Palin Stretches Truth about Plane on eBay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You are kidding, right? more than one third of Americans with earned income pay no income taxes. The other 60%pay for everyone.

And to the other posters, refundable tax credits can be a negative income tax. Take the Earned Income Tax Credit for example. When the credit is more than the tax paid in, they get the higher amount. Look it up ...

[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.

Jeff, you need to do your research on this one - a refundable tax credit can be a negative income tax - and that is part of Obama's plan exactly. You CAN get more back than you pay in... in fact you can pay zero and still get money back, even under today's tax scheme. Obama just wants to make that bigger. I call that income redistribution... take it from you and I and hand it directly to someone else.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

I appreciate your response. Just a couple of points -- you do need to be working to be eligible. Only income above a certain threshold is taxed, and yes deductions can reduce tax liability to nothing. But the tax credit we were discussing is not a percentage of income -- it's $500 for individuals and $1000 for working families as I understand it. The reason I pointed this issue out in my earlier post is that very few people understand that this refundabale tax credit is being counted against tax increases to say there is a net tax cut. As your response indicated, most people have no idea that is what Obama's plan entails, and Obama has not made an effort to make sure they do.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, you need to do your research on this one

Yes, I did my research and admitted I was wrong. You might want to note that in your diary because it happens so rarely (the admitting part, the being wrong part happens all too often).

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I appreciate your response. Just a couple of points -- you do need to be working to be eligible. Only income above a certain threshold is taxed, and yes deductions can reduce tax liability to nothing. But the tax credit we were discussing is not a percentage of income -- it's $500 for individuals and $1000 for working families as I understand it. The reason I pointed this issue out in my earlier post is that very few people understand that this refundabale tax credit is being counted against tax increases to say there is a net tax cut. As your response indicated, most people have no idea that is what Obama's plan entails, and Obama has not made an effort to make sure they do.

According to the TPC analysis, "His Making Work Pay credit would equal 6.2 percent of up to $8,100 of earnings (yielding a maximum credit of approximately $500). Spouses filing jointly would each claim the credit based on their own earnings.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411749_updated_candidates.pdf

You are correct that the credits are being counted as a tax cut to offset tax increases in order to have a net tax cut. On the other hand, whether the plan is a net tax cut is probably of less interest to most people than the question of who gets a cut. If you are low or middle income and get a cut, you will probably be satisfied regardless of whether the plan has a net cut or a net increase.

[Anonymous]

That may be true, but why not be honest and straightforward about the plan and let people decide? It seems you're awfully eager to cut slack to Obama after you wanted to make much ado over the plane and the background photo at the convention. I would say leaving this tax plan unexplained is absolutely more significant, and 100 percent more relevant, than whether Palin "put" or sold the plane on eBay (btw, she said she put it on eBay and she didi) and Obama is absolutely creating a misimpression by not explaining that many of his tax cuts are actually a new subsidy. People who benefit may not be concerened, but others who foot the bill may.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:That may be true, but why not be honest and straightforward about the plan and let people decide? It seems you're awfully eager to cut slack to Obama after you wanted to make much ado over the plane and the background photo at the convention. I would say leaving this tax plan unexplained is absolutely more significant, and 100 percent more relevant, than whether Palin "put" or sold the plane on eBay (btw, she said she put it on eBay and she didi) and Obama is absolutely creating a misimpression by not explaining that many of his tax cuts are actually a new subsidy. People who benefit may not be concerened, but others who foot the bill may.

At no point have I argued that the plan should not be explained. I was wrong about my understanding of the plan and based on information presented here, conducted further research and now have a different understanding.

The fact remains that both candidates are promising tax cuts. It is the distribution of those tax cuts that is the important aspect of each plan, not the aggregate nature of each plan. The statement that is the basis of Obama's discourse regarding his plan is that 95% of working families will receive a cut. Depending on the methodology used to evaluate his plan, that number is either correct or slightly high.

The entire narrative surrounding Palin is false. She supported the "Bridge to Nowhere" and said "thanks" to federal funds which she accepted and spent. She didn't sell the governor's plane on eBay and only balanced town budgets as a result of Congressional earmarks which she didn't attempt to reform. She is embroiled in an abuse of power ethics case and is not cooperating with the Repubiican-supported investigation. One wonders if she is even a hockey mom. I wouldn't be surprised to find out her children actually prefer synchronized swimming.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, you need to do your research on this one

Yes, I did my research and admitted I was wrong. You might want to note that in your diary because it happens so rarely (the admitting part, the being wrong part happens all too often).

Welcome to the human race

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Yes, I did my research and admitted I was wrong. You might want to note that in your diary because it happens so rarely (the admitting part, the being wrong part happens all too often).

Welcome to the human race

Actually, this is not his first entry into the human race. I have seen him around his kids, and he was definitely human. Of course, once he gets into politics, all bets are off!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

The fact remains that both candidates are promising tax cuts. It is the distribution of those tax cuts that is the important aspect of each plan, not the aggregate nature of each plan. The statement that is the basis of Obama's discourse regarding his plan is that 95% of working families will receive a cut. Depending on the methodology used to evaluate his plan, that number is either correct or slightly high.

The entire narrative surrounding Palin is false. She supported the "Bridge to Nowhere" and said "thanks" to federal funds which she accepted and spent. She didn't sell the governor's plane on eBay and only balanced town budgets as a result of Congressional earmarks which she didn't attempt to reform. She is embroiled in an abuse of power ethics case and is not cooperating with the Repubiican-supported investigation. One wonders if she is even a hockey mom. I wouldn't be surprised to find out her children actually prefer synchronized swimming.

Ok, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot implore us all to mince words about whether when she said "put" the plane on eBAY, she implied she sold it -- a matter of very little concern to a national election, or even worse why some idiot staffer put the wrong picture on the screen. The point of the plane example was clear -- it was provided to her for her benefit, she decided it was excessive and sold it. That you cannot dispute and that is the net effect of the story, which she did not lie about at all.

You are, on the other hand, satisfied that Obama's "discourse" that he plans to give 95% of working families a tax cut is more or less accurate, when in fact, it is not at all and is far more serious an issue. I'm not talking about whether it really will impact 88 or 95% of working families, but that it is not a "tax cut" in many cases, though that's what he's calling it deliberately and repeatedly knowing that many people, like you, are taking them at their word, and will believe them. Instead, it is something very different -- an actual new federal outlay to somewhere around 40% of those familes who have no income tax liability. You cannot cut taxes for someone who does not pay taxes. You can cut them a check, but that's very different. They are not being truthful.

On Palin, the entire narrative is false? That's just ridiculous. I care more about the issues than the personal narrative, but if that's your focus, Obama's narrative is hardly free from exaggeration and outright misstatements of fact, even those of personal/family history.

And you cannot seriously want to talk about earmarks. Obama and Biden's record on seeking and securing earmarks for their states is embarrasing. You can look it up. McCain's record is uniquely devoid of earmarks. This is simply not a winning issue for you. As for Palin, she, like all state and local government officials, sought and accepted federal funds. She has not rejected federal funds wholesale by any means -- no governor/local official has or would (btw, in this sense, it's a bit like your take on the beneificiaries of the Obama refundable tax credit -- you suggested those who would receive the new subsidy should hardly be concerned about the proposal). She, has, however, significantly reduced the requests made to Congress on behalf of her state in her most recent budget. It is not merely narrative, and it is most certainly not false.

You do know, right, that it is the Congress who actually secures/approves those earmarked federal funds, and that Biden and Obama both voted for the bridge to nowhere.

The abuse of power story is a non-starter - this lunatic was threatening her family and had tasered a child, but by all means let's spend taxpayer money to investigate why she thought this guy should not be working as a state trooper. Just ridiculous.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
You are, on the other hand, satisfied that Obama's "discourse" that he plans to give 95% of working families a tax cut is more or less accurate, when in fact, it is not at all and is far more serious an issue. I'm not talking about whether it really will impact 88 or 95% of working families, but that it is not a "tax cut" in many cases, though that's what he's calling it deliberately and repeatedly knowing that many people, like you, are taking them at their word, and will believe them. Instead, it is something very different -- an actual new federal outlay to somewhere around 40% of those familes who have no income tax liability. You cannot cut taxes for someone who does not pay taxes. You can cut them a check, but that's very different. They are not being truthful.

On Palin, the entire narrative is false? That's just ridiculous. I care more about the issues than the personal narrative, but if that's your focus, Obama's narrative is hardly free from exaggeration and outright misstatements of fact, even those of personal/family history.

You make lots of excuses for the inaccuracies of the Palin narrative, but excuses do not correct the falsehoods. She never said "no thanks" to the "Bridge to Nowhere". She never supported earmark reform -- she reduced the state's earmarks request while explicitly lamenting the fact that the mood in Congress was not welcoming to earmarks. She still requested more earmarks per capital then any other state requested.

In the case of Obama's tax plan, there is debate over whether a refundable tax credit can be considered a tax cut. No matter how it is labeled, the vast majority of American families will pay less taxes. There is no dispute over that issue. You think Obama is misleadingly calling his plan a tax cut plan because it includes refundable tax credits to offset tax increases. Regardless of how you come down on that questions, the 80 - 95% of working American families will receive a tax cut (or refundable tax credit). Nobody is their right mind is not going to agree that such a plan is in fact a tax cut plan.

As someone said earlier in this thread, all the candidates have done some stretching of the truth. The difference with McCain and Palin is that once you strip away the stretching and outright lying, there is almost nothing left.

With Obama, maybe his plan is not -- in the aggregate -- a tax cut plan. It does, however, reduce taxes on most working families. As I said about Palin, she supported the "Bridge to Nowhere" and said "thanks" to federal funds which she accepted and spent. She didn't sell the governor's plane on eBay and only balanced town budgets as a result of Congressional earmarks which she didn't attempt to reform. She is embroiled in an abuse of power ethics case and is not cooperating with the Repubiican-supported investigation. What's left?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote: In the case of Obama's tax plan, there is debate over whether a refundable tax credit can be considered a tax cut.

There's no debate over whether it's a really a tax cut. At least not among people who understand anything about the difference between being taxed by the government and being given a subsidy by the government. Just because Obama has confused you and others on the issue does not mean it's up for debate.

I did not make any excuses. I explained there is absolutely truth to the reformist narrative around Palin. I'd love to see you cite concrete evidence of real change Obama has affected -- that's his entire narrative and his record is woefully inadequate to support it. Pitiful really. Indeed, he is a product of the Chicago political machine, who has sought roughly 1 million a day for every day he's been in the Senate, makes a habit of voting present rather than taking a position on tough issues and is utterly loyal to his party and their entrenched interests in Congress, and who has now picked a career politician for VP. Seems he's saving all that change for the WHite House -- too nervous to actually do anything that might be unpopular and interfere with his ambition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... but that it is not a "tax cut" in many cases, though that's what he's [Obama] calling it deliberately and repeatedly knowing that many people, like you, are taking them at their word, and will believe them. Instead, it is something very different -- an actual new federal outlay to somewhere around 40% of those familes who have no income tax liability. You cannot cut taxes for someone who does not pay taxes. You can cut them a check, but that's very different.

Thank you for the lucid description. By my definition a tax cut is a reduction of taxes I was going to pay. Someone who pays no income tax cannot get a 'cut' - just a hand out.

We can argue the merits of the proposals, but lets be honest about what we are talking about.

[Anonymous]

I agree with PP, the tax cut narrative as presented by the Obama campaign needs to be more accurately presented to the American public. It is one thing to have a cut, it is another to provide an additional subsidy.

Where is the media on this? Too concerned with glasses, hair, and daily tracking polls.

[Anonymous]

Exactly - the media and many on these boards would rather assess whether Palin is a good mother. Pitiful.

I'm also still waiting for some evidence in support of Obama's narrative that he is a change agent?