% of taxpayers pay taxes.
Right-wing losers like M. Rotten Levin and Jeff Christie have been trying to confuse people by using Obama's $250,000 amount incorrectly. While Obama is talking about people who make more than $250,000 per year from a small business, Levin and Christie are talking about small businesses that gross more than $250,000 a year. And everybody knows that if a small business grosses $250K, after it pays expenses (equipment, supplies, payroll for any employees, etc), there's much less left that the owner(s) can claim as personal profit.
Don't be confused. Recognize the liars like Levin ajnd Christie for what the are - LIARS.
OBABA '08
So you would impose taxing them so that you could get what? Reducing the debt? Lowering taxes? My question is what does does taxing the top 5% do to benefit you? Wealth redistribution? Paying less taxes yourself? What is it?
So you would impose taxing them so that you could get what?
Fairness. The upper brackets benefitted from the Bush tax breaks, and now it's time for those in the middle class to get a break.
Oh, I don't know.... we could start by paying for President Numbnuts' optional war, instead of putting it on the National Credit Card.
"My question is what does taxing the top 5% do to benefit you? Wealth redistribution?
Thank you for the lead-in. I have posted this idea about 500 times now. I still haven't heard a peep from a conservative. So, here it goes again: all the government does is redistribute wealth. Period. End of tale. They collect taxes and issue debt then decide where to SPEND the proceeds. They redistribute wealth. So what you mean is you're afraid that someone not rich might get some of the money. Conservatives never complain half as much about welfare for the wealthy as they do the poor. Where was the outrage for bailing out Bear Sterns and AIG? Compare that mammoth redistribution of wealth to the pittance paid out to the destitute masses shambling from place to place without a future. Where is THEIR bailout? Why isn't a human life too big to fail? This is as much a moral question as a financial one:
Why won't America take care of its own? What does it say about us as a people when we allow some to forage in dumpsters while the chief officers of AIG go on a $420,000 getaway, on the government's dime no less?
As we consider ourselves a Christian nation, there is nothing "un-American" about caring for the poor. Jesus was all for it. Why aren't we?
Randy
Oh, I don't know , Randy. I have been against the bailouts, Bear Sterns, etc. I have been against the war, illegal or not. Redistribution of wealth does not mean my hard earned money should go to my neighbor, it should go to building roads, bridges, police, fire, etc....you know, the "common good." My neighbor is responsible for his own debt. He cannot build roads, bridges, etc....against the law. Those guys foraging in dumpsters are on their own. And Jesus" program was a bit different than mine....but he never paid the taxes I do. He may have thought differently.
You're right, Jesus was a lazy bum. However, I'm not so sure about this statement:
Redistribution of wealth does not mean my hard earned money should go to my neighbor, it should go to building roads, bridges, police, fire, etc
Not sure why you think your money is going to your 'neighbor', is your neighbor a lobbyist?
Or are you railing against Social Security and Medicare?
So you think Jesus would think differently if he paid the taxes that you do? Wow, what a deep thinker you are. You are against the Iraqi money pit...that's great. However you refuse to see where most of the taxpayer money goes. Not to the poor. Just google "corporate welfare" and read a bit about it. Then google stagflation and see why hard working people don't get ahead despite working 2 or 3 jobs.
but back to the poor...which many middle class hard working folks will become if they get sick...you may not think it worthwhile to care at all about them. How about the mentally impaired or physically disabled? Want to have the kind of society that Dickens describes? That's the fulfillment of the neo-Con laissez faire dream, and it's a nightmare.
For me, it boils down to who benefits from the societal structure more, and who can pay to support it with the least effect on their lifestyle. On one hand Joe the Contractor clears $300,000, and one of his workers makes 30,000. Which one has benefitted more from the utilities, roads, banking structure, etc. of the United States? Which one would feel the pinch of an extra 3% tax the least? For the worker, the extra $900 could be the difference in getting his kid's dental work done. For Joe the Contractor, the extra $9000 could mean that he might have to settle for a Volvo instead of a Mercedes. I think it's safe to say that it won't cost him any of the necessities of life, unless he has a gambling problem.
Yes, but Joe the Contractor works ten times harder and is ten times more successful than his lazy, unmotivated employees, which is why he makes 10 times as much money. Shouldn't he get to keep every hard-earned cent? I mean, it's not like America or her government ever did anything for Joe the Contractor, so why should he be indebted to the government?
How do we know Joe the contractor works ten times harder. Why is always a given that a rich person works ten times harder. I've seen personally that that is not always the case. Maybe he inherited the business from the family. Don't automatically assume the Boss workss ten times harder.
peebs, don't make him put a winky face up there !
For Joe the Contractor, the extra $9000 could mean that he might have to settle for a Volvo instead of a Mercedes. Nerzog
But why should it be up to you to decide? That would be like me deciding whether Joe the worker's family eats or the one kid gets the dental work. Its none of my business what Joe the worker decides.
And IMHO, the Mercedes is a much better choice, though. Volvo will get you from A to B, but the Mercedes gets you there in style, but to my green friends, with worse fuel economy.
"But why should it be up to you to decide?"
We don't decide. Joe gest to decide his own priorities. Maybe he gets the Mercedes, but sells the yacht. That's up to him. What we do decide is whether or not he has to pay his fair share.
Once is right. Joe has plenty of choices. In fact, his massively larger pile of disposable income gives him many more choices than his employee. THAT is his reward for being an entrepreneur. The taxes he pays are the price he pays for living in a country that gives him the opportunity to get rich.
Seems fair to me.
"But why should it be up to you to decide?'
Because this is our democracy and we all have a voice.
"That would be like me deciding whether Joe the worker's family eats or the one kid gets the dental work."
That decision is exactly what you take upon yourself when you opt to drive down wages and make everything for profit. Joe can only enjoy as much opportunity as he can afford.
Good points, Randy. I also find it quite amazing that republicans continue to insist this bailout was caused by minorities and Democrats. But when the truth comes to light, they run as fast as they can to the next "look over there!" talking point. I thought this piece about those so called republican efforts to reign in lending was quite revealing...
AP IMPACT: Mortgage firm arranged stealth campaign
WASHINGTON – Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.
In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.
"So you would impose taxing them so that you could get what? Reducing the debt? Lowering taxes? My question is what does does taxing the top 5% do to benefit you? Wealth redistribution? Paying less taxes yourself? What is it?"
Dave,
I understand your apprehension about the idea of the top wage earners in our society having to pay a bit more in taxes. I mean they already have the burden of making millions and paying less than 20% while my wife and I struggle to make $35k between us and we pay near 35%.
I also understand that the rightwing conservative ideology that is prevalent within the media/several politicians these last 30 years is hard for the average citizen to realize that he/she has been had.
It also must be hard to come to terms that people such as yourself? that have continuosly voted against their own interests. For this, I don't blame you specifically, I assume your an adult, so the old adage "Ignorance is not a defense" comes to mind.
He isn't voting against his interests. Dave is a fat cat. He admitted long ago that he's rich and lives in a gated community to keep out the maurading baddies.
My simple argument is why can't we go back to the tax rates we had under Clinton? The rich paid a little more and they surely did well during his reign. Obama is restoring the sanity that we had under Clinton, when people were happy and prosperous; middle-class and rich alike.
In reality, the neocon philosophy is not fiscal conservatism, it's an attempt to discredit government by keeping it underfunded. They figure if they can keep the government in debt and unable to pay for the services that might endear the public to government solutions. Once they've effectively protrayed govenment as ineffective, they can more easily convince the public to continue to defund it. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just ask Grover Norquist and Abrahmoff lackey about his desire to "...shrink government until it's so small you can drown it in a bathtub..."
I've never voted against my own interests. I've voted for them everytime. My interests include voting against those who'd wish to, once again, raise my taxes, taking more from me that have already been taken. It is you guys on the left who say I'm not being Patriotic enough, that taxes are for the common good, that I've benefitted the most. I simply think I've been taxed enough. I want the Govt to do with less. If you feel that higher taxes are the way to go, then send Uncle Sam your entire paycheck. He'd keep it with no problem. I'm not the ignorant one, Capt. I want the Feds to reduce spending, not tax me more to cover their increasing programs.
Obamas tax plan probably, I can't say for certain but probably won't cahnge your lifestyle much if at all. I aspire to pay more taxes. If I got a tax increase, it would mean I was doing MUCH better that I am now. If I made A quarter milliondollars or more a year, I'd have no problem paying it. Those at the top have benefited the most from what this country has offered. Yes, you've probably worked hard to get there, but you probably had help along the way. You need to pay for the profits you made from the free, (relatively) safe, modern society. By the way, I'm a small (very small) business owner. I believe in Capitalism. I also believe in a strong society. We're only as strong as our weakest member. Wether you want to admit it or not, you do NOT live in a vaccum. You interact with society everyday.
You'll never get one of these me-first high-rollers to admit that they've benefited by government or society at all. They think, mistakenly, that their gains are all the result in talent/hard-work. They forget about the public money spent to prop up business in this country; from the interstate highway system, to treaty negotiation to national defense.
Thankfully, the fat cats such as yourself are an extremely tiny voting block. The rest of us in the middle-class will elect Obama who servers our interests, not yours. You'll use tab water instead of Evian to fill your hot tub, once your asked to pay your fair share again.
"I want the Feds to reduce spending, not tax me more to cover their increasing programs."
I'll raise your typical rich guy bullcrap mentality and raise you that all I want is for the corporate fat-cats to think about America first and create and keep jobs here in America so that my wife and I can make more than $35k a year combined and so that by default because we would have more money to spend x's the other 70 million other Americans that would love that extra money to spend (not save or send to the Caymen Islands) so that by design...... the government would not have to be in the position to spend all that money you cry about that they spend and so that you and I can share the same safe roads, water, food, air, electrical lines, sewer, etc, etc.....
I'll even call your dubunked theory that you already pay more than you should by saying that since you seemingly make enough to believe that voting for Bush/McSame is 'voting' in your best interest to say that if you make that kind of money...... I shed no tears for you that you will be paying with luck.... pre-Reagan tax rates.....
I also leave you with this...... you 'rich' arrogant clown.....
"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization, for without civilization, you would have no money." Oliver Wendell Holmes
Exactly, WZ, that's a point I've been trying to make as often as possible. The Obama campaign doesn't seem to be doing much to clear this up either, and while it may only be convincing to the dittohead demographic, I don't think it's a good idea to overestimate the average American.
Most hilarious/bizarre take I've seen on the topic, over the weekend i caught a little bit of the new Fox show Mike Huckabee's Rockin' Wingnut Funhouse, and he had on some very serious looking economics type dudes.
One of them came up with a terrifying hypothetical situation for Sam the non-plumber.If Sam were to buy the business he works for, hire 5 plumbers to generate sales of half a million bucks, his taxes would go up another 30-40k, and he'd have to lay off one of his plumbers.
I'm not kidding, that was his scary story. I guess there could be some theoretical tax code no-man's-land where an employer's new tax bracket would make the added employee who put him there expendable, but I'd think any competent tax preparer could work that out.
I need specifics if I'm going to be able to understand Huck's theory.
Would Sam be hiring 5 real plumbers or imaginary ones?
The only reason I'm asking is that I always bargain with my imaginary employees and I'm usually able to get them to see things my way.
And yes, my imaginary employees are all union workers.
Local 666 of the IWA.
Would Sam be hiring 5 real plumbers or imaginary ones?
He'll be hiring plumber's helpers:
No wonder you've taken such a keen interest in Joe's imaginary plumbing world, Worrierking. I think these must be plumbers in sort of a spiritual state, even further from reality than Liquid Plumbers.
Of course they could. In fact, hiring a new employee might actually put them back into a lower tax bracket. This is the traditional Jedi mind trick employed by the Republicans every time the Democrats propose a tax increase on the rich. There was much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth when Clinton raised taxes. Remember all the dire predictions about how Clinton's "Largest Tax Increase in History" would wreck the economy? So much for Republican economic predictions.
I guess the next thing that McCain will announce is that Joe the Plumber is going to be the Secretary of Labor.
I think Grampy is wishing he had named Joe the F***ing Plumber as his VP.
I've noticed that Grampy has refined his message. If you listen, his new talking point is that Obama's plan would raise taxes on two thirds of Small Business INCOME. This is one of their cute little word games. I'm sure they have some stats indicating that two thirds of small business income is concentrated in the top 5%, or those making over $250,000. This would make sense, because the vast majority of businesses fall below that line.
This is just another Republican shell game. It reminds me of the evolution of justifications for the Iraq War. It went from "WMDs" to "WMD Programs" to "WMD Program Capabilities" to "Desire for WMD Program Capabilities".
Is MM serious??The LA Times and Chicago Tribune have enthusiastically endorsed Obama after nearly two years of wildly cheerleading for his campaign."Conservative misinformation"? LOL!
Here's how the LAT works.
The editorial staff is fairly progressive, sometimes, and there is still a news/editorial wall present. But the news division has become heavily politicized towards the right the last few years or so, thanks to the Sam Zell takeover.
What happens is that news editors out-and-out censor reporter's copy, even to the point of deliberately omitting material, or re-writing headlines and subheads that give a purposely conservative slant to the articles.
That's how Rpublican misinformation and propaganda gets injected into the LAT news division. In fact, a year ago, even Bill O'reilly celebrated the "big change" in the LAT, that the news division was being run separately from the Op/Ed staff. In his view this was a good thing-- so what else do you need to know about the discrepancy?
What is really happening is that about 10-20% of news articles have a conservative slant so MSM and others can stoke the "right wing media" crap.
What will people remember on election day, this story or that the paper endorsed Obama? I will tell you, as people often take newspaper endorsement sheets into the voting booth. They will remember the ENDORSEMENT!
...people often take newspaper endorsement sheets into the voting booth...
Really? You think that's for the top of the ticket picks, and not for local nominees or initiatiatives? Really?
Of course, you may be mistaking outhouses for polling booths . That's a possibility.
So you think people will be more impressed by this article over the official endorsement. Fat chance.
From a site keeping track of endorsements
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875230
BARACK OBAMA
62 newspapers total
Well over 8 million circulation (we are still counting)
JOHN McCAIN
18 newspapers total
About 1.7 million daily circulation
THE MSM IS LIBERAL DEMOCRAT!
I never made any sort of prediction about what people will or will not be influenced by. I was only askink if you seriously thought people took newspapers to the polss to help them remember which candidate they wanted as president.Here's and interesting short paragraph from your link;
Obama's lopsided margin, including most of the major papers that have decided so far, is in stark contrast to John Kerry barely edging George W. Bush in endorsements in 2004 by 213 to 205.
Do you think the MSM has collectively taken a radical turn towards the dangerous territory of "liberal democrat" ideology in just four years? If so how would you explain that?
If you can't come up with an answer to that with a straight face, you may want to consider the idea that the Republicans have come up with a ridiculous ticket, right on the heels of 8 years of absurdly incompetent governing.
Sometimes things are right in front of your face, and no conspiracies are necessary.
The real conclusion: The MSM is knows the facts. Facts have a liberal bias.
initiatiatives
I got some typing skills.
Col, you're talking to yourself again. Only this time not with two people. You got it all lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lollllllllllllll.........