In the midst of this financial mess

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by exUte

facts so you can answer your own questions with facts.

No, sweetheart. You changed the subject to Bush and Clinton because you have no idea what you're talking about. It's a tactic commonly employed by Tex and others of your persuasion.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

you can read, right? The article clearly says, "the 5% who won't get a tax cut." I'm certain you noticed that that's not the same as suggesting that 5% will see a tax increase.

You may have missed this in the flurry ... can you cite your quote for me?

As to the 95% tax cut ... it's bull for a couple of reasons:

1. Obama has already indicated more than once he may (read: will) suspend his tax cut plan because of the economy.

2. More interestingly, 41% of tax filers pay no federal income tax at all, so it is impossible to give them a tax cut. Giving them money (read: EITC) is called welfare.

3. According to the Wall Street Journal, the top 1% of tax filers pay 39% of the tax burden. I don't have figure for the top 5%, but it's fair to say that those who could most use a tax break (who carry the most tax burden) are getting NOTHING from Barack.

Thus, I think he's full of crap.

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

No, sweetheart. You changed the subject to Bush and Clinton because you have no idea what you're talking about. It's a tactic commonly employed by Tex and others of your persuasion.

Heh. Snotty librarian.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Tex

You may have missed this in the flurry ... can you cite your quote for me?

yeah. I saw. It wasn't actually McCain. It was one of his strategists explaining their insistence on maintaining the "bridge to nowhere" story. I've yet to find the entire statement unparsed, just pieces of it strewn across the internet.

It was very Dan Rather-esque. He said that the facts "don't matter" because the story is the essence of a greater truth. Here's the immediate context:

The bigger truths are: She's new, she's popular in Alaska, and she is an insurgent. As long as those are out there, these little facts don't matter.

Heh. Snotty librarian.

I thought you'd like that. Though I believe the term you're looking for is catty.


.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

yeah. I saw. It wasn't actually McCain. It was one of his strategists explaining their insistence on maintaining the "bridge to nowhere" story. I've yet to find the entire statement unparsed, just pieces of it strewn across the internet.

It was very Dan Rather-esque. He said that the facts "don't matter" because the story is the essence of a greater truth. Here's the immediate context

I looked it up ... apparently from an interview with the Washington Post. Not very artfully phrased, but I gather you understand what he meant. Palin's enemies (naturally) want to focus on her inclination to support the bridge early on. Palin (naturally) wants to note that she is the one who killed it. Both are true.

It's not so much that facts don't matter, but which facts matter most. Unsurprisingly, each side emphasizes the ones that favor their position.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's not so much that facts don't matter, but which facts matter most. Unsurprisingly, each side emphasizes the ones that favor their position.

But it's bigger than that. It's an indication of how little regard our society has for truth anymore. Both candidates are fully aware that their job is not to sell reality to the public, but to create a mythology rooted in some degree of truth, and then sell that re-interpretation of reality to the public.

It's a very post-modern sort of thing. The idea is that it's okay to say something is true just because it *could* be true. Well, no, that's not okay, not really.

McCain's spokesman (a different one), also replying to the criticism that McCain's campaign is relying on too much fabrication, basically said, it's not about telling the truth. It's about winning. We tried telling the truth in 2000. It didn't work. We tried playing nice at the beginning of this year, but we didn't get a single headline. If we're in this to win we have to go with what works. And this is what the American people (or at least its media) respond to.

We recognize it’s not going to be 2000 again. But he lost then. We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it. We ran a different kind of campaign [earlier this year] and nobody cared about us. They didn’t cover John McCain. So now you’ve got to be forward-leaning in everything.

-- Brian Rogers

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Tex

You may have missed this in the flurry ... can you cite your quote for me?

As to the 95% tax cut ... it's bull for a couple of reasons:

1. Obama has already indicated more than once he may (read: will) suspend his tax cut plan because of the economy.

2. More interestingly, 41% of tax filers pay no federal income tax at all, so it is impossible to give them a tax cut. Giving them money (read: EITC) is called welfare.

3. According to the Wall Street Journal, the top 1% of tax filers pay 39% of the tax burden. I don't have figure for the top 5%, but it's fair to say that those who could most use a tax break (who carry the most tax burden) are getting NOTHING from Barack.

Thus, I think he's full of crap.



Heh. Snotty librarian.

One other reason he's full of crap:
-Eliminating the SS cap (or implementing the "donut" plan) amounts to a tax increase

I'm not necessarily against raising taxes. My problem is with the concept of offering massive benefit increases while simultaneously cutting their taxes. Just like the idea that the most important deterrent to war is making the public pay for it, the cost of massive government expansion should be at least partially borne by those who benefit from it. The principle of "something for nothing" is not one that needs reinforcing in our society, especially in the world of political promises.

[YOhio]

I'm not the only one who has changed their mind on Palin.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...MyYTUxZDkwNTE=

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by YOhio

I'm not the only one who has changed their mind on Palin.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...MyYTUxZDkwNTE=

Commie! When will you realize OBAMA IS NOT RUNNING AGAINST PALIN?! I'll read this as soon as you find me an equivalent criticism of Biden.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Commie! When will you realize OBAMA IS NOT RUNNING AGAINST PALIN?! I'll read this as soon as you find me an equivalent criticism of Biden.

Does Obama saying Biden popped off too soon and incorrectly count?

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Commie! When will you realize OBAMA IS NOT RUNNING AGAINST PALIN?! I'll read this as soon as you find me an equivalent criticism of Biden.

You sicken me.