McCain's Taxing Tax Attacks

But that doesn't mean he can just make up his own facts.

Well he can and will unless you folks stay on the job here. Is there something in the Chicago Manual of Style that says one cannot write the word "lie?"

"Skirts the truth?" Maybe in the sense that Katrina skirted New Orleans.

That said, Michael has actually done some fact checking here, and I'm in favor of giving credit where it's due. Stick to the issues, leave regurgitation of spin to less responsible media, and before you know it we'll all be taking back all the nasty stuff we said.

All that's still needed for balanced coverage is to give McCain a direct opportunity to respond to the falsehoods – and then make sure he answers the question instead of shifting the conversation to talking point blather. I'd expect the same follow-up opportunity if/when MS goes after Obama claims.

See, that would allow voters a useful set of facts when they need to choose between conflicting claims.

Michael: You say McCain's script says of Obama "he voted to raise taxes on folks earning as little as $32,000."

Then you say:
The problem is it's not really true. Or to put it another way, it is almost-kind-of true, but only in the meaningless technical way that campaigns often use to distort the meaning of votes in the Senate.

You go on to explain how it is not"almost-kind-of-true," because The $32,000 figure is approximately the taxable income of a single person making $41,500 per year.

So, those are folks who are earning $41,500 a year, not folks who are earning $32,000 a year. Two of these things are not the same. $41,500 is (are you ready for this, Michael?)29.6% more than $32,000.

This is not true even in a "meaningless technical way." Do you suppose that if your income were reduced such that you were only making 70.4% of what you are now, that you would consider it a "meaningless, technical" reduction?

Do you think people don't understand the difference between what they earn and what they take home?

Please try again to explain how you can be off by nearly a third, but be "almost-kind-of-true.?"

This reads like an excuse for you to lay out all of McCain's talking points against Obama. Please reassure me that your grasp of math is similar to your grasp of homonyms, and that you did't honestly understand that McCain is wrong, intentionally misleading, lying, or there won't be much point in reading your posts anymore.

Michael, of course he can make up his own facts. What's amazing to me is that someone who claims to have read a lot of Pynchon and Baudrillard is capable of being so consistently naive about this campaign.

Facts don't matter, Michael. What matters is hair-cuts, who's a maverick, who eats arugula, and so on.

Remember this from Ron Suskind:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

Sure, Republicans frequently talk about cutting taxes. That's fine. But Republicans frequently get away with failing to give specific spending cuts before an election. They'll say that the tax cuts pay for themselves, but they don't.

Before the election, the traditional media should force McCain to detail his spending cuts that go along with the tax cuts. Is it going to be a 25% cut from the Dept. of Education for example? Michael, you and your associates need to ask McCain for details.

What a refreshing post..

I promise not to give you a hard time when your meaningless technical way post on Obama comes out.

I'm getting the feeling that the McCain camp's distortions and misstatements have become so egrarious that they simply can't be ignored any longer.

This is a nice example of how fact-checking can work.

Holy crap, Mike. I searched and searched for your usual ass-kissing, but couldn't find it. Commenters, am I missing something?

I can only conclude that that this is a shot across the bow directed towards the McCain campaign signaling that if they don't assign you a "good seat" soon, you're going to start, um, *covering* McCain.

Better.

Hopefully not the quota of "negative" fact-based McCain posts until December.

FlownOver: Help me out here. Do you suppose it just sticks in the craw for Michael to actually admit McCain is this dishonest? I will grant you that he could have avoided bringing this to our attention at all, and I, for one, probably wouldn't have noticed it.

Whoa. I appear to have the minority view about this. I'll reconsider.

If I were Obama, I'd be quite happy for McCain to stay on-message on the economy. McCain's problem is he's selling a pup, his facts are wrong, his math doesn't add up and he get confused real easy when asked any questions on the subject.

I agree with jayackroyd that if the press actually rise to this particular challenge, there's the potential for the whole to thing to unravel in spectacular fashion.

I'd simply add that the dereliction of journalistic duty by a lot of political hacks will end up hurting them more in the long run than the readership. Accredited journalists may not be asking any searching questions or seeing through the spin (largely spoon-fed by the McCain camp), but bloggers and posters alike certainly are.

If you can get a more insightful view of the election from some enthusiastic online amateur than you can get from the paid media, when waste your time on money on said media? Time to raise your game guys and grow a pair. It's not like newspaper sales are on the up or anything.

egrarious

Cool coinage.

Yes, Paul D, I think it is starting to become just too embarrassing having to pound out a couple of paragraphs to undo a McCain flip flop or outright lie. We'll have to suffer through "balance," but there's just too much out there on YouTube for the filterers to be able to save face.

Would that someone would do a piece on McCain's pony paradise in Iraq.

Kathy:

Afraid I can't help here. I comment, you decide.

I note the plethora of negative responses, and they're not unfounded. I'd just prefer to let MS know when, by comparison, he's headed more in the direction of responsible reporting. As with most of the lamestream media, he's got some distance to travel yet.

I should have said more clearly that it's good that Michael is calling McCain on this. Bush, as Krugman has written several times, was given a pass on his outright dishonesty about his economic plans.

Thanks for the fact check and the links to sources, Michael.

It does seem like this wasn't even close to almost being technically not a lie, though.

Elvis:

Bonus points for your construction, reminiscent of Douglas Adams: "…a cup filled with a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea."

Well hells bells!

What do I do about the fact that every surplus was engineered by a Democrat and every one of the largest deficits in history were engineered by Republicans?

I mean, come on now...

I think the truth undergoes a "catastrophic total existance failure" with Republicans, just to toss out another Douglas Adams-ism...

Hooray for an article on an actual issue, complete with facts and sources from non-partisan groups!! Sure there's a few sniffs of Republican cologne (i think its old spice) to cover up things most people would refer to as lies.. but there's actual substance in this article. I think Mikey might have actually researched something before writing. Step in the right direction of that thing we call journalism..

Nyle:

Old? Definitely. Spice? Not exactly. Think more along the lines of the McCain pets (not the press, the real ones).

"Carly Fiorina, a McCain economics adviser, argued that if Obama fails to renew the Bush tax cuts, then 23 million small businesses will see their taxes increase. But she failed to note that only a small fraction of that group of businesses, probably around 5 percent, have incomes large enough to be effected by raising the income tax rate for the top bracket."

Jeez, Michael: "failed to note" would be an omission. Saying 23 million instead of under 1 and a half million is a blatant lie.

Serious question: Do you have a condition that inhibits your ability to write in a straight-forward manner? If so, I apologize for my many jabs at you. If not, then why don't you just quit Time and go work for McCain full time?

Well.. I make $42K, so I guess that makes me one of the eviilll rich people that aren't paying their fair share to the federal govt and are denying hardworking Americans health insurance!!!

The problem is that I certainly don't feel rich. In fact, I live in the Messiah's hometown (Chicago) and due to the high COL, my salary barely covers my bills. I'm sure that many people living in NYC and LA probably feel the same way... So if it doesn't "bother" the Messiah so much, I'd really like to keep the extra $$$. I enjoy filling my car with gas and paying for my apartment. And it's quite nice to be able to go out somewhere fun once-in-awhile or "splurge" using my own money..

Is our reporters learning? I think that effect that allows them to practice love with their subjects may be wearing a bit thin. This post by far proves that reporter and reader can coexist together.

Note to commenters who about to jump on the MS train. All this was in the papers yesterday. It comes from Factcheck.org which posted it on the 8th and the Post had it yesterday on its front page. Scoop Scherer he ain't

"Note to commenters who about to jump on the MS train. All this was in the papers yesterday. It comes from Factcheck.org"

Thanks for calling the cops.

Could it be that people are starting to catch on to the fact that McCain lies a lot? Yesterday, he lied to a Vietnam veteran about his support (or lack thereof) for Jim Webb's G.I. Bill.

Today, Larry Kudlow of all people catches McCain in another lie. This time, he's reversed himself on climate change:

I went back last evening and carefully read [John McCain's] 15-page policy pamphlet called "Jobs for America." Here's what I found: There is no mention of cap-and-trade. None. Nada.

....So I picked up the phone and dialed a senior McCain official to make sure these old eyes hadn't missed it. Sure enough, on deep background, this senior McCain advisor told me I was correct: no cap-and-trade. In other words, this central-planning, regulatory, tax-and-spend disaster, which did not appear in Mac's two recent speeches, has been eradicated entirely — even from the detailed policy document that hardly anybody will ever read.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_07/014058.php

Um, not to nag or anything but according to the tax policy center of the 23 million small business owners only 1.4% make over $250,000 and would get taxed more, not 5%. I wouldn't have mentioned it but it's the difference between 322,000 and 1.1 million business owners.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11611.html

Smedley, Jackroyd, Flyover,

Just take a look at the content here at swampland. You've won, accept victory and move on. All content here is about McCain and none of it is positive. It's exactly the kind of coverage you need for Obama to cruise to victory. As long as the election turns on McCain and not Obama, he wins. You've been successful in working the refs here at Time, maybe you should try Newsweek next.

Does anyone even read Newsweek?

Illinidiva:

98% of the world is poorer then you are, or at least make less money a year. You are in the top 2%... maybe your economic woes are due to your lifestyle...

ny nick said

........ As long as the election turns on McCain and not Obama, he wins.

So McCain wins only if there is no critical analysis of his positions and flip-flops? Thanks for the honesty.

"I live in the Messiah's hometown (Chicago)"

That's what's called a "tell". We get it: You don't like Dems or black people or whatever it is about him that reduces you to sycophantic name calling.

Just once, though, I'd love to hear one of John McCain's supporters explain to me why I should vote for McCain without using the word "Obama" or an ad hominem attack on the guy.

Seriously, do you have anything to offer but your disdain? Because, if you think you're having a hard time making ends meet now, just wait until the McCain tax cuts all go to millionaires.

"But that doesn't mean he can just make up his own facts. "

Yes it does...he has been for quite a while now. It's up to you and your colleagues to hold a candidate's feet to the fire when they do....you did know that didn't you? Good post, very late and really only a rehash of something JNS tackled earlier but still good, but boy, your complete lack of joy in writing this post is palpable.

Great Suskind quote....link?

Huffington Post reports that McCain flip flopped on his response to Gramm's comments (and the Politico is helping to cover that up--surprise!):

The McCain campaign is working hard to distance itself from statements made by economic adviser Phil Gramm describing the current economic downturn as a "mental recession" and saying America had "sort of become a nation of whiners."

But in an initial statement published by Politico and then, seemingly, removed from its site, a McCain campaign aide actually stood by Gramm's remarks, saying the interview as a whole was merely meant as a preview of the Senator's economic agenda.

"Mr. Gramm was simply saying that we are laying out the economic plan this week," the piece quoted a "McCain official" as saying. "The plan is comprehensive, providing immediate near-term relief for Americans hurting today as well as longer-term solutions to get our economy back on track, secure our energy future and deliver jobs, prosperity and opportunity for the next generation. We're laying out that plan this week with an emphasis on the critical importance of job creation, and it's been a great success so far."

Only after the fallout from Gramm's statement did the McCain campaign fully backtrack.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/10/mccain-campaign-initially_n_111929.html

McCain can make up his own facts because the MSM does not do facts. They do narratives.

Yeah, McCain's numbers are bad -- maybe he lied. I don't think he's necessarily the paragon of honesty.

The thing I like less than his bad fact-checking or lying (I don't know which it is) is the assumption that so many here hold that the money I or any other American worker earns rightfully belongs to the government. I don't care what the income threshold for raising taxes is -- if Obama is raising taxes on anyone, I am against his plan. We all pay way too much in taxes already. The bloated government needs to be cut down in size and, in the process, the budget balanced. We need to pay a lot less of our tax dollars to paying government interest debt. We need to pay even fewer of our dollars to lining bureaucratic pockets.

Shambly, your 98% statistic is like most statistics -- misleading. Someone in Peru making 1/3 of what Illinidiva makes in Illinois will likely have a similar, if not better, standard of living (I'm quite familiar with both places and the comparison is sound). The relative buying power of a dollar in each place is completely different. Cross-border income statistics are rather meaningless when it comes to their impact on standard-of-living (food, shelter, clothing, etc.).

Florida,

I'm getting this feeling that there is about to be a serious explosion from all the loose cannons running a certain campaign. I don't want to say which one because one should be respectful of their elders.

Flownover - lol, fair enough. Still when you're writing is at rock bottom stage..there's nowhere else to go but up. He could have written an article on the politics of Lindsey Lohan. Or maybe this is the one fact-centered article for the next 3 months. I guess that's yet to be determined, but if history is a lesson..

rmrd0000,

No, there is nothing wrong with examining both candidates statements, records, and positions. One would think that maybe the day after the newly minted leader of the Democratic Party ran like a scared kitten and gave the least trustworthy, most dishonest and secretive presidents in our history a green light to continue spying on US Citizens along with blanket immunity for past misdeeds might warrant a mention from one of the leading hard news organizations in the world. The fact that Obama reversed course and again failed the leadership test would appear to be something an organization like Time might have some interest in writing about, even if most of the commenters here don't want to hear it.

Good post by MS.

What's interesting to me is the fact that no one is talking about across-the-board tax raises, except in a negative light. We seem to accept it as a given that Obama will be cutting taxes for some people.

But let's face it: With a war running at $10 billion a month that's not even in the official budget we're going to have to cough up the cash at some point.

Why is no one pointing this out? Do we think that by just throwing our multi-billion dollar debt under the bed and ignoring it, it will go away?

Illinidiva: Your comment appears future-directed, and McCain's accusation is based on an ammendment Obama voted for some time ago, which apparently had the affect of raising taxes. Obama has made it clear that you would not have any increase in taxes under any plan he submits, and I expect you're in the pile of people to pay less.

We all pay way too much in taxes already..

I can sympathize with the sentiment, but the fact remains that levying taxes and government borrowing both reduce citizen purchasing power.

The taxes have the benefit of being honestly invoked, the borrowing is handled much less forthrightly.

If you want less government, then you want less spending. And that includes all the money currently lining the pockets of Blackwater, GE, Raytheon, McDonnel Douglass and Haliburton.

The thing I like less than his bad fact-checking or lying (I don't know which it is) is the assumption that so many here hold that the money I or any other American worker earns rightfully belongs to the government.

1) Just out of curiosity, can you point to anything anyone here has said that would justify such a conclusion?

2) Do you believe that a someone who uses the infrastructure and services provided by the ‘government’ (including, but not limited to, defense, education, pure food and drugs, roadways, courts, police and fire prevention) should be expected to pay for such services?

3) I agree that there is much waste and fraud in government spending. There is also much waste and fraud in private sector spending. Should we not then disavow both the public and private sectors equally?

4) Speaking only for myself, I’d much prefer that the money that has been dumped down the rat-hole of the Iraq war (including billions of dollars that have simply ‘disappeared’) go towards paying for services like education, infrastructure and the like here at home. I’m working (somewhat dispiritedly at times) to elect people who will help accomplish this goal. As such, I monitor and occasionally comment in blogs like these.

Again, just out of curiosity, what are you working for, and what do you hope to accomplish?

@ny nick...

I think you're mistaken. I'm sure most commenters here would be delighted if Time did a thorough examination of Obama's reversal on FISA and the lack of leadership and honesty that was necessary to accomplish it.

But I'm afraid the folks here at Time/Warner would rather just let that one lay....

KathyR

Not to worry. MS is "not really" a journalist.

He's a sycophant. (see vocabulary post)

I'm getting this feeling that there is about to be a serious explosion from all the loose cannons running a certain campaign. I don't want to say which one because one should be respectful of their elders.

You may be right, GySgt, but I have my doubts. The Beltway Media types have been carrying water for McCain for years. Don't know if they can bring themselves to examine the man completely honestly.

After all, the Phil Gramm story has been out there for awhile and the Beltway types have been terrified to touch it. Same goes for Carly Fiorina. Up until the other day when JNS pointed out that Carly ran HP into the dirt and got herself canned, I had yet to see a single media type point out that obvious fact.

...the assumption that so many here hold that the money I or any other American worker earns rightfully belongs to the government.

Then let's have an honest discussion about what we want to pay for. (Ames' list above is a good starting point.)

Channel surfing I caught Glenn Beck railing about the fact that AmTrak is (gasp) subsidized! By the government! Not to say that AmTrak seems particularly well managed. But fine. Then let's also stop "subsidies" for highways and bridges. Rich people can drive on the private toll roads and the rest of us can take donkey carts to work.

The problem is that I certainly don't feel rich. In fact, I live in the Messiah's hometown (Chicago) and due to the high COL, my salary barely covers my bills

Nah. That's all in your mind.

Sorry, ny nick. I will not move on. Holding the media accountable requires eternal vigilance.

re Obama's cave-in: I wish Time would write about it. I wish they would explain to all of their readers how the new law thrashes the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately, we go to battle with the media we have, not the media we would like to have.

As others have pointed out, one post does not make up for all the crap that came before, but it's a start. I offer the following as a cautionary tale Michael, sure Maverick plys you with the best BBQ sauce money can buy free of charge...but it's always free at first:

'Appleton police nab burglar drenched in barbecue sauce'
http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080702/APC0101/80702045/1979

Our very own KT got ask a question.

During a press conference today, Time’s Karen Tumulty asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) whether he was still considering former senator Phil Gramm for a Cabinet position. McCain replied, “I think Sen. Gramm would be in serious consideration for ambassador to Belarus,” a country still covered in radiation from Chernobyl. “Though I’m not sure the citizens of Minsk would welcome that,” he added. The media were delighted with his response, ignoring the fact that he dodged the original question:

Kelly O’Donnell, MSNBC: “Well that is classic McCain. He is using a sort of salty humor to make a point. We see that kind of a spark from John McCain all the time.”

Chris Cillizza, Washington Post: “John McCain trying to use the trademark John McCain wit.”

Video at the link if you can stomach one of those DFH sites:

http://thinkprogress.org/

He's a sycophant.

That's a calumny!

Andy - If I didn't think Michael was a journalist I wouldn't have been as teed off as I am. He can and often does do better than this. I think he has the potential, in fact, to be an exceptionally good journalist. And if Michael assembled the vocabulary quiz himself, he's as subtle as I sometimes think he is. Go read the link to acedia.

Did you put that link up in response to the comments on this post Michael? If so, more power to you. One thing I haven't ever accused you of is being boring.

Off Topic but did anyone catch Gail Collins today in the NYTimes? She makes the point that we shouldn't be upset about Obama's FISA vote, it's not his fault. She writes:

"When an extremely intelligent politician tells you over and over and over that he is tired of the take-no-prisoners politics of the last several decades, that he is going to get things done and build a “new consensus,” he is trying to explain that he is all about compromise. Even if he says it in that great Baracky way."

See? Obama isn't to blame. It's our fault for not listening carefully enough to what he's saying. In fact, Obama said as much the other day. His friends on the left were just not listening to him. What should we take away from this experience? What guiding principles can we expect from an Obama presidency? Compromise, compromise, compromise. Expecting an end to the war in Iraq? Think compromise. Expecting universal healthcare? Think compromise. Expecting Democrats to act like Democrats? Compromise. This is the guy we're electing. Let's not forget that. Whatever happens, it will not be Obama's fault. We were warned.

You're preaching to the choir, Nick. The only thing I'd add is that the folks here knew that the media was exaggerating Obama's liberalness during the primary. The flip on FISA is indeed very disappointing, and I'm sure I'm not the only one among us here who joined the MyBO group to try to pressure Obama to flip back.

That doesn't mean that I am going to vote for another guy who would be utterly out of his depth as president.

Kathy--

I think kicking off with calumny is a pretty good hint....

Oh and wrt to Collins' piece. I do believe the FISA capitulation by Obama was a message to the Village that he will play ball.

I do believe the FISA capitulation by Obama was a message to the Village that he will play ball.

This, of course helps explain why the McCain camp is suddenly being held accountable for it's words.....

Jay - right you are. I hadn't followed that link - and thereby proved Michael's point that those of us who complain are sometimes lazy about our own digging out of the facts. Hats off to you Michael. Well done.

Maybe Obama will be like Bush, only opposite: Run as a moderate but govern as a progressive. Who knows? But the choice is between Obama and McCain, and that is not really a difficult choice.

Jay - I'm interested that you think Obama's vote was an intentional(?) message to the Village. I've said on other threads here that Barack's going to keep disappointing his supporters because he's a pragmatist, not an ideologue = so I'm not sure that message needed to have been part of his caluculation.

When he says he wants to do away with the old politics I believe he means he's not going to create a situation where those of us on the left get to do to the right what they've been doing to us. For quite a while during Bush's presidency I was looking for payback, but have mostly given that up since I threw my lot in with Obama, because he's not going to give that to me.

I usually only lurk here, because Paul Dirks and others tend to respond better than I ever could.

But I did want to send Michael kudos on this post. First one I've read where he actually fact-checks McCain's claims & finds that they come up wanting.

More Scherer posts like this one, please! There's a lot more to review in that crazy morass of a campaign, to be sure.

jay,

Are we really so starved for leadership that we are willing allow ourselves to be compromised into submission? Please explain how we compromise ourselves into universal healthcare? Or how we compromise ourselves into a more robust economy? These things will require real policy proposals and leadership, then you can negotiate from a position of strength. Obama has shown he can compromise, it's tim he showed us he can lead too.

Kathy--

one of the irritating things about the media narrative has been placing Obama on the left and now claiming he's moving to the center. The initial placement was inaccurate, as we well knew, and the movement is also inaccurate.

However, the FISA business was a clear flip, an inexcusable one that he would not have made during the primary period. Since the beneficiaries of the bill are about a dozen people on the Hill, telecom lobbyists in the Village and the executives at the telecoms--a group numbering no more than 100 people or so--I don't see any other way to interpret his changing position.

At long last McCain gets called on his lies and reporters at Time decide to do some real reporting. Now maybe we could have something on the fact that McCain wants to tax the health care benefits I get from my job. That would have a huge impact on most people's budgets but it never gets mentioned in the press. The New York Times did an article about it Monday and it went straight down the memory hole.

I have some quibbles but I'm gonna hold my tongue and simply praise Michael for this one.

jayackroyd, right as usual -- it's a flip-flop but I'm outraged not on that superficial level but on the more substantive ground that the vote further abrogates the 4th Amendment and usurps Article III power from the courts -- in addition to making us look "weak" on National Security at the same time we are told the vote was necessary to do the opposite.

I am confused by this post.

Seriously. I don't understand. Are we in bizzaro world?

what are you gonna do nick? Vote for Nader? Obama is what we have.

As I've been saying all along, the place where we can have the most influence is down ticket. Go see Dave Chapelle at Kevin Powell's fundraiser. Send money to Darcy Burner. Work for a state senate campaign.

I still think the Dems will end up with a huge majority in the House and a ten seat margin in the Senate. That may create pressure on Obama to govern more progressively. (or it may not. If we get a lot of Blue Dogs rather than real progressives, we may end up in the same place we are now.)

what don't you get trifecta? McCain's latest lie was too much. It's gotten too embarrassing to continually explain how the latest McCain.

And didn't you see the new little goatee on Michael's photo?

(A Star Trek AND a South Park reference. Ka-ching.)

yeah, Todd, it's disappointing for all those reasons, as well as a demonstration of just how deeply corrupt Washington is. The American people have been way ahead of the village on issues of the occupation and security vs civil liberties.

Karl Rove refused to even show up in front of congress to claim executive privilege on certain questions.

Imagine if he was President Clinton's chief advisor and this was the 90's. What level of media meltdown would be in right now?

Michael Scherer asserts that the Tax Policy Center is "non-partisan". Actually, it's an outfit run by two left wing outfits called the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Scherer also asserts that FactCheck.org is "non-partisan". Ditto to the response above.

Something Time magazine would never allow to appear in its pages are the facts about who in the United States actually pays the federal income taxes. Hint: It ain't the bottom fifty percent of earners. Read it and weep, socialists.

WHO PAYS FEDERAL INCOME TAXES

For Tax Year 2005

Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%
$364,657
39.38

Top 5%
$145,283
59.67

Top 10%
$103,912
70.30

Top 25%
$62,068
85.99

Top 50%
$30,881
96.93

Bottom 50%
3.07

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

It's time that the bottom 50%, who pay only a pitiful 3.07% of all federal income taxes, start paying their fair share. Obama wants to tax those currently paying virtually all federal income taxes. Obama then wants to redistribute the money confiscated from productive Americans and give it to the unproductive. Sorry, socialists.

Breaking: at 5:30 PM EST on Harball, Pat Buchanan mentioned the words 'Phil', 'Gramm' and 'UBS' in the same sentence. That is all.

Um, texte, you've left off the 15.7% payroll tax, off the top, no deductions. As for productivity, the 50s and 60s with 90 percent top bracket is a pretty good indication that a progressive income tax structure doesn't harm productivity.

Jay - the media did this to Dean too, of course. I can't figure out if they were too lazy to learn that Obama's not a liberal, or if they were setting up the story line in advance that he's now moving to the middle, because "that's what candidates do."

Jayackroyd,

I know but I'm not yet convinced that a pretend progressive is better than a real conservative.
I am leaning towards voting for McCain. I've never voted for any Republican in my life and I've been voting since Nixon/McGovern. It's possible I'll come to my senses and vote for Barack. What really gets under my skin about him is his intelligence isn't used for policy, it's used for politics. He's a lot more concerned with the electoral map than he is with the ins and outs of policy. I know having a president that cared about policy is so 1990's but policy is what matters. My fear is Obama will care too much about his popularity and not enough about the policy choices he's going to face as president. I can hear you now, "his policy will determine his popularity". Not neccessarily. It's all a matter of how it's sold. It's very possible to design choices that give him credit for good results and the ability to blame someone else for poor results.

yes, a pretend progressive is better than a real conservative. But that's not relevant here. He has never pretended to be progressive. He was not popular with progressives during the nomination process, and ended up being supported as much as because he was not Clinton as anything else. So I think you're setting up a straw man for yourself.

Myself, I stopped voting for the major parties in federal elections a long time ago. When my US rep was Torricelli, it was him or a republican stooge, likewise, when he was my Senator. The exception was voting for Schumer over D'Amato, whom I despised. It seemed to me then that the differences were inconsequential. I voted for Nader in 2000.

It did not occur to me that what has happened was even possible, that the institutional design of the government was too strong to permit the president to run roughshod over the interests of the nation, and over the constitution. So I've been radicalized and polarized by this administration and the complicit Democrats.

I think Dean is what Obama is remembering Kathy. Dean made it very clear that he was not (and he has not) going to play ball with the Village. There's a reason he's giving the opening keynote at Netroots Nation. He is one of us, even though he is to the right of many of us (as am I, FTM. I have an interview scheduled with David Sirota tonight, and we disagree on some things. Trying to decide whether to emphasize or minimize those differences.).

So let me get this correct. McCain has implied that the OBama tax would start at 32k/year, but maybe it is 42k. Ah, what happened to the campaign promise to "not raise the taxes unless you make over $225,000 per year? Did Obama's calculator make a mistake? Or perhaps did he LIE?

$42,000 per year versus $225,000 is a pretty big difference. AND, Obama wants to also tax my retirement accounts and investments too at a WHOPPING 29%!!! WHOA there Obama, what will you do with all that money once you get your greedy Democrat SOCIALIST hands on it?

"So it makes sense that McCain is returning to the old playbook. But that doesn't mean he can just make up his own facts."

It does not? When did this happen?

"98% of the world is poorer then you are, or at least make less money a year. You are in the top 2%... maybe your economic woes are due to your lifestyle..."

And a large portion of the world also lives in shanty towns and makes less than $1 per day. I'm sure that you aren't suggesting that?? If so, perhaps you've read the Communist Manifesto too many times??

Moreover, it's my money and I'd prefer to use it on things that benefit me rather than have it be directed for middle-class welfare programs for people who make poor financial decisions or don't know how to properly manage their money.

"Illinidiva: Your comment appears future-directed, and McCain's accusation is based on an ammendment Obama voted for some time ago, which apparently had the affect of raising taxes. Obama has made it clear that you would not have any increase in taxes under any plan he submits, and I expect you're in the pile of people to pay less."

Past actions dictate future behavior more than ridiculous campaign pledges.

Rusty- note, even McCain puts this in the past tense: "Barack Obama promises to cut taxes, but he voted to raise taxes on folks earning as little as $32,000"

You've done exactly what McCain wanted you to do - taken an event from the past and project it forward and assume Barack doesn't mean what he says he will do.

nynick -

I sympathize with you, as I spent part of the primary season swearing I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was nominated. But there's this little matter of the Supreme Court, and how much power it's willing to take away from the people.

To be sure Barack is a politician, but he is also passionate about finding common ground, which is, as Gail Collins pointed out, not going to be found in left field. Check out this Politico (yes, I know) article about Obama's leadership of the Harvard law review.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html

Moreover, it's my money and I'd prefer to use it on things that benefit me rather than have it be directed for middle-class welfare programs for people who make poor financial decisions or don't know how to properly manage their money.

On the other hand, corporations that are improperly managed should be bailed out, and those managers rewarded. Right? Oh, and large profitable corporations in energy and agriculture should also be heavily subsidized.

And what programs are you talking about here?

Hilarious pander here.

http://kdka.com/video/?id=43538@kdka.dayport.com

Of course the second sentence that comes up in response to "what do you think of Pittsburgh" is the POW experience McCain never talks about. He then changes his story from naming the Packer offensive line in response to interrogators to naming the Steeler defensive line. (That's pretty obscure at that time, by the way. The Steelers sucked at the time.)

"That's pretty obscure at that time, by the way. The Steelers sucked at the time."

Until they discovered steroids.

Just a remark on the numbers in texte's previous post. Is anyone else shocked that half the country makes $30,000 or less per year? How can you raise a family on so little? And how much income tax is fair for such a household to pay? It seems to me that the bottom 50% of texte's chart can't afford to pay any more income taxes than they already do (on top of the FICA payroll tax that no wage earner can avoid). What does he think--that the families earning less than $30k per year (the bottom 50%) should be responsible for half the income taxes collected by the IRS? You can't squeeze blood from a stone. Common sense dictates that the income tax burden should fall heaviest on those who can afford it. The rich pay taxes out of their surplus and suffer no hardship as a result. The same cannot be said with regard to texte's bottom 50%.

It should also be noted in reference ot "texte's" numbers that the percentage of taxes paid is closely correlated with the percentage of income they earn. The Top 1% earns about 35% of the nation's income annually and pays about 35% of its taxes. There is nothing even remotely unfair to the Top 1% in this arrangement.

"On the other hand, corporations that are improperly managed should be bailed out, and those managers rewarded. Right? Oh, and large profitable corporations in energy and agriculture should also be heavily subsidized."

How about the ridiculous housing bailout?? I don't think that my tax dollars should go to help someone who decided to buy a house beyond their means. Or the fact that someone in their late twneties can get gov't financial aid to finance their Harvard MBA. Again, I'm not sure why my tax dollars should go to soemthing like that. Or the fact that really tony, upper-middle class school districts are "elgible" for federal money.

I do agree with you that money shouldn't go to corporate bailouts or subsidies either. Which is why the recent farm bill (aka the farm lobby protection act) was so disturbing.

"That's what's called a "tell". We get it: You don't like Dems or black people or whatever it is about him that reduces you to sycophantic name calling."

I love how the Messiah's most ardent supporters accuse anyone who doesn't worship @ His feet of racism. I don't like Obama because of his liberal policies (I don't want to pay taxes) and creepy, cultlike supporters.

"Seriously, do you have anything to offer but your disdain? Because, if you think you're having a hard time making ends meet now, just wait until the McCain tax cuts all go to millionaires."

How is keeping the current tax cuts going to make it more difficult for me to make "ends" meet? McCain is proposing that everyone get to keep their tax cuts; a single middle-income person would probably pay the same taxes that they are now (and many families would pay less). Thus, I'd have the same amount of $$$ as I do now and wouldn't have any more trouble making ends meet.

(P.S. the above statement is called logic... Try it some time).

I don't like Obama because of his liberal policies (I don't want to pay taxes)

Then might I suggest moving somewhere where they don't, you know, collect taxes? Dubai is lovely this time of year if you don't mind a lot of 100+ degree days.

How is keeping the current tax cuts going to make it more difficult for me to make "ends" meet?

Because if your salary really does "barely cover your bills," and frankly given what you're complaining about I have a hard time believing that, then you have not and will not receive anything from the Bush/McCain tax cuts beyond a higher debt that we're all going to have to pay off someday. You're likely to see your taxes (again, assuming you're being honest here about your financial situation) decline more under Obama than McCain.

I am leaning towards voting for McCain. I've never voted for any Republican in my life and I've been voting since Nixon/McGovern.

Oh goodie. Another "lifelong Democrat" who is heavy-heartedly going to have to make the oh, so painful decision to suck it up and vote for McCain against what I'm sure must be their deepest-held convictions. Are you folks going to keep popping up again and again until Election Day, or is there some way we can weed all of you out before then? Because hearing the same tired, dubious narrative over and over again has really gotten boring.

"Then might I suggest moving somewhere where they don't, you know, collect taxes? Dubai is lovely this time of year if you don't mind a lot of 100+ degree days."

Or... perhaps we could just stay in the same place and have lower taxes. I'm all for paying my share for the public good (i.e. the military, police, roads, post office, etc.). However, many of the programs that we have now are middle class or corporate welfare and really don't help me even tangentially. I'm very much against paying federal student loans to people getting Harvard MBAs, bailing out people living in houses beyond their means, susidizing ADM under a pork-filled farm bills, etc.

"Because if your salary really does "barely cover your bills," and frankly given what you're complaining about I have a hard time believing that, then you have not and will not receive anything from the Bush/McCain tax cuts beyond a higher debt that we're all going to have to pay off someday."

A. The COL is fairly high in major cities like Chicago, so yes I'm just getting by (with a little help from Mom and Dad). I'm currently able to make ends meet, but extra taxes will put more of a burden on me. I also enjoy being able to save some $$ on some "fun things" and maintain a certain standard of living. I work hard and my job is very trying, so I believe that I should be able to spend the $$ how I see fit, not how a balding bureaucrat in DC sees fit.

B. The Messiah is using the extra $$$ to bulk up the govt. with corporate goodies to his supporters and more middle class welfare projects. His ridiculous universal healthcare plan alone will really blow up the debt ( the best way to control healthcare is to make the costs of the market known, but I digress). It's much better to reduce the size of the govt. and allow citizens to keep more of their own $$.

"You're likely to see your taxes (again, assuming you're being honest here about your financial situation) decline more under Obama than McCain."

A. The whole idea behind the comment by the McCain camp is rhetoric that doesn't match reality. The Messiah's definition of "wealthy" is ever changing... In this case, someone making $42K is wealthy and therefore should have to pay more taxes.

B. Many of the Messiah's "so-called" tax breaks are nanny-state measures designed to push people's behavior in a certain direction. Considering some of the ridiculousness surrounding the Dem. convention, I wouldn't be suprising to me if the Messiah comes up with tax breaks for eating fruits and veggies and exercising for thirty mins. a day.

However, many of the programs that we have now are middle class or corporate welfare and really don't help me even tangentially.

And tell me, in the six years of unchecked Republican control over both the Executive and Legislature from 2001-2007, what exactly did they do to change any of that? I'm sure Exxon, for example, would be surprised to find out from you that Republicans don't do corporate welfare.

His ridiculous universal healthcare plan alone will really blow up the debt

Yes, goodness knows we would never want to do anything that could explode the national debt.

http://www.pritsky.net/pics/debt.jpg

Apparently you've been living in a cave for the past 7.5 years, so this is really probably not a discussion we should be having until you're fully up to speed on what's been going on while you've been out.

Many of the Messiah's "so-called" tax breaks are nanny-state measures designed to push people's behavior in a certain direction.

As opposed, of course, to the noble Bush/McCain tax cuts, which are straightforwardly naked giveaways to rich people. Much more palatable.

"And tell me, in the six years of unchecked Republican control over both the Executive and Legislature from 2001-2007, what exactly did they do to change any of that? I'm sure Exxon, for example, would be surprised to find out from you that Republicans don't do corporate welfare."

It's a bipartisan problem. Take the farm lobby protection bill; both parties are guilty of it.. Of course, only one of the Presidential nominees supported that bloated giveaway. Perhaps you would care to guess which one.

"Yes, goodness knows we would never want to do anything that could explode the national debt."

Universal entitlements (like the healthcare doondoggle is) are what explode the national debt. The U.S. already has two very expensive, poorly conceived boondoggles called Social Security and Medicare that need to be brought into the twenty-first century, we don't need a third.

"Apparently you've been living in a cave for the past 7.5 years, so this is really probably not a discussion we should be having until you're fully up to speed on what's been going on while you've been out."

Just because I'm not a big fan of the handing out costly goodies to people (and companies) that don't need them to win elections in the short-term and would rather decrease the size of gov't and give tax $$ back to the people.

"As opposed, of course, to the noble Bush/McCain tax cuts, which are straightforwardly naked giveaways to rich people. Much more palatable."

Everyone got a tax cut under the 2001 and 2003 bills, not just the "rich." The argument that we're having right now is about repealing a tier that will hurt middle class people.

Of course, the "rich" might have gotten a bit more of a tax cut in absolute $$s, but that's only because they also pay much higher taxes (and still pay them) than the middle class.

Universal entitlements (like the healthcare doondoggle is) are what explode the national debt.

Like I said, living in a cave for the last seven and a half years.

The national debt IS CURRENTLY EXPLODING, and the current occupier of the White House has decidedly not been doling out huge entitlement dollars to anybody. Reckless military aggression and wholesale tax cuts have managed to explode the debt all by themselves. And since McCain isn't going to change ANY of the Bush policies on those fronts, we can expect the national debt to continue mushrooming in any McCain administration. Thanks for pretending to care about this though. It's sweet when you ideologues try to act like you've got real world concerns.

"Like I said, living in a cave for the last seven and a half years."

Actually, what is exploding the national debt is Social Security and Medicare... Social Security is a program designed in the the 1930s and Medicare is a program designed in the 1960s. Nobody has bothered to change them because it might upset seniors too much.

"The national debt IS CURRENTLY EXPLODING, and the current occupier of the White House has decidedly not been doling out huge entitlement dollars to anybody"

The national debt has been exploding since the 1980s. In fact, I believe that this was what Ross Perot ran on in 1992, so I don't think that you can blame the current Bush administration for him.

"Reckless military aggression and wholesale tax cuts have managed to explode the debt all by themselves. "

A. There used to be these two nice buildings in NYC called the World Trade Center... The nice Muslim peacemaker Osama Bin Laden decided to crash planes into these people and kill lots of innocent janitors, firefighters, and office workers. Many were burnt to a crisp and couldn't be buried... This is the reason for the extra military spending and is something that I'm more than willing to pay for.

B. The tax cuts spur the economy and are philosophically correct. We don't live in the USSR, so people should be able to keep their money and should only pay to benefit the social good. Many of the social programs that are funded by the federal government today should be funded at the state and local level and through private donations.

C. I'm also not sure how creating another unfunded mandate (essentially expanding Medicare) is going to improve the national debt situation. It would strike me as expanding the debt even further by mandating that we provide expensive, 1960s style health insurance to over 40 million people. (The actual number will be greater because many small business and larger businesses like Walmart will drop their health insurance plans and force their employees into govt. health care).

"And since McCain isn't going to change ANY of the Bush policies on those fronts, we can expect the national debt to continue mushrooming in any McCain administration. "

The only way we'll get a handle on the budget is by tackling entitlements and Congress is the one obstructing that because they're afraid of losing the senior vote if they make tough choices.

"Thanks for pretending to care about this though. It's sweet when you ideologues try to act like you've got real world concerns."

Perhaps, you should look in the mirror some time... Then you might figure out what an idealogue looks like.

Actually, what is exploding the national debt is Social Security and Medicare...

This is interesting. Since Social Security on its own is still running surpluses, I'm fascinated to learn how it is currently causing an increase in our debt. Medicare is a problem, but right now it's not the biggest one.

A. There used to be these two nice buildings in NYC called the World Trade Center... The nice Muslim peacemaker Osama Bin Laden decided to crash planes into these people and kill lots of innocent janitors, firefighters, and office workers. Many were burnt to a crisp and couldn't be buried... This is the reason for the extra military spending and is something that I'm more than willing to pay for.

Yes, 9/11, sad day. Whatever we're spending on getting those guys, I'm all for it.

Meanwhile, we're spending hundreds of billions on a war that couldn't possibly have had any less to do with 9/11 than if we'd invaded Belgium. That's what is blowing up the debt.

B. The tax cuts spur the economy and are philosophically correct. We don't live in the USSR, so people should be able to keep their money and should only pay to benefit the social good.

As defined by...? You may think it "benefit[s] the social good" to massacre Iraqis and tap everybody's phone, but I really rather think that money could be better used on something else or, hey, nothing at all. Since the money we're spending in Iraq is almost all borrowed, let's just not spend it and stop running up that debt we're both so concerned about.

Many of the social programs that are funded by the federal government today should be funded at the state and local level and through private donations.

Yes, the mythical conservative appeal to private charity as the panacea to all federal entitlement spending. It's one of those great arguments that can't exactly be disproved, so even though it's clearly a pile of steaming bullcrap, you can still run with it.

Or, hey, state and local governments can do it! Because high federal taxes suck, but high state and local taxes are OK?

I guess as long as our taxes are going toward blowing up brown people, that's OK. Try to help out a few of our own citizens, though, that's crossing the line.

Again, it's always fun talking to a dittohead who's clever enough to pretend to be an independent thinker. Thanks again.

MPEG4 Converter for MacAVI to MPEG4 OS XFLV to MPEG4 OS XMPEG4 Converter for Mac is the best video Converter for Mac that supports various video formats. Such as iPod Video MPEG4, iPod Touch MPEG4, iPod Nano MPEG4, iPhone Video MPEG4, iPhone Video H.264, Apple TV MPEG4, M4v-MPEG4 and so on. MOV to MPEG4 OS XVOB to MPEG4 OS XDat to MPEG4 OS XConvert FLV to MPG Mac OS X Convert FLV to MP4 Mac OS XWith it, you can watch videos on almost any portable devices including iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, Zune, PSP, Video capable MP4 players and so on. Convert FLV to AVI Mac OS X Convert FLV to DIVX Mac OS X AMV to MPEG4 Mac OS X

May you have no idea about what I give you ,but it will help you a lot indeed.What you just do is to look througnt them!FLV to MP3AVI to FLV MacWMV to FLV MacMPEG/MP4/MPG to FLV MacASF to FLVDivx to FLvFLV to Ipod FLV to PSP FLV to Zune FLV to 3GP

العاب مغامرات ثلاثية الابعاد | العاب أكشن مغامره | العاب اركيد | العاب طاولة | العاب ورق | العاب كلاسيكية | العاب تربوية | العاب خيال | العاب عرض العاب | العاب أدوات | العاب خداع - خدع | العاب ميك | العاب الغاز - الألغاز | العاب سباق - لعبة سباق | العاب تقليد | العاب رياضية | العاب استراتيجية | العاب ترتيب | العاب كتابية |العاب حيوانات أليفة | العاب كلمات

العاب باربي | العاب الطبخ | العاب مكياج ميك اب | العاب بنات حلوه | العاب بنات جديده | العاب بنات فوق 18 سنة | افلام كرتون | العاب | العاب بنات | العاب بنات | العاب تنظيم وقت | العاب تلبيس بنات جديدة وجميلة | العاب باربي الجميلة والرائعة | العاب ترتيب الغرف حلوه وجميلة | العاب طبخ- العاب المطبخ | العاب مغامرة للبنات - مغامرات بنات | العاب ميك اب- العاب مكياج - مكياج بنات | العاب اطفال | العاب اطفال جميلة | تحميل العاب مجاني

Games | Barbie Dress up Games | Fashion Games | Make Up Games | Doll Maker | Room Decor Games | Dress up girls | Princess dress up Games | Fairy Dress up Games | Cooking Games | Coloring Pages | Girls Games Download Girls Games Girls Games for Download Free Games | Games online - Games Download

العاب باربي - لعبة باربي | العاب الموضه - العاب الازياء | العاب ميك اب - العاب مكياج بنات | تلبيس باربي - تلبيس عرايس | العاب ديكور - العاب ترتيب الغرف | العاب تلبيس بنات - ملابس بنات | العاب تلبيس الاميرة - ملابس الاميرة | العاب تلبيس الملاك - ملابس الملاك | العاب طبخ - العاب المطبخ | العاب تلوين - العاب الوان | العاب بنات العاب بنات جديدة تحميل العاب بنات | تحميل العاب فلاش , تحميل العاب مجانا , تنزيل العاب , تحميل العاب للكمبيوتر , تحميل العاب اطفال , العاب للتحميل , pc تحميل العاب كاملة , تحميل العاب | العاب

دليل السعودية | دليل اليمن | دليل قطر | دليل الامارات | دليل البحرين | دليل العراق | دليل عمان | دليل الكويت | دليل المغرب | دليل مصر | دليل السودان | دليل سوريا | دليل الاردن | دليل الجزائر | دليل تونس | دليل ليبيا | دليل فلسطين | دليل لبنان | برامج | شات خليجي |