Palin Stretches Truth about Plane on eBay

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
PP again.

And, as I am sure you have noticed, now the myth is that she sold the damn plane on e-Bay and "made a profit"! LOL. Despite being called out on the inaccuracies, McCain is going around telling this story for her and she continuing to tell it as well.

Yes, the McCain campaign has adopted lying as a campaign strategy. McCain has been saying for weeks that Obama voted to raise taxes on people making as little as $32,000 a year. Everyone on earth has debunked that, but McCain kept telling it. He may well be continuing to say it.

[Anonymous]

Jeff,
She can't hide from the debates, right? I would imagine all her lies would be exposed then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff,
She can't hide from the debates, right? I would imagine all her lies would be exposed then.

Unfortunately, the moderators have to stay "neutral", so they can't say "Biden is telling the truth and Palin is lying". Therefore she will probably say things that are false or irrelevant, and say them with the assurance of Thursday's speech, and have many in the audience believing it. And if Joe looks exasperated, we'll have all the pundits telling us he lost the debate, just like when Gore looked at his watch.

[Anonymous]

She brags about lowering property taxes but balancing the budget in Wasilla. Ironically, that was only possible because of the federal earmarks that added huge sums of money to the town's treasury.

She has been proclaimed as having been Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard, yet the Guard's commander confirmed that she never issued a single order. What kind of commander is that?





Setting the great e-Bay plane debate aside (you're really reaching on that one; she was clearly accurate in her portrayal), be careful what you wish for, because Obama is pretty loose with his facts, having made far more ridiculous stretches, even some relating to his own family history. But, to more important issues, Obama is saying he's reducing taxes on 95% of Americans, when far less than 95% of Americans even pay taxes -- some of that is actually a proposed tax refund to people who currently pay no income taxes. I have no idea how many orders a governor typically issues as commander of the National Guard, but whether it's many or few, I would say it's kind of like claiming you're an agent of epic change and having no legislative accomplishments to cite as a U.S. Senator or state legislator, but a whole lot of "presents" recorded. It's kind of like giving rousing speeches about bringing people together in a bipartisan manner despite having voted 97% of the time with your party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff,
She can't hide from the debates, right? I would imagine all her lies would be exposed then.

Unfortunately, the moderators have to stay "neutral", so they can't say "Biden is telling the truth and Palin is lying". Therefore she will probably say things that are false or irrelevant, and say them with the assurance of Thursday's speech, and have many in the audience believing it. And if Joe looks exasperated, we'll have all the pundits telling us he lost the debate, just like when Gore looked at his watch.

Oh, right, right, right. Biden never lies.

[Anonymous]

Oh, right, right, right. Biden never lies.

The difference is that McCain/Palin seem to have created her entire candidacy around things that are at best grossly exaggerated. When you take those things away, there isn't much left, as far as I can see. Even those who dislike or disagree with Biden don't do it on the basis of him having no substance. (In fact, in my view, quite the opposite is true. I think one of the reasons that he wasn't a great campaigner in the primary season is that he knows so much about so many complicated issues that it is difficult for him to condense an issue into short, simple blurbs.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, right, right, right. Biden never lies.

The difference is that McCain/Palin seem to have created her entire candidacy around things that are at best grossly exaggerated. When you take those things away, there isn't much left, as far as I can see.

I could say the same about Obama, and I do not dislike him personally, but his record is scant. Seriously, I think you're better off comparing them on their stands on the issues if that is why you support Obama, because he has no legistative accomplishments on which he can run.

And Joe Biden does not run on at the mouth because he knows so much. He has made a career out of self-indulgent speeches. He is affable, but inarticulate and unimpressive. There's a reason he pulled less than 2% when he made his own bid for the presidency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

She brags about lowering property taxes but balancing the budget in Wasilla. Ironically, that was only possible because of the federal earmarks that added huge sums of money to the town's treasury.

She has been proclaimed as having been Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard, yet the Guard's commander confirmed that she never issued a single order. What kind of commander is that?

But, to more important issues, Obama is saying he's reducing taxes on 95% of Americans, when far less than 95% of Americans even pay taxes -- some of that is actually a proposed tax refund to people who currently pay no income taxes. I have no idea how many orders a governor typically issues as commander of the National Guard, but whether it's many or few, I would say it's kind of like claiming you're an agent of epic change and having no legislative accomplishments to cite as a U.S. Senator or state legislator, but a whole lot of "presents" recorded. It's kind of like giving rousing speeches about bringing people together in a bipartisan manner despite having voted 97% of the time with your party.

Palin's only commander in chief by default as governor. When the National Guard leave for active military service, she has no authority over them.

BTW, pp what are you talking about, people who pay no income taxes? Who pays no income tax?

[Anonymous]

PP here. Roughly 40% of the U.S. population pays no federal income tax. Their earnings are below the threshold.

The cornerstone of Obama's plan is a refundable tax credit which can be paid to people who pay no income tax. It is therefore not a tax cut, but rather a new welfare program masquerading as a tax cut. Maybe the American people would favor it, but it's certainly not being presented fairly or honestly.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
The cornerstone of Obama's plan is a refundable tax credit which can be paid to people who pay no income tax. It is therefore not a tax cut, but rather a new welfare program masquerading as a tax cut. Maybe the American people would favor it, but it's certainly not being presented fairly or honestly.

This is misinformation. A refundable tax credit, but definition, cannot be paid to people who have not paid taxes. How can you refund something that has not been paid in the first place?

Obama will provide a $500 per person tax cut to working families (or $1000 per family). This will affect 150 million workers. McCain will offer much larger tax cuts to the wealthy.

[Anonymous]

It absolutely is not misinformation. If you are going to make such a serious charge on a serious subject and presume to define something, you really ought to do five minutes worth of research first. This is not a debate you can win by just making stuff up -- these are verifiable facts -- Obama has actually written his tax plan down. See below, for one explanation, but you can find it anywhere if you bother to look.

The term "refundable" means that if the worker does not have enough tax liability to take advantage of the credit, the government sends the worker a check to cover the full amount of the credit anyway. So if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the credit covers the $200 tax bill and the government sends the taxpayer a check for the remaining $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would send him a check for the whole $1,000.

"The big trick behind the Obama tax plan is that his refundable tax credits would primarily go precisely to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. The latest CBO data shows the bottom 40% of income earners already pay no federal income taxes. Indeed, they receive a net payment from the federal income tax system, meaning from the taxpayers, equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes, because of the refundable tax credits under current law. The middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, pays 4.4% of federal income taxes. Overall, the bottom 60% of income earners pay less than 1% of federal income taxes on net.

When "tax credits" primarily go to this group in the form of checks from the government rather than a reduction in their tax burden, such tax credits are not tax cuts. They are government spending programs hidden in the tax code." http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13769

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The cornerstone of Obama's plan is a refundable tax credit which can be paid to people who pay no income tax. It is therefore not a tax cut, but rather a new welfare program masquerading as a tax cut. Maybe the American people would favor it, but it's certainly not being presented fairly or honestly.

This is misinformation. A refundable tax credit, but definition, cannot be paid to people who have not paid taxes. How can you refund something that has not been paid in the first place?

Obama will provide a $500 per person tax cut to working families (or $1000 per family). This will affect 150 million workers. McCain will offer much larger tax cuts to the wealthy.

PP here. I might add that while I take serious issue with you proclaiming to understand something you do not and being bold enough to proclaim something that is absolutely accurate to be "misinformation," it is understandable that you were confused. Many people might naturally think that a refundable tax credit cannot be paid to people who have not paid taxes. Not so. And many people do not know that the proposed "tax cut" you mention to working families applies to the large number of people who currently pay no income tax, and is therefore not a tax cut, but a subsidy. I am not sure Obama has ever explained it in that way, but it is absolutely true. I would not stoop so low as to say his campaign is built on lies as you have about Palin, but many clearly do not understand what he's proposing.

[Anonymous]

Re: the tax issue - I hate to say it, but Obama is stretching the truth when he claims he will give a tax cut to 95% of working families. He is also somewhat misrepresenting McCain's plan Here is Factcheck's analysis of what he said in his DNC speech:

Obama is right about his plan's effect on working families. More broadly, though, the plan cuts taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009, according to the Tax Policy Center. The TPC also says McCain’s tax plan would leave 65.8 million households without a cut, not 100 million.

The TPC’s calculations factor in what's in effect a hidden tax on individuals that results from taxing corporations. McCain proposes to lower the corporate income tax rate, and Obama proposes billions of dollars in increased corporate taxes in the form of “loophole closings.” Individuals wouldn’t experience those changes as an increased tax bill from the government, but both the Congressional Budget Office and TPC allocate all corporate tax to owners of capital rather than to consumers. That means rather than flowing through to consumers in the form of higher prices or lower wages, corporate tax changes would show up as higher or lower returns on investments, which typically come in the form of corporate dividends, and profits or losses from stock sales.

Only by ignoring the hidden benefit to individuals can McCain’s plan be said to produce no cut for 100 million households. According to a calculation the TPC did at FactCheck's request, 101.9 million see no benefit if the effects of a corporate reduction are set aside.

For the record, Obama aides say the indirect effect on holders of capital won't be as large as TPC says. "We dispute TPC's methodology here," says Brian Deese of the Obama campaign. He says several of the "loophole closers" that Obama is proposing won't affect corporations or are on offshore activity that will not directly filter through.

We'd also note that retirees would fare quite a bit less well than working families under Obama's tax plan: The TPC estimates that 32 percent of households with a person over age 65 would see a tax increase.

You can find more at www.factcheck.org.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:It absolutely is not misinformation. If you are going to make such a serious charge on a serious subject and presume to define something, you really ought to do five minutes worth of research first. This is not a debate you can win by just making stuff up -- these are verifiable facts -- Obama has actually written his tax plan down. See below, for one explanation, but you can find it anywhere if you bother to look.

Okay, I concede the point. I didn't understand the difference between a "refundable" tax credit and a normal "tax credit". However, I think its important to keep in mind that the tax credit is a percentage of income, so you have to be working and earning to be eligible. Such income is taxed, its just that deductions reduce it to nothing.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Re: the tax issue - I hate to say it, but Obama is stretching the truth when he claims he will give a tax cut to 95% of working families. He is also somewhat misrepresenting McCain's plan Here is Factcheck's analysis of what he said in his DNC speech:

As usual, you can be counted upon to put things in the worst possible light for Obama. Truthfully, with supporters such as yourself, Obama doesn't need opponents. Here is another comment from FactCheck:

We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_new_stitch_in_a_bad_pattern.html

Note that the Obama campaign and TCP use slightly different methodologies which accounts for the discrepancy. But, the general thrust is not your negative spin, but the statement that Obama is c"onsistent with our estimates".