Whole Lot Of Lyin’ Goin’ On
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on July 9th, 2008 in 2008 Presidential, Economy, St. John McCainThe central philosophy of John McCain’s campaign seems to be lying. They have wholeheartedly embraced lying, in all its various forms. They have lied early, they have lied often. They have blithely lied about matters where it is ridiculously easy to prove the lies.
An example of such bald-faced lies is the last week’s attempt to deny that McCain had ever confessed that the “issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should”:
On ABC this morning, Robin Roberts remarked to McCain: “You have admitted that you are not exactly the expert when it comes to the economy and many have said that… ”
McCain interjected, “I have not. I have not. Actually, I have not. I said that I am stronger on national security issues because of all the time I spent in the military and others. I am very strong on the economy. I understand it. I have a lot more experience than my opponent.”
The funny part is that just last month McCain accepted he had made the economic ineptitude remarks by claiming that they were taken out of context. There’s also the small matter of McCain adviser Carly Fiorina having confirmed “he did say it one time, no question, maybe twice.”
One has to assume that part of the reason why the McCain campaign has decided that it’s okay to go on lying about anything and everything is that the media has made it clear that McCain gets a free pass on the lies. If you’re never going to be called to account, then you may as well go on doing it. Much easier than dodging difficult questions, or actually defending embarrassing statements or idiotic policies.
Interestingly, one subject that repeatedly inspires McCain and the McCain campaign to lies is economic matters. (Presumably because McCain understands economics so well?)
Consider just two of the economic lies told by or on behalf of the McCain campaign over the last two days.
Yesterday, Carly Fiorina offered this gem in support of extending the George Bush tax cuts:
In the Bush tax cuts, if they are repealed, 23 million small businesses will have their taxes raised. Why? Because 23 million small businesses file their income tax as individuals. And so, when Barack Obama blithely says, only the wealthiest are going to be taxed, he is ignoring the fact that 23 million small businesses file as individuals and those small businesses are the only growing sector of the economy right now and small businesses produce 60%, actually it’s more like 70, 70% of the new jobs in this country.
Last month, McCain himself had said the same thing:
Senator Obama’s plans would add to the difficulties of small business in other ways, too. Currently, there are the 21.6 million sole proprietorships filing under the individual income tax. When Senator Obama talks about raising income tax rates on those making over 250,000 dollars — that includes these businesses as well.
As Media Matters pointed out at the time:
However, Obama has proposed rolling back the Bush tax cuts only on “people who are making 250,000 dollars a year or more,” and according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center’s table of 2007 tax returns that reported small-business income, only 481,000 of those returns are in the top two income-tax brackets — which include all filers with taxable incomes of more than $250,000 — not 21.6 million.
Let’s go ahead and note that:
a) Fiorina repeated the falsehood well after it had already been debunked.
b) It doesn’t seem to have penetrated the bubble of elitist millionaire John McCain and his phalanx of millionaire lobbyists and ex-CEOs that roughly three-fourths of the small businesses they claim to champion earn less than $250,000 per year. In their distorted world-view, every small business that files a tax return must earn more than $250,000 a year.
And here’s Carly Fiorina again, on McCain’s pet economic pander, the gas tax holiday:
The best stimulus package possible right now is the gas tax holiday.
Too bad that McCain himself in a weak moment admitted that his gas tax holiday wouldn’t achieve anything more than providing a psychological boost to hapless consumers:
Let’s have some straight talk, it’s not a huge amount of money. But it might be nice to be able to save a few bucks and maybe buy something else the next time that they have to fill up their gas tank and say, “You know I’m going to be able to afford that little expense now.” A little psychological boost. That’s what I think it would help.
I cannot help wondering idly from time to time how badly McCain would be defeated in November if the media were to stop polishing McCain’s image, and defending him against imaginary attacks, and start reporting on his truly astonishing record of prevaricating in pursuit of the presidency. Let’s face it, McCain is lying even more than George Bush ever did in 2000.
effay wrote:
I’m curious where you draw the line between 481,000 and 21.6 million?
As for the gas tax holiday, I see two possibilities:
1) Gasoline prices go down and consumers save $.
2) Gasoline prices don’t go down and oil companies gobble up extra profits to the benefit of their shareholders, which is to say, all those workers with pensions, IRAs, mutual funds, etc…
I will give you that there’s a point where it’s pretty stupid to keep cutting taxes without cutting spending. I think we’ve passed that point, but it still doesn’t mean that raising taxes is the solution.
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 9:34 pm ¶
effay wrote:
“Let’s face it, McCain is lying even more than George Bush ever did in 2000.”
I won’t dispute this, but where’s the revelation? Name a politician that doesn’t lie?
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 9:37 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>but it still doesn’t mean that raising taxes is the solution
it never is for you people
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 10:06 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I’m really curious what the hell that even means.
Ah, so before you reach That Point Of Stupidity, initially it’s smart to keep cutting taxes?
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 6:52 am ¶
effay wrote:
“I’m really curious what the hell that even means.”
Well, you seem to be making the point that it’s acceptable for 481,000 small businesses to see massive tax increases, but not 21.6 million. I guess that’s unless you just brought this up only as evidence of McCain being a liar and you really don’t care how many small businesses will see tax increases. Correct me if I’m wrong, but what number of small businesses exposed to higher taxes is acceptable to you?
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 7:34 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I’m very clearly only making the point that 481,000 is a lot less than 21.6 million, and it’s dishonest to claim 21.6 million when it’s only 481,000.
How about you explain to me how much lying you think it’s okay to do in pursuit of the presidency?
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 8:13 am ¶
effay wrote:
“How about you explain to me how much lying you think it’s okay to do in pursuit of the presidency?”
None.
By the way, you still haven’t answered my question
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 9:10 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
How about you go first, since I asked it first:
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 9:40 am ¶
effay wrote:
I’m not sure what your question is asking, but I think it’s smart to cut taxes, and spending, as much as possible. While a little inflation is okay, if not good, since it taxes all holders of dollars, including foreigners (foreigners paying for our government; aren’t we tricky), there’s a point where it becomes counterproductive. Is that good enough?
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 10:03 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Depends on the definition of “good enough”.
What you said was: “there’s a point where it’s pretty stupid to keep cutting taxes without cutting spending”.
That can only mean that before that point is reached, it’s smart (or at least fine) to keep cutting taxes without cutting spending.
Which is hardly the same as what you’re now saying: “it’s smart to cut taxes, and spending, as much as possible”.
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 10:20 am ¶
effay wrote:
Where’s the discrepancy? I never said you had to cut taxes and spending dollar for dollar before you reached that point.
Yall gonna censor my C-SPAN comment?
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 11:31 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
So you did mean that up to a point it makes good sense to keep cutting taxes without cutting spending? (Or are we just playing pointless word games here?)
That C-SPAN comment vanished mysteriously due to some misunderstanding between me and our spam filter. Please feel free to re-post it.
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 12:39 pm ¶
effay wrote:
Yes, that’s my position.
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 2:36 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You are, of course, aware that all the evidence shows that tax cuts decrease revenue, not increase it? That they do not stimulate the economy enough to even pay for themselves? That even the president’s own economists have categorically stated that (many times)?
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 3:17 pm ¶
matt wrote:
those who believe in laffer curve voodoo are quite obviously being censored by the biggest spam filter ever.
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 3:37 pm ¶
effay wrote:
If the laffer curve is “voodoo”, I assume you advocate a 100% tax rate, right?
“That even the president’s own economists…”[1,000 lines of hahahah omitted]
I’m familiar with your hungry spam filter here at 1115; I’ve been its victim before. The censorship thing was intended as a sort of joke since the post that my comment was eaten on advocates media censorship.
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 5:08 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I’m not sure if that’s the funniest or the stupidest thing anybody has ever posted in our comments section. Either this guy has no idea what the laffer curve is, or he thinks nobody here does.
That’s probably the best way to dismiss inconvenient facts that make the position you espoused look really, really silly. If you’re willing to put your money where your mouth is, I’ll bet you $100 that I can back up my claim that President Bush’s own economists have certified that tax cuts decrease revenue, and not increase it, that they do not stimulate the economy enough to even pay for themselves. If you’re not, then why don’t you just crawl away and stop embarrassing yourself around here?
Advocates media censorship? I’d love to see you try to back that one up.
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 5:19 pm ¶
effay wrote:
Well, the Laffer Curve alleges that there is a revenue maximizing tax rate somewhere between 0% and 100%. So, if you don’t believe the Laffer Curve and you believe that “tax cuts decrease revenue,” then you must believe that the revenue maximizing rate of taxation is 100%.
I don’t dispute that President Bush’s “economists” have said exactly what you say they have. My laughter was in response to the idea that you would attempt to use the views of Bush’s “economists” as evidence to support your argument.
And censorship. Media censorship happens when you tell the media they can’t distribute the news they want to. If the government tells them to distribute the conventions when they wouldn’t have done so otherwise, the government necessarily must force them to not distribute what they would have instead. Censorship.
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 7:26 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>My laughter was in response to the idea that you would attempt to use the views of Bush’s “economists” as evidence to support your argument.
her point was that everyone save art laffer and larry kudlow knows that the laffer curve is absurd.
and your “logic” needs some serious work. it’s always “you either need to believe x or y” yet it’s all false choices and straw men. what is it you think you’re doing here?
are we in for another “i win” post? you don’t even know what game is being played.
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 7:41 pm ¶
Nogburt wrote:
-I don’t know John McCain but (as we all already agree) I think it would not be wholly wrong of me to extrapolate that he isn’t the most outwardly honest of men. He was a “moderate” (or so many said) then a conservative then I don’t know what. It seems to me as though he wants all of the authoritarian rightists to think he’s one of them without being viewed as one by the rest of us. I don’t think any of us think he tells “the public” “the truth”.
-The Laffer Curve is an interesting intellectual construction with little practical value. Any “neo-con” who wants to base tax policy on the absurd idea that they can apply economic calculation to anti-economic institutions is (at best) misguided.
-I don’t know of anyone who, all other things being equal, has a great love of government debt. If the government folks are debt there are some different ways that the government folks can do to get out.
1) Reducing Spending
2) Raising Taxes
3) Sovereign Default
4) Debt Repudiation [similar to 3]
So which method or combination of methods is the best for the cases at hand?
It seems as though we are asking whether or not we ought to raise taxes or cut spending first in these cases. I think this would depend on whether or not the spending is worth the taxes necessary to sustain it.
Cutting out the Invasion of Syracuse… I mean the Occupation of Iraq might moot a lot of the disputes about repealing tax cuts versus lowering other present spending. Additionally, other military spending could be reduced if we decided that a massive aggression-oriented military wasn’t necessary. It might not even be necessary to cut into popular conservative government programs like social security, medicaid, and welfare.
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 7:50 pm ¶
effay wrote:
I invite you to actually dispute my logic then.
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 7:51 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>I invite you to actually dispute my logic then.
we have. you lost.
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 9:29 pm ¶
Nogburt wrote:
I’m not sure that effay was basing any of his arguments on the laffer curve (which as I’ve noted above is indeed absurd).
I thought what was at issue was whether or not it is better in particular instances to cut particular spending items or cut particular taxes.
Posted 11 Jul 2008 at 5:30 am ¶
effay wrote:
I’m gonna go ahead and put this one in the win column if nobody minds (to use logic).
Posted 11 Jul 2008 at 9:07 pm ¶