Wednesday, September 09, 2009

The Times vs. The Truth, Part 2

A series of quotes from the New York Times; all but the last from 2008:
  • September 30, 2008, by reporter Larry Rohter:
    One of the sharpest exchanges Friday night in the presidential debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama came on the issue of taxes. . .

    So what does the record say when you look it up? Is one candidate right and the other wrong, or are both exaggerating?

    In the past, Mr. McCain has characterized Mr. Obama’s position on taxes in ways that proved to be demonstrably inaccurate. His remarks on Friday night, which he amplified on the campaign trail on Monday, seemed to be an effort to shift him away from that shaky ground. However, they too contain assertions that are misleading or overstated. . .

    Under [Obama's] plan, only individuals making $200,000 or more and families earning more than $250,000 a year, accounting for less than 2 percent of the population, would pay additional taxes, and more than 90 percent of the population would receive a tax break of some sort.
  • October 16, 2008 editorial:
    Mr. Obama would cut taxes for low- and moderate-income families and raise them for richer Americans.
  • October 16, 2008, by reporter Jim Rutenberg:
    Mr. McCain pressed his attack on Mr. Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal. Mr. Obama’s plan would raise taxes on filers earning more than $250,000 a year, a category that includes some small businesses, but would cut taxes on households earning less than $200,000 a year.
  • October 31, 2008, by reporter Steven Greenhouse:
    Independent analyses of the presidential candidates’ tax proposals show that those who make less than $250,000 a year would not see their taxes raised under Senator Barack Obama’s plans. Further, Mr. Obama would generally cut taxes more than Senator John McCain would for households with incomes less than $100,000 a year.
  • September 4, 2009 editorial:
    So far, the Obama administration’s plan for dealing with the budget deficit -- an estimated $9 trillion over a decade -- is to not dig the hole any deeper. . .

    But, sooner than he may prefer, Mr. Obama will have to face up to what he has so far avoided: the need to raise taxes broadly to rein in deficits. . .

    But when he inherited the burden of the budget mess, Mr. Obama also inherited the responsibility to clean it up. Neither economic growth nor spending cuts will be enough to fix the projected shortfalls. Nor is there enough to be gained by confining tax increases only to families making more than $250,000 a year, a campaign promise that Mr. Obama still says he will keep.
Some things we always knew:
  1. The Obama campaign used fuzzy math about taxes.

  2. The Times couldn't compute tax numbers either.

  3. Obama would increase spending, plumping the deficit European style.

  4. Obama wouldn't consider meaningful budget review or entitlement cuts, preferring tax hikes and class warfare.

  5. The New York Times likes it that way.
(via TimesWatch)


Assistant Village Idiot said...

There is an elitist frustration, reflected in such books as What's The Matter With Kansas? that wonders why the American middle-class keeps voting against its own economic interest by siding with the Republicans - rather than the Democrats, who are going to give them tax cuts and free stuff.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we have our answer.

Carl said...

Like you, I've never understood the meme of "voting against economic interest." Most often most voters understand that their long-term economic interest is best served by conservative economic policies

OBloodyHell said...

> Most often most voters understand that their long-term economic interest is best served by conservative economic policies

Well, unless they're True PostModern Liberals... with the Marxist program in place they Just Don't Get That.

"Karl Marx is to economists what Khalil Gibran is to philosophers. In the real world there is no Marxist program, but inside the human brain he tickles the mood centers."
- Alexis A. Gilliland, 'Long Shot for Rosinante' -