OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 5

[XXXIV]

I have to say, I am SHOCKED :

Why?...The media has a dog in the fight.

I was trying to be sarcastic.

Sorry... Ive been watching baseball and McCarver/Buck have destroyed my sarcasm meter.

[RobVarak]

Sorry Rob but that article was pretty poor. It says that people aren't receiving a tax cut but it doesn't address the middle class tax cut instead it goes on a rant about handouts.

I kind expect smarter well-thought links to articles without come serious flaw in logic from you Rob.

That's not a flaw in logic. The name of the article is that Obama's claim of tax cuts 95% is an illusion, and provides clear evidence that many of those people will know get a check instead of simply paying no taxes. That's not a 'tax cut' in any sense. Just because the credits may functionally lower taxes for other middle class taxpayers is completely irrelevant to the article's point.

I have to say, I am SHOCKED that many news outlets who after every debate 'fact check' the debate and find essentially every republican claim 'misleading' never even bothered to check one of the biggest stretches that has been repeated in both debates.

I've been stunned every since this acceptance speech that people have swallowed this stunt hook, line and sinker. I think a combination of factors are at play:

1. The complexity needed to debunk the claim vs. the simplicity of it.

2. The fact that media is disinclined to challenge the veracity of anything Obama says. It detracts from the narrative.

3. McCain's spending too much of the post-convention period still hammering Obama on lack of experience and judgment on issues like Iraq, in which the electorate has totally lost interest.

4. McCain's lack of extemporaneous debating ability. He needs to look Obama in the eye and challenge him on this one, but doing so requires a level of comfort in the debating arena that McCain just doesn't seem to have.

5. The myopic fixation of conservatives on the Ayers/Wright background issues. I firmly believe, obviously, that Obama's background is an issue worth pursuing. But the extent to which the Right has abandoned all other debate is horrific. Even social issue touchstones like abortion, an issue on which Obama is vulnerable, have gone totally untouched. They're missing huge weakspots in Obama's platform and proposals, possibly because they're desperate and almost certainly because they dismiss him as a naif who is so thoroughly undeserving of the Presidency. That's a mistake that may prove fatal; Ironically, it's the same mistake the Democrats made with Reagan in 1980.

[RobVarak]

The Howard Stern show this morning was golden

The wedding talk?

I'm guessing this?

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NyvqhdllXgU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

The good news is that thanks to ACORN, it's unlikely that any one of these informed citizens is likely to vote any more than 12 times

[JRod]

Sorry Rob but that article was pretty poor. It says that people aren't receiving a tax cut but it doesn't address the middle class tax cut instead it goes on a rant about handouts.

I kind expect smarter well-thought links to articles without come serious flaw in logic from you Rob.

That's not a flaw in logic. The name of the article is that Obama's claim of tax cuts 95% is an illusion, and provides clear evidence that many of those people will know get a check instead of simply paying no taxes. That's not a 'tax cut' in any sense. Just because the credits may functionally lower taxes for other middle class taxpayers is completely irrelevant to the article's point.

I have to say, I am SHOCKED that many news outlets who after every debate 'fact check' the debate and find essentially every republican claim 'misleading' never even bothered to check one of the biggest stretches that has been repeated in both debates.

I'm not an economist nor am I an accountant.

First off this is coming from the WSJ who are extremely fiscally conservative. Second the graphic is from a conservative thinktank.

Neither or those should discredit the information but there's the problem.

They say that with the tax credits Obama plans to discontinue, or that these sources say he will discontinue, it will eliminate any tax cut Obama plans to offer.

So I hate to parse their argument but they confirm that possibly in total you won't see a total tax cut because the credits you get now won't be continued in an Obama administration. That's different from saying Obama's tax cut is a lie. They don't say the advertised Obama tax cut is a lie.

Second, I love how they cherry pick a situation. How many earners fit into that category? I don't know but it could be a huge number or a small number. Maybe they posted a graph or multiple graphs showing multiple types of earners. If they didn't then they clearly cherry-picked a situation. If they did, it would be nice to see all.

[JRod]

Wash Post has this graph.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00950.html

It doesn't see to account for special tax credits.

[RobVarak]

Wash Post has this graph.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00950.html

It doesn't see to account for special tax credits.

The internet is thick with similar graphs. They do not account for the redistribution by "tax credit" that the WSJ addresses because they focus solely on the proposed tax rates. Which is exactly what the Obama campaign wants. Austan Goolsbee is no fool. And all the better for them to enact programs to "spread the wealth around" the way that Obama admits he wants to. s***, Bill Ayers must have LOVED that quote

Whether this charade is a lie or simply misleading is a distinction without a difference. This couldn't be clearer: Many of the 30% of Americans who pay no income taxes whatsoever will be getting refund checks from the US Treasury.

Obamanomics: It's welfare, back and better than ever because it's hidden as a smaller tax base rather than as an entitlement.

As for the chart, I think the hypothetical taxpayers were chosen to demonstrate the maximum possible "cashing in" of the relevant credits.

[greggsand]

The Howard Stern show this morning was golden

The wedding talk?

I'm guessing this?

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NyvqhdllXgU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

The good news is that thanks to ACORN, it's unlikely that any one of these informed citizens is likely to vote any more than 12 times

Best stern bit was when they sent Sal down to the Giants Superbowl Parade and asked various Giants Fans "So say you had to choose between 9-11 never happening or The Giants win the Superbowl. What would you pick?" frequently followed by "F*cking Giants Baby! Wooo Eli!!" Amazing what you'll find on the street.

Now back to bashing Acorn.

[fsquid]

Obamanomics: It's welfare, back and better than ever because it's hidden as a smaller tax base rather than as an entitlement.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he then wants a boat with a 250 hp Mercury motor, sonar and a depth finder.

[XXXIV]

Bashing Acorn is evil. Though I never thought voter fraud would be a good thing.

The world...she is a changing.

[Jackdog]

Obamanomics: It's welfare, back and better than ever because it's hidden as a smaller tax base rather than as an entitlement.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he then wants a boat with a 250 hp Mercury motor, sonar and a depth finder.

[matthewk]

And if Obama is elected, with his "tax cuts" it will rise even further. And those paying no taxes will get welfa...um tax credit checks.

So if McCain is elected, all these slackers are going to suddenly start paying their taxes ? Actually, since the lower classes are supposed to pay 3 times more taxes under McCain's plan as opposed to Obama's, the amount of unpaid taxes will increase under McCain more than Obama. What I would like is to see one of the candidates come up with a solution to this unpaid tax problem.

Are you talking about people who owe taxes that just haven't paid them? I'm talking about people who owe $0 in income taxes, not those who owe but never paid up.

Where do you get 3x more? So instead of a 20% tax rate, McCain is going to raise it to 60%? That just doesn't make sense.

[Rodster]

ACORN Registers Mickey Mouse.



Mickey Mouse tried to register to vote in Florida this summer.

Orange County elections officials rejected his application, which was stamped with the logo of the nonprofit group ACORN.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/e ... 852295.ece

[Jackdog]

The race issue.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sun ... 517.column

McCain has done nothing to fuel racism. Or, put another way, the McCain campaign has done as much to promote prejudice as the Obama campaign has to inflame the vile passions behind the "Abort Sarah Palin" bumper sticker, Madonna's stage video lumping McCain in with Hitler, the eugenic snobbery aimed at Palin's son with Down syndrome or the column in the Philadelphia Daily News that predicted a "race war" if McCain wins.
Beinart recounts how Palin said at one rally, "I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way that you and I see America." Beinart makes it sound as if she said this through a Klan hood. Please. Every single presidential campaign boils down to an argument about how the candidates "see America." Suddenly that question is out of bounds because Obama is black?

According to the liberal history books, in 1988 the GOP cast Michael Dukakis as too elitist, cosmopolitan and not American enough. In 1992, it ran a similar attack against Bill Clinton -- remember the hullabaloo about draft dodging and that trip to Russia? In 2000, ditto with Al Gore, though the emphasis was less on foreignness and more on extraterrestrialness. And in 2004, there was John Kerry's "global test" for U.S. national security. Lack of originality notwithstanding, why is it suddenly racist to treat Obama just like the four white guys who preceded him? Talk about racial double standards.

Obama holds mega-campaign rallies in Berlin, touts his global appeal and says a top foreign policy goal is to get other countries to like us. But it's racist to call him cosmopolitan?

He has nontrivial ties to an unrepentant (and white) former leader of the Weather Underground, a radical leftist organization that sought to kill American soldiers, policemen and politicians. But it's "racist" to bring that up? (If anything, by not attacking Obama's ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and other politically unsavory nonwhite associates, McCain is self-censoring for fear of seeming racist.)

If Obama were a white Democratic nominee named Barry O'Malley, the GOP would be going after him twice as hard. But many liberals would still caterwaul about fomenting hatred and racism, because that's what they always do.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YT ... M5Mjg0MzU=

We know that Obama did read the proposals. Annenberg documents show him commenting on proposal quality. And especially after 1995, when concerns over self-dealing and conflicts of interest forced the Ayers-headed “Collaborative” to distance itself from monetary issues, all funding decisions fell to Obama and the board. Significantly, there was dissent within the board. One business leader and experienced grant-smith characterized the quality of most Annenberg proposals as “awful.” (See “The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: The First Three Years,” p. 19.) Yet Obama and his very small and divided board kept the money flowing to ideologically extremist groups like the South Shore African Village Collaborative, instead of organizations focused on traditional educational achievement.

As if the content of SSAVC documents wasn’t warning enough, their proposals consistently misspelled “rites of passage” as “rights of passage,” hardly an encouraging sign from a group meant to improve children’s reading skills. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge’s own evaluators acknowledged that Annenberg-aided schools showed no improvement in achievement scores. Evaluators attributed that failure, in part, to the fact that many of Annenberg’s “external partners” had little educational expertise. A group that puts its efforts into Kwanzaa celebrations and half-baked history certainly fits that bill, and goes a long way toward explaining how Ayers and Obama managed to waste upwards of $150 million without improving student achievement.

However he may seek to deny it, all evidence points to the fact that, from his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright. The Wright affair was no fluke. It’s time for McCain to say so.

[Jackdog]

Bashing Acorn is evil. Though I never thought voter fraud would be a good thing.

The world...she is a changing.

With the help of future President?

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8vJcVgJhNaU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

[JackB1]

Where do you get 3x more? So instead of a 20% tax rate, McCain is going to raise it to 60%? That just doesn't make sense.

I posted a link to the study a while back, but for example,
Under Obama you would pay $1,000 in taxes, but under
McCain it would be $3,000. Not 3 X the percentage. 3 X the amount.
I will try and find the article again.

The bottom line is both candidates proposed tax cuts will just increase our National Debt by about a trillion dollars over the 4 years. I don't know how they can justify this.

Edit: Here is the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00950.html

In one example, if you had a household income of $37-66K, your taxes will decrease $319 under McCain's plan, but will decrease $1,042 under Obama's plan. Three Times more decrease under Obama. If you look at the chart McCain's plan clearly favors thos in the upper income brackets, while Obama's favors those in the lower brackets. I believe a similar study was done by Money Magazine.

[JRod]

Whether this charade is a lie or simply misleading is a distinction without a difference. This couldn't be clearer: Many of the 30% of Americans who pay no income taxes whatsoever will be getting refund checks from the US Treasury.

Wow Rob, I expect crazy talk from some guys on this forum. I always thought you were better than that.

Second off, who's going to sign off on his tax policies? Congress. Now maybe they will just roll over. The dems will have more of a majority and probably higher margins in both houses. I happen to believe that if Obama starts giving refund checks to people that pay taxes, the republicans will filibuster that plan. I think they could gain enough press to stop something like that.

And it's a freaking plan, it's not enacted into law once you get elected. Maybe I missed something.

That said, I'm taking what you say at face value.

But here's what you started saying and here's where we are. You post a graph and an article from WSJ about how if you add up all the extra tax credits that people get know and those that *may* be eliminated until Obama, you might not those tax credits. You will receive a tax break but the cumulative break would be there. So you go from paying more taxes to people are going to be getting refund checks even though they don't pay any taxes. Oh by the way that is not supported by any facts.

[JackB1]

Second off, who's going to sign off on his tax policies? Congress. Now maybe they will just roll over. The dems will have more of a majority and probably higher margins in both houses. I happen to believe that if Obama starts giving refund checks to people that pay taxes, the republicans will filibuster that plan. I think they could gain enough press to stop something like that.

And it's a freaking plan, it's not enacted int

That is a major issue that some aren't thinking about. These PLANS have to be passed!

[JRod]

The race issue.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sun ... 517.column


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YT ... M5Mjg0MzU=

Two opinion pieces.

Not really based in fact. As to the second article, here's the problem with the parts you quoted. It's still guilt by association. There is no smoking gun when you say the board supported a question association, and Obama was in charge of financing. The quote doesn't say Obama singlehanded changed the boards mind to support Wrights or Ayers projects. It just makes the supposition that Obama sitting on the board was the reason funding was filtering to these projects. Read it carefully, the article reads in a way to mislead the reader.

all funding decisions fell to Obama and the board

Obama and his very small and divided board kept the money flowing to ideologically extremist groups

The article provides no proof that it was Obama alone, supporting Ayers or Wright's projects. It tries to draw that conclusion by saying the board did this. But it doesn't prove that Obama was doing this on part of Ayers or Wright.

This isn't a smoking gun.


As for the race issue, guilt by association, has been tried. They have nothing more than Wright and he served on a board with Ayers. Then the author, says it's how a candidate sees America.

Honestly we can't have a debate on one sees their America. If you don't say America is #1, then you a fascist. Bobby Kennedy said he was disappointed in America. You can't say that know because too many fragile personalities would be bruised.

Jonah Goldberg cares more about bashing liberals than about the truth. He wrote a book called Liberal Fascism. I think that goes a long way in explained his extremist positions.

[matthewk]

And it's a freaking plan, it's not enacted into law once you get elected. Maybe I missed something.

So they are "Just words"?

Seriously, this is what he is running on. It's what he wants to do. The majority of voters aren't going to weigh the likelyhood of his proposals, and I'm sure he's counting on that. To them this sounds great. More money for us coming diretly from those evil corporations.

[JRod]

And it's a freaking plan, it's not enacted into law once you get elected. Maybe I missed something.

So they are "Just words"?

Seriously, this is what he is running on. It's what he wants to do. The majority of voters aren't going to weigh the likelyhood of his proposals, and I'm sure he's counting on that. To them this sounds great. More money for us coming diretly from those evil corporations.

They are just words now. When he gets into office he'll either need enough Dem support (numbers) to pass or he'll need get get some GOP members on board.

Second, I've seen no evidence by respectable journalists or economists that show he will give out checks to people that don't pay taxes. And if his plan does have this, which I highly doubt, don't you think the GOP is going to cause a stink over that when he gets in.

All I'm doing is taking it [Rob's point] at face value.

I don't think any of his supporters believe that there's going to be welfare for the middle class as Rob makes it out.

Nothing has been enacted...so everything said by John McCain and Obama is just words. I don't really know why you get upset over that. Being elected and having your agenda passed is two different things.

FDR had to make sizable changes in his new deal to get it passed. He was at odd with the supreme court and wanted to change the make-up of it because of the four horsemen of the apocalypse that sat on the court.

[FatPitcher]

The race issue.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sun ... 517.column


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YT ... M5Mjg0MzU=

Two opinion pieces.

Not really based in fact. As to the second article, here's the problem with the parts you quoted. It's still guilt by association. There is no smoking gun when you say the board supported a question association, and Obama was in charge of financing. The quote doesn't say Obama singlehanded changed the boards mind to support Wrights or Ayers projects. It just makes the supposition that Obama sitting on the board was the reason funding was filtering to these projects. Read it carefully, the article reads in a way to mislead the reader.

all funding decisions fell to Obama and the board

Obama and his very small and divided board kept the money flowing to ideologically extremist groups

The article provides no proof that it was Obama alone, supporting Ayers or Wright's projects. It tries to draw that conclusion by saying the board did this. But it doesn't prove that Obama was doing this on part of Ayers or Wright.

This isn't a smoking gun.


As for the race issue, guilt by association, has been tried. They have nothing more than Wright and he served on a board with Ayers. Then the author, says it's how a candidate sees America.

Honestly we can't have a debate on one sees their America. If you don't say America is #1, then you a fascist. Bobby Kennedy said he was disappointed in America. You can't say that know because too many fragile personalities would be bruised.

Jonah Goldberg cares more about bashing liberals than about the truth. He wrote a book called Liberal Fascism. I think that goes a long way in explained his extremist positions.

You, sir, are the master of the Chewbacca Defense. Confuse us all by acting like you can't but two words or thoughts together coherently, throw in an ad hominem attack, and then admire your work like a 2 year old who pooped in the toilet for the first time.

You always whine about how I don't debate you by countering the points you make. That is because the points you make are ridiculous on their face. You try to claim that Obama can't be held responsible for the decisions of the board of directors, conveniently ignoring the fact that he was Chairman of the Board. You say that anything Jonah Goldberg writes must be completely disregarded because of a book that you haven't even read, whose title you dislike. You dismiss arguments in opinion articles based solely on the fact that they are opinion articles. Do I even need to explain how absurd that is? And there's a little bit of a difference between "I bombed America"/"God damn America" and "I'm disappointed in America." But apparently that differenceis too subtle for you to grasp.

I have to bite my tongue to prevent moderation, but let's just say that I do not think that your opinions add anything of value to this thread.

[RobVarak]

Wow Rob, I expect crazy talk from some guys on this forum. I always thought you were better than that.

Second off, who's going to sign off on his tax policies? Congress. Now maybe they will just roll over. The dems will have more of a majority and probably higher margins in both houses. I happen to believe that if Obama starts giving refund checks to people that pay taxes, the republicans will filibuster that plan. I think they could gain enough press to stop something like that.

And it's a freaking plan, it's not enacted into law once you get elected. Maybe I missed something.

That said, I'm taking what you say at face value.

But here's what you started saying and here's where we are. You post a graph and an article from WSJ about how if you add up all the extra tax credits that people get know and those that *may* be eliminated until Obama, you might not those tax credits. You will receive a tax break but the cumulative break would be there. So you go from paying more taxes to people are going to be getting refund checks even though they don't pay any taxes. Oh by the way that is not supported by any facts.

First of all, it's not "crazy talk." I simply re-phrased the central tenet of the WSJ piece, and indeed used the more conservative current number, rather than the number of non-payers that the plan will get to eventually LOL

WSJ:

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year.

Me:

Whether this charade is a lie or simply misleading is a distinction without a difference. This couldn't be clearer: Many of the 30% of Americans who pay no income taxes whatsoever will be getting refund checks from the US Treasury.

Secondly, of course it's "just a plan." So now we can't evaluate Obama on his stated intentions? LMAO So we can't criticize his background. We can't criticize his his associations. We can't discuss race. And now we can't analyze his plans. LOL

This piece is based on facts which are all taken from Obama's own website, position papers and speeches! Nobody made up those tax credits or the fact that they would be phased out to penalize lower income workers. It's clear on its face that the plan would result in sizable numbers of citizens paying no income tax and receiving refunds in return. The facts quite clearly support this.


The argument that it's a plan but still may not get passed is simulatneously moot and ignorant. It's moot becuase whether it's passed or not, it is a demonstration of the extent to which income redistribution is central to Obama's politics. You may not like that he's a McGovernite welfare-stater, but that's the fact. And this plan is relevant because it's clear evidence of that fact.

It's ignorant because the reality of our situation is that a President Obama would be working with a Reid-Pelosi Congress only too happy to rubber stamp his social and tax programs...after bulking them up of course. If anything, the plan will end up looking more like collectivization when they get through with it. The Democrats are within range of a 60-seat Senatorial majority. If Obama wants this plan, he's going to get it.

Hell, the new "stimulus plan" talk out of Pelosi and Reed makes it clear that they think the happy days of explosive government expansion are indeed here again. You think they're going to work as a check on expanding welfare???

I don't think any of his supporters believe that there's going to be welfare for the middle class as Rob makes it out.

LMAO I agree. But therein lies the problem.

I'm bemused by the reaction of the Obama supporters on this forum and around the internet to this plan. This is the essence of Obama, and now that it's getting attention we're hearing a litany of weak excuses about why we should ignore it or why it can't be true. They should be celebrating this plan!

Like I said yesterday, if you support the guy because you advocate a return of the welfare state and aggressive redistribution of wealth, then mazeltov!!

If you don't support those things than you may want to really think about exacly what this man stands for. If this portion of his platform upsets you then you may not know his positions as well as you think you do. He's not just the articulate centrist you see on TV.

His books are both best sellers. Did people buy them and not read them?

Do people not understand what this man did as a community organizer? Do they not understand why the likes of Ayers find him attractive? Do they even know about the affinity that the Socialist Party had for Obama and his New Party pals from the '90's?

Maybe hearing it from his mouth will help?

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OoqI5PSRcXM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

[FatPitcher]

And it's a freaking plan, it's not enacted into law once you get elected. Maybe I missed something.

So they are "Just words"?

Seriously, this is what he is running on. It's what he wants to do. The majority of voters aren't going to weigh the likelyhood of his proposals, and I'm sure he's counting on that. To them this sounds great. More money for us coming diretly from those evil corporations.

They are just words now. When he gets into office he'll either need enough Dem support (numbers) to pass or he'll need get get some GOP members on board.

Second, I've seen no evidence by respectable journalists or economists that show he will give out checks to people that don't pay taxes. And if his plan does have this, which I highly doubt, don't you think the GOP is going to cause a stink over that when he gets in.

All I'm doing is taking it [Rob's point] at face value.

I don't think any of his supporters believe that there's going to be welfare for the middle class as Rob makes it out.

Nothing has been enacted...so everything said by John McCain and Obama is just words. I don't really know why you get upset over that. Being elected and having your agenda passed is two different things.

You're so right. Judging candidates by what they say they are going to do is a horrible idea. Instead, we should support whichever one makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside.

And your failure to find any credible evidence that people who pay no taxes will get refunds is simply a failure on your part to find information or to understand it. The dispute is not over whether that is the nature of Obama's plan, but whether it's a good idea.

[matthewk]

I don't think any of his supporters believe that there's going to be welfare for the middle class as Rob makes it out.

Nothing has been enacted...so everything said by John McCain and Obama is just words. I don't really know why you get upset over that. Being elected and having your agenda passed is two different things.

I think it's welfare for the poor, not the middle class. The middle class pay taxes, and upon further examination, people like me who are middle class will be paying more taxes, not less. The ones getting the welfare are those that pay little or no taxes and are going to reap the benefits of Obama's plan.

I'm not upset over anything. I just think it is irresponsible to brush things like this aside as "just a plan". Why are you voting for Obama (or McCain)? Isn't it laregely based on what they say they are planning to do?

[Jackdog]

Maybe hearing it from his mouth will help?

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OoqI5PSRcXM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

I posted this a few pages ago man. I got no response.