New York Times's Larry Rohter today asked the question "Will the Real Tax and Spender Please 'Fess Up?" Fortunately, he tells us what the answer is, even though he has no facts to support it. He has this wonderful little nugget, in which he tries to refute John McCain's statement with two points:
Some question whether Mr. Obama’s tax plan can even be characterized as an increase. Some also argue that contrary to Mr. McCain’s assertions, the Democrat’s proposals, if enacted, would actually reduce taxes for the middle class — the voters both candidates see as the key to victory.
The first, bolded above, statement is completely unsourced. No one in the article makes this claim. The second point he actually defends. For example:
In a study of the candidates’ plans made public Wednesday, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that in contrast to Mr. McCain, “Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers.”
This is not the only place in the story that Rohter lets his bias shine through. He quotes an analyst from the Economic Policy Institute and describes the organization as "generally viewed as sympathetic to working families." EPI is significantly union funded and operated. These are the same unions that are investing heavily in Obama's campaign. In other words, he cites a labor-controlled front group as "sympathetic to working families", a substantial leap.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Time to wake up and smell the BHO!
June 13, 2008 - 08:39 ET by OldSailor88As soon as Barry recinds the Bush tax cuts, we all get a raise in taxes. End of conversation.
Noli habere bovis, vir!
Of course you're right.
June 13, 2008 - 08:42 ET by NewsbusterbrownOf course you're right. It's not even arguable.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
There is no way on this
June 13, 2008 - 09:56 ET by kgThere is no way on this green Earth that the Democrats will ever, ever cut taxes for the middle class.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Exactly, then Obama claims
June 13, 2008 - 08:53 ET by dscottExactly, then Obama claims "he" didn't raise taxes because the tax cut expired. Obama is a typical Dem using bait and switch tactics to "sell" himself. Come 2010, there will be the greatest tax increase in the history of the US and the Dems will say, we didn't do it, all the while they increase spending doling out more kickbacks to their supporters/voters. We will be right back to square one before Reagan came into office, everyone's hand will be in the till saying "I am entitled to my fair share because everyone else including big businees is getting it."
This is the essence of Democrat governance - bribery and payoffs. You disagree? What was the response of Democrats when Bears Stearns was bailed out to prevent a meltdown of the banking system? The equality of outcome argument: Bail out all the risky mortgages! It's not fair to bail out a bank but not the homeowner.
Obama and the Dems are counting on paying off just enough voters who won't be directly affected by their policies to outnumber those who will pay for their policies. They have made a mockery of Democracy.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
It all kinda depends...
June 13, 2008 - 09:11 ET by Prester John....on your definition of middle-income and the high-income, doesn't it?
“Senator Obama offers much
June 13, 2008 - 09:12 ET by Killgrave“Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers.”
Here's the code:
low- and middle-income taxpayers = them
high-income taxpayers = you
"Low Income" households
June 13, 2008 - 09:28 ET by sam.i.amare ones that already get EITC, so any "tax cuts" for them are welfare payments, pure and simple.
Here's a duct tape
June 13, 2008 - 09:48 ET by motherbeltHere's a duct tape situation: here in Pennsylvania, Gov. Ed Rendell actually proposed using the state's "rainy day fund" to give money to those who weren't getting tax rebates because they hadn't paid any taxes!!
Luckily, for once the legislature collectively strapped on a pair and shot it down.
But, but... MB!!! They were
June 13, 2008 - 09:51 ET by MassConservBut, but... MB!!!
They were feeling left out! Can't have that!
[ahem] Sorry.
Some say...
June 13, 2008 - 09:44 ET by GameGridSome say that Obama doesn't have many radical associations.
Some say that Obama doesn't hold extreme leftist ideals which have been proven time and again to be total failures.
Some say that Obama is a great speaker when no teleprompter and pre-written speeches are at his disposal.
Some say that Obama is a messiah or some other form of divine being.
And some people will vote for him simply because they "hope" that he will "change" things while having no clue what that means.
"Some" people are idiots.
Ignorance
June 13, 2008 - 09:53 ET by iveseenitallRight on,GameGrid. Ignorance is bliss and ignorance is what the "liberals" depend upon. The less you know, the better. Witness the public "schools".
Who is Barry Sotero?
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
If you aren't poor Obama will raise your taxes
June 13, 2008 - 10:06 ET by ChiefE9It will happen.
With all the socialist/marxist programs he has proposed he will need to get money somewhere.
Also, I envision more means test and other schemes to get tax money. Remember when Clinton and Gore got the illegal telephone tax to get more money to give the poor and rural areas access to the internet.
More acurately, if you
June 13, 2008 - 10:49 ET by dscottMore acurately, if you aren't poor Obama will tax you directly and if you are poor, Obama will tax you indirectly.
Direct approach: raise income tax rates and expire the tax cut.
Indirect approach: raise taxes on businesses and fuel behind the scenes so everyone including the poor get hit. The poor dumb saps never see it coming because they don't have the whit to realize "all costs" including taxes are passed onto the consumer in order to make a profit. Anyone so stupid as to believe that businesses exist merely for your convenience and can stay in business without making a profit deserves to be fleeced. A good example of this is your electric bill, they show a small tax on the bill, but they don't show you the 100% assessed property tax the utility is forced to pay on which all their equipment is planted on. In some localities, literally half of your electric bill is tax. The worst part is all the taxes that are done behind the scenes fall disportionately upon the poor. The poor wouldn't be voting for the trinkets the Dems offered them if they realized how much they are being screwed from behind to get those trinkets. This is why Dems prey upon the poor, they're an easy mark.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Here's another example of
June 13, 2008 - 11:23 ET by dscottHere's another example of indirect taxation by the thieves in Congress: Did you know big oil pays over 40% of their expeditures in taxes????
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/oil_companies_spend_more_on_ta.html
That's right you bunch of saps, 40% of the cost of gasoline and diesel is directly a result of the thieves in Congress - you call them Democrats. So of the $4/gallon gas you are paying 40%, $1.60/gallon, is stolen by your friends the Democrats.
And now you know the Dems insentive to continually bash the oil companies, they are loudly diverting attention from themselves to accuse the unwilling accomplice of their crimes. The oil companies are just a patsy. It's another blatant example of what is called - Projection (accuse another of what you do, want to do or plan to do). This also the reason why they hinder drilling and refining, to drive up the price of gasoline as it hides or minimizes their theft of your money!!!! You bunch of Rubes! Go ahead vote Democrat. They are slicked tongued, fast talking conartists every last one of them and you are the mark.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Some say that the NYT occasionally practices journalism.
June 13, 2008 - 10:07 ET by c5thenSome say that the editors of the NYT actually sometimes read and correct the crap submitted by the "reporters".
Some say that the NYT is NOT synonomous with DNC.
Some people are apparently offten wrong.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
When will people realize
June 13, 2008 - 10:42 ET by Dan The Man 2When will people realize the Congress are the ones responsible for tax codes and how much tax they will take from you. A President can propose all he wants and promise you the moon, but we have real records from these two clowns to compare what they are saying verses what they have done.
And I say like the old time nuke warnings "duck and cover".
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
"Some say"
June 13, 2008 - 11:04 ET by JohnKI have been complaining to my local news outlets for years about "some say" reports. I can give you a "some say" comment on any side of any subject you like!
The news producers discovered this neat way to inject opinions into news reports a long time ago, and most folks just don't notice the trick.
It's time we mounted a concerted campaign against "some say" opinions embedded in news reports.
Another riff on this theme is the
June 13, 2008 - 12:08 ET by sam.i.am"could happen" reports. Make up a story about what could happen if, if, if.. . A great way to drive a narrative.
News is news.
The first rule of forecasting: All forecasts are wrong.
The newest type of non-story is the "highest/lowest" in "months/years" motif, usually associated with gloom and doom.
It's getting ridiculous when you see reports daily on penny increases in gasoline prices,"now it's the highest ever. Wait, OK now it's the highest EVA! or "largest increase in unemployment in six months".
No sense of perspective.
Technically...
June 13, 2008 - 12:10 ET by SickofLibs..."some" is like "they" but indicates a fewer number of _______.
Just to be perfectly clear.