FactCheck: McCain Ad Continues Lies about Obama's Tax Plan

[JoeChalupa]

Just the facts please (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_new_stitch_in_a_bad_pattern.html)

McCain's new ad puts another stitch in what we've called his pattern of deceit on Obama's tax plan. This one claims Obama and congressional Democrats plan to push forward "painful tax increases on working American families" and that they will bring about "years of deficits," "no balanced budgets" and "billions in new government spending."

The ad is plain wrong about higher taxes on working families. In fact, Obama's economic plan would produce a tax cut for the majority of American households, with middle-income earners benefiting most. As for "years of deficits," exactly the same claim could be made about McCain's program. It's unlikely either Obama or McCain would balance the budget, and both are projected to increase the debt by trillions.
Analysis
We've already reported on at least three other ads, in both Spanish and English, from Sen. John McCain's campaign that distort his rival's tax policy. The ads claim that, for example, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama would raise taxes "on the sale of your home" and that he has a "history of raising taxes" and that he wanted to raise taxes on "families" making just $42,000 a year.

Claims like these have led us to say that McCain's campaign is engaging in a "pattern of deceit" when it comes to describing Obama's tax plan. This most recent ad fits right into the template.


What say you? Is John McCain running an honest campaign? Just saying.

[clambake]

their has never been a candidate more distant from their own campaign than mccain.

ask any mccain spokesperson.

[Mr. Body]

McCain's campaign does not speak for McCain.

[boutons_]

McSame's tax cut extensions and announced new tax cuts for the rich put $Ms in ...

... his own pockets.

[Mr. Body]

He has no pockets. Don't you mean his wife's?

[I Love Me Some Me]

Well, not exactly untrue. The ad states Obama's plan will have "painful tax increases on America's working families", but doesn't expand that to mean middle income earners like the article explains.

To the second point, the article acknowledges that Obama's plan will increase the deficit by "trillions", so there is no untruth in that part of the statement.

[01.20.09]

Well, not exactly untrue. The ad states Obama's plan will have "painful tax increases on America's working families", but doesn't expand that to mean middle income earners like the article explains.

To the second point, the article acknowledges that Obama's plan will increase the deficit by "trillions", so there is no untruth in that part of the statement.

The ad also claims that Obama and congressional Democrats would bring about "years of deficits." But (and we've reported this before, too), the fact is both candidates' economic plans would fail to bring an end to deficit spending, and by that measure, McCain's is worse than Obama's. According to the TPC analysis, Obama's tax plan would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018, while McCain's plan would bring about a projected $5 trillion increase in the same time frame.

[clambake]

To the second point, the article acknowledges that Obama's plan will increase the deficit by "trillions", so there is no untruth in that part of the statement.

:lmao i love me some proof.

[boutons_]

Nearly all people vote primarily to increase their incomes. It's how any secular, materialistic society works.

In response, every politician campaigns with tax cut promises.

Childish, selfish expectations from voters, campaign lies from politicians. They deserve each other.

[JoeChalupa]

Nearly all people vote primarily to increase their incomes. It's how any secular, materialistic society works.

In response, every politician campaigns with tax cut promises.

Childish, selfish expectations from voters, campaign lies from politicians. They deserve each other.

That is why I vote in each and every election because I deserve what I vote for or against.

[Mr. Body]

Nearly all people vote primarily to increase their incomes. It's how any secular, materialistic society works.

In response, every politician campaigns with tax cut promises.

Childish, selfish expectations from voters, campaign lies from politicians. They deserve each other.

Not entirely true. A lot of voters chose entirely on 'hot-button' issues like teh gheys and ohmigod they're taking away my guns. The GOP is adept at getting votes on purely these matters, in ravaged rural areas.

[AFBlue]

Not entirely true. A lot of voters chose entirely on 'hot-button' issues like teh gheys and ohmigod they're taking away my guns. The GOP is adept at getting votes on purely these matters, in ravaged rural areas.

I doubt any that worry about "the gays" or government taking their guns were going to vote for a Democrat...ever.

In truth, most that waffle over their choice of democrat or republican are likely more complex than single-issue voters, with one exception.

I think the Republicans have played a good game of "identity" politics over the past two elections, and this year they have chosen two candidates that capitalize on the same thing....compelling personal stories you can appreciate and/or identify with.

[boutons_]

Agreed, the single-issue voters often vote in suckered ignorance against their best interests and for the interests of the super-wealthy and corps.

eg, single-issue suckers voting Repug on pro-life, then wasting 1000s of their own poor, rural lives in Iraq.

[Mr. Body]

I doubt any that worry about "the gays" or government taking their guns were going to vote for a Democrat...ever.

Turnout is the important ingredient. Lots of potential voters stay at home every election, but the GOP won in 2004 on turnout alone. How did they do this? By screaming solid about gay marriage and getting ballot initiatives in various states to strike down.

Those people stay home? Probably not a second term for the Chimperator.

[AFBlue]

Turnout is the important ingredient. Lots of potential voters stay at home every election, but the GOP won in 2004 on turnout alone. How did they do this? By screaming solid about gay marriage and getting ballot initiatives in various states to strike down.

Those people stay home? Probably not a second term for the Chimperator.

Agreed on 2004...in part. Bush also won in 2004 because of a lack of enthusiasm and turnout on the other side.

With this year being a "historic" election, I don't think the same old tricks are going to work.

Instead, they should continue to hound the issue of Obama's Tax Plan...but they need to do it more effectively. For instance, Fred Thompson last night was the first I had heard give a direct rebuttal to the Obama statement. His line about "as long as you don't buy gas or groceries you'll be fine" was brilliant.

McCain needs to do more direct rebuttals like that, because I was one that thought his continued general attacks on Obama and his higher taxes were misleading...until that point.

[boutons_]

"but the GOP won in 2004 on turnout alone."

bullshit. The evidence is extremely strong that OH was stolen, and therefore the election. Coupled with Repug aggressive intimidation and disenfranchisement tactics, Repugs win, but with dubya getting only the smallest-ever margin for an incumbent Pres.