FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

Quote:

Only in America Could a Two-Faced Creature Like McCain Attain Such Media Status

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted September 5, 2008.

Only in America could a man who has called the mainstream media his "base" run against that very same media.

Is there a problem in Washington? Forget the fact that the Republicans have been running everything there for years -- and elect a Republican "change agent!" Is there a problem with the ongoing war and occupation of Iraq? Forget the fact that the Republicans have been waging a war there for years -- and elect a Republican "change agent!" Is there a problem with our media being complicit with those in power and concealing the truth from the American people? Forget the fact that the Republican candidate for president has benefited from a cozy relationship with his media "base" for years -- and yes, elect a Republican "change agent," who will then, unchanged, crawl right back into bed with that same elite, effete crowd the minute he sets foot in the Oval Office!

Only in America, Land of Opportunity, is everyone free to start over -- and over and over -- endlessly reinventing themselves. Here, as the poet Allen Ginsberg once noted, "yesterday's newspaper is amnesia."

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/97766/only_in_america_could_a_two-faced_creature_like_mccain_attain_such_media_status/?page=entire

0 Replies

@Asherman,

Anyone who studies any religion and professes its faith is not necessarily a good example of "that" faith. Do you understand why so many priests molested children? Probably not, but I thought I'd ask. They studied their religion too, and many had PhDs in it. Did it make them more knowledgeable or better at their religion? Same-o, you!

Yup, that's only "my" opinion.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Where this particular writer got the data, I don't know,

That is what I am interested in finding out.

Quote:

What sources does Obama use?

Uh, it is his proposal. His proposal is the source for the analysis. It is, after all, an analysis of the two proposals. Same with McCain -- TPC used his website too.

So, if I have you right, you will believe an incomplete and unsourced analysis from an opinion piece in Forbes before you will believe a comprehensive and footnoted analysis by people whose expertise is tax policy. I dont think this conversation can continue.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

You don't understand, Duck. Forbes IS a source. They do the research. They do the analysis. Other folks look to Forbes as an expert resource and quote them as an authority on economic and financial matters.

You may not like them. But they are very well respected in the business world.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

What I like has nothing to do with this. This is a question of credibility and reliability. I dont think we can possibly see eye to eye on this.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

The Tax Policy Center is a source, too. They are mostly made up of experts in tax, budget, and social policy, they have tax lawyers and accountants analysing policy proposals. Forbes uses them as a source.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

We can see eye to eye if we agree that Forbes knows more about business, economy, and taxes than the NY Times or Obama or McCain combined will ever know. Obama, for instance, said in his eloquent acceptance speech that he wants to cut capital gains taxes for small businesses. Small businesses don't PAY capital gains taxes. It's stuff like that which helps us see that he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. He says stuff that sounds really good to the uninformed and really stupid to those who actually do know at least a little bit about it. I don't know how he got that one past his fact checkers unless they don't have a clue either.

The Forbes article graciously avoided all that to point to some--not all but some--of the components of McCain and Obama's respective plans and expressed an opinion of the differences in each and the relative merits of each. If you don't like it, fine. But PLEASE, if you wish to discredit it, don't expect me to accept really obscure stuff from Obama's website or the NY Times as credible rebuttal.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But PLEASE, if you wish to discredit it, don't expect me to accept really obscure stuff from Obama's website or the NY Times as credible rebuttal.

You do have a point there. I think the TPC is a very credible source. As I said in the last post, Forbes is using them as a source for their articles. Example:

Quote:

Democrats are in the process of figuring out a way to eliminate the AMT altogether, but that day could be a long way off. Last year, 3.5 million people paid the AMT. If Congress hadn't acted, it would have affected 23.4 million Americans, according to the Tax Policy Center. On average, each affected return would have been hit with about $2,000 in alternative minimum tax.

(link)

1 Reply

@old europe,

Forbes probably does use them as a source for some data rather than having to re-invent the wheel. So do I. But apparently TPC and Forbes hold differences of opinion on this particular issue and therefore I doubt seriously Forbes used TPC as a source where TPC clearly states that their source was the candidates' website and the NY Times and they had not verified ANY of the facts stated. So now really. . . .

As for the AMT, that was an initiative the REPUBLICANS pushed in Congress but it required the Democrats to get it through since they are the majority. They didn't want to because they wanted George Bush to take the hit--I know because I watched some of that debate--but in the end they didn't want to get blamed for their constituents taking a huge hit in an election year.

AMT is something entirely different thant the capital gains tax too though.

2 Replies

Forbes is probably wrong in saying that Obama's tax cuts will harm our economy. Bush also promised that his tax cuts would create jobs; where is it? Bush's job creation is the worst since Hoover, and Bush cut taxes. Where are the jobs? How does tax increases for the wealthy hurt our economy? Under Obama's plan, 95% will see a tax cut, and only those earning $250,000 plus will see a tax increase. Our government continues to increase the deficit, and transfer this to our children and grandchildren; is this good or justified? Why is paying for what we buy a bad idea? I want Forbes to answer this question?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But apparently TPC and Forbes hold differences of opinion on this particular issue and therefore I doubt seriously Forbes used TPC as a source where TPC clearly states that their source was the candidates' website

I don't think the TPC publishes opinions. The TPC analyses the candidates' proposals, which they obviously have to get from the candidates. Hence the listing of the respective websites as sources.

Foxfyre wrote:

and the NY Times and they had not verified ANY of the facts stated. So now really. . . .

They haven't verified what?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

AMT is something entirely different thant the capital gains tax too though.

I know. I wasn't specifically trying to bring up the AMT, but rather trying to give an example of Forbes using the TPC as a source.

I'm not even saying the Forbes analysis was right or wrong. I'm just saying that I consider the TPC a reliable source, and so do numerous other publications. FactCheck.org relies on them. Forbes quotes them.

But I'm guessing you don't like the Urban Institute, and regard the TPC as suspect, because it's a joint venture between them and the Brookings Institution, right?

0 Replies

@old europe,

OE, do try to keep up here. Follow Freeduck's link to the page she took her stuff off the TPC website and see what it says at the bottom. It clearly states that the TPC had not verified any of the information printed on that page; they simply stated where they got it. And they got it from McCain and Obama's websites and the NY Times. Nowhere else. They didn't research it. They didn't analyze it. They printed it. End of story.

2 Replies

@old europe,

Maybe there is something in that Forbes piece citing TPC as a source, but I didn't see it. And I'm not going to get into one of your dodge and weave Q&A's where you keep changing the question when you don't get answers you want. I do hope you will understand.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

We can see eye to eye if we agree that Forbes knows more about business, economy, and taxes than the NY Times or Obama or McCain combined will ever know.

I dont think Forbes knows more about tax policy than the Tax Policy Center.

Quote:

The Forbes article graciously avoided all that to point to some--not all but some--of the components of McCain and Obama's respective plans and expressed an opinion of the differences in each and the relative merits of each. If you don't like it, fine. But PLEASE, if you wish to discredit it, don't expect me to accept really obscure stuff from Obama's website or the NY Times as credible rebuttal.

I expect you to accept an analysis from the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan think tank with a good enough reputation to be used by Factcheck.org, and who cites its sources so that it can be verified by anyone wishing to do so.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Could you post that link again? I only found this link here:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693

Is that what you're referring to?

EDIT: Sorry, found the link. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

As I said FD, I use TPC and I use Factcheck. If you want to make those two groups your only bible for economics and tax policy, that is your prerogative, but I choose to depend on a quite a bit larger base than that. I trust Forbes to do competent research more than I depend on either Factcheck or TPC for reasons I have already stated and I generally look for additional sources to collaborate Forbes as well. I recommend that for any who want to deal in facts rather than mere propaganda.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Could you post that link again? I only found this link here:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693

Is that what you're referring to?

EDIT: Sorry, found the link. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm

Get it from FD's post please. You can hunt it up as easily as I can.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Thats not what that means. They are saying they have not verified the claims that Obama, McCain, and the NYT are making -- they are assuming that they are actually proposing what they say they are proposing. They created a side by side comparison based on the claims made by each campaign. The campaigns did not give them the comparison chart to print. There is also an analysis that I posted before the comparison.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Get it from FD's post please. You can hunt it up as easily as I can.

Yes, I found it. It's the second link in the above post. I edited that post.

This seems to be a side-by-side comparison of the tax plans, as proposed by the candidates. It's not even an analysis about whether or not those goals would be achievable. Much less are they voicing an opinion.

Just comparing the candidates' proposals.

I don't understand why you take issue with that.

2 Replies

FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know