He Can Do No Right

Look, I know that if you're a Republican, to agree with anything that President Obama has to offer is a political risk. I know that everyone in the GOP has pretty much taken the Mitch McConnell tact of making President Obama a one-term president as its main and major goal, even at the risk of US economic collapse. I know that the Republican Party likes to tout itself as the party of national security. But these latest comments from Republican Senator John McCain and his personal Renfield, Senator Lindsey Graham are absolutely laughable.

"Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi," their statement reads, "but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower."

This statement comes from the same two Senators that were part of a delegation that considered selling nonlethal defense equipment to Gaddafi's Libya (with a little McCain bow to boot in his meeting with Gaddafi).

McCain wanted the US's "full weight" of the military airpower, and yet his own members of Congress were losing their shit just a few weeks ago, stomping their feet with a House vote to admonish the President for continuing America's role in the NATO operation and claiming a violation of the War Powers Act, and threatened to cut off funding for the operation. Does that mean that McCain and Graham would have been fine with a unilateral US strike against Libya with the "full weight" of our airpower had it only taken 89 days?

The bottom line is that the Republican Party has lost their "strong on defense" moniker and they don't like it.

The Obama administration was successful in taking out the Somali pirates that captured Captain Richard Phillips and held him hostage, but immediately afterward came the email smear campaign that the President was hesitant in authorizing lethal force.

President Obama made capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden a top priority as soon as he was sworn into  office and said so during the campaign. This was something George W. "Wanted Dead Or Alive" Bush couldn't bother with just six months after 9/11. Yet again, right wingers went to the Internet and created another smear email to claim something about which they knew nothing.

And now, with a war in Afghanistan and in the process of a methodical withdrawal from Iraq, and the President deciding to honor the US's obligation to NATO and the UN in the Libya conflict, and here are the Republicans making sure to criticize the widest range possible just to confirm they cover everything, from acting without Congressional authority, or berating Obama for letting France and England take the lead in the action, to now McCain and Graham whining about not acting quickly enough and that it took six months to ouster a dictator who held power for 42 years. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page is praising the efforts while criticizing the the naysaying GOP.

The fighting continues in Tripoli, and Moammar Gadhafi still hasn't been captured, but the triumph of the U.S.-backed Libyan rebels seems to be only a matter of time. Though you wouldn't know it from the reaction at the Council on Foreign Relations or among some GOP Presidential candidates, this is a victory for freedom and U.S. national interests.

A dictator with American blood on his hands is about to be overthrown by a popular revolt invoking democratic principles. Not a single American has died in the effort, and the victory would not have been possible without U.S. air power, intelligence and targeting as part of NATO. A long-oppressed people now has a chance to chart a freer future, a fact that is clear from the rejoicing in Benghazi.

What would we prefer: That Gadhafi stay in power?

...Yet some of the same people who said we shouldn't help the rebels now want the U.N. to send "boots on the ground," including U.S. troops. It's not clear that the Libyans want or even need such help, especially from Americans, which could complicate their own nascent attempts at self-government.

...President Obama was right yesterday to urge the rebels to pursue "reconciliation." But America's foreign policy elites have also so far misjudged the rebels, who have shown impressive persistence and coordination in maintaining a six-month military campaign.

...One disappointment is the reluctance among Republicans to praise the rebel success, perhaps for fear it will somehow help Mr. Obama.

...U.S. intervention has succeeded in preventing a bloodbath in Benghazi and soon in deposing a long-time U.S. enemy who could have re-emerged as a terrorist sponsor.

Michele Bachmann, who played the al Qaeda tune, now looks partisan to a fault.

...The U.S. military is stretched at the current moment and we can't take sides in every civil war. But the Libyan intervention shows that when the cause is just and the means are available, the U.S. can make a moral and strategic difference.

U.S. support for the rebels won't be lost on a Middle East still undergoing its own upheavals, not least on the people and governments of Syria and Iran. NATO showed it will finish a military task it started, and soon Gadhafi will take his place with Saddam in the ranks of Arab despots who will terrorize their people no more.

I believe everyone has forgotten (including Michael Steele and the Morning Joe pundits this morning) that the initial intervention is Libya was a humanitarian one, with NATO acting on the information that Gaddafi was about to unleash hell on his own people in Benghazi.

And yet, President Obama can do no right. He doesn't even read the right books on vacation. I suppose he would have gotten a reprieve on the reading list criticism if he'd included Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED and Rick Perry's FED UP!, both also works of fiction, by the way.

Don't Just Hit Send or I'll Just Hit You

POSTED BY JHW22

I received an email from someone just showing me what's going around -- no one is stupid enough to send me this crap as if it's true -- and I made that person PROMISE to send my response to the woman who sent the email. Here is my response, followed by the text of the email. All of my comments are in italics and blue.

When I see emails like this I have three options. I can ignore them. I can pass them on without checking any of the information within. I can reply with facts. As a responsible citizen who cares about this country I choose option 3. It's intolerable that emails like this circulate without people taking the time to check data, facts, original sources and so on. It's bad for the country that people so willingly believe/trust, an email written by a stranger that's been passed on so many times you don't even know anyone who knows anyone who knows the person that wrote it.

So I started addressing each of these one by one (all of my comments are in blue in the original email below). It took me a LONG time. It takes hard work figuring out where the initial claim originates so as to verify the facts. And once that initial claim is somewhat located in some sense of reality, it takes true effort to articulate and cite sources to show where the original email is 100% wrong or has the facts so twisted that it may as well be 100% wrong. So no wonder people add a little sentence of fear and hit send. It's so much easier to do that than to actually seek the truth.

But I got worn out from debunking this stuff. I spent HOURS doing the right thing of finding information. And it occurred to me: why? People who pass these emails around don't want truth. They want to pass on crap as truth because it makes them feel angry and they want others to join them in their anger. And I joined in that anger. But my anger is not at the lies in the email, but at those who pass them on to their friends and family. My anger is at the people who act like they love America as they divide it into those who want to be afraid over lies and those who want to find out the truth.

We just went through eight years where a President said he was a fiscal conservative while creating the very tax cuts that were known to have been bad for the deficit. And now the same party wants to pretend that the effects of those tax cuts weren't so bad and want to blame Democrats for saying they only want to extend the cuts to the middle class. We had an administration who lied about WMD's, thus throwing us into a lie-based war that further added to the deficit. So why, why on Earth, do we allow the people who supported those policies continue to spread lies and manipulate facts to the point of pathetic emails that don't cite sources, leave key sentences out of quoted paragraphs and make sweeping generalizations about fractions of an issue while ignoring the overall benefit of the bigger picture, to pass on lies without a fight?

So even though I ran out of steam and didn't address each issue in this email, I can proudly say that I tried. I did the work. I spent the time finding the truth. Perhaps the people who pass these emails on will take the time to do a reasonable and honest amount of research on their own (and Googling phrases doesn't count because with emails like this, you'll see it plastered all over the internet and the same text repeated 5,000 times is still the same text and not 5,000 supporting documents). But I have a feeling that no one else will take the personal responsibility of researching because perhaps they are afraid they will find out that emails lie. That people who start them have an agenda. That people who just forward them would rather believe an unreliable email than actually take part in the civic duty of being properly informed.

Here is what the President said today (it says a lot about his agenda, the state of the Republican party and the people who would rather read an email and believe it, than find out what's really happening in America):

"And there’s currently a jobs bill before Congress that would do two big things for small business owners: cut more taxes and make available more loans. It would help them get the credit they need, and eliminate capital gains taxes on key investments so they have more incentive to invest right now. And it would accelerate $55 billion of tax relief to encourage American businesses, small and large, to expand their investments over the next 14 months.

Unfortunately, this bill has been languishing in the Senate for months, held up by a partisan minority that won’t even allow it to go to a vote. That makes no sense. This bill is fully paid for. It won’t add to the deficit. And there is no reason to block it besides pure partisan politics." 

I hope that this email will be shared as a reminder that our Founding Fathers didn't take the easy route. They didn't copy and paste or pass on someone else's fact as theirs. No. They were the elite of the elite. They were intelligent and serious and had more integrity in their discourse. They believed in doing the hard work of thinking and writing at levels Americans can't comprehend today. In honor of them, I implore people to DO THE WORK. READ. LEARN. And for Pete's sake, don't just hit send!

Jennifer

ORIGINAL EMAIL ADDRESSES DELETED TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT AND THE STUPID

Just want ALL to be informed………………………CHANGES are coming very sooooooon.
In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:
First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief
In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families.
These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

First of all, these taxes, which are set to expire were designed to expire because they were so bad for the deficit. They used the dreaded reconciliation process to get votes on the tax cuts but because of reconciliation rules, the cuts had to expire after ten years unless renewed. President Obama has said that he will ONLY ALLOW the cuts to expire for the top 2% of income earners. Therefore all those expiration listed are as Republicans drafted but NOT how President Obama has said (while campaigning and as President) he will allow it to work. IF he allowed the entire set of taxes to expire, the first part of this ridiculous email would be true. HOWEVER, President Obama has committed to extend the tax cuts for those making less than $200k. This email is disingenuous to say the least. In fact, Obama wants to make the cuts PERMANENT for 95% of Americans.

Here is a link that is far more honest than this email as to the tax cuts. And the guy isn't an Obama lover.

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:
- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15% - The 25% bracket rises to 28% - The 28% bracket rises to 31% - The 33% bracket rises to 36% - The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.
The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.
Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.
Second Wave: Obamacare
There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

Since I think links are important, here is a link to the health care bill as finalized as well as a summary provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

FSA won't cover OTC meds NOT prescribed by a doctor. They never should have. I think it's funny that we don't want big government but people want to take a tax credit for buying pain reliever or allergy medicine. The abundance of OTC meds that are store brand or so cheap to produce that they cost pennies means that you would have to buy a boat load of vitamins and aspirin to even make a dent in a dent in a dent in the FSA. What this email doesn't point out is that anything like Claritin OTC which does cost more than the average OTC can actually meet the FSA requirements because you CAN have a doctor write a prescription for it. You CAN have a doctor write a prescription for aspirin. I wish everyone on this email chain would calculate how much they actually spend on OTC meds and then calculate how much of a tax savings they get now for paying for it out of an FSA. They'd be shocked at the fraction of a dent this makes in their lives -- especially if they have doctor's orders to use it.

The “Special Needs Kids Tax” This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

The FSA was changed to include a limit in part because of the small number of people who actually utilize it or maximize the dollars they withhold. What this email fails to mention is that companies have historically set limits on their own even though the fed govt didn't require them to do so. This email makes it appear as if all families could withhold $14,000 when the actual average is $5,000. By the way, as of 2009, "Health care flexible spending accounts are offered by 27 percent of all employers but 85 percent of those with 500 or more employees. The average employee contribution is $1,424, well below the $2,500 cap that has been suggested in health reform proposals." 

Also, families won't be able to put the same amount in the FSAs HOWEVER they will be able to take a deduction on the money spent as childcare and medical expenses. So they may not get to use pre-tax dollars to pay for a daycare or special school for special needs kids or doctor's appointments or medication but they will be able to add all of that to their out-of pocket childcare and medical expenses for the year. On that point alone it's a wash in the end. Let's also not forget that a lot of special needs kids don't have health insurance or fairly priced insurance. The ObamacaresAboutAmerica Health Care Law will lower premiums and copays and cover preventative care, thus for many families making the FSA cap moot. In fact, the OVERALL health care law will likely end up saving more money for these particular special needs families. Oh, and let's not forget that in his 2011 budget, Obama asked to DOUBLE the child care tax credit for families making less than $85k/year in addition to more funding for child care programs, thus lowering the financial burden on families with children. I guess, if you think about it, the only way to prevent that from happening would be to vote against Obama's budget.

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes
When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:
The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Now let's look at this WHOPPER of a claim. Yes, the "left-leaning Tax Policy Center" said that AMT taxpaying families will rise from 4 million to 28.5 million. They said it in 2007!! They ALSO said, "Two primary culprits are responsible for this impending explosion: the failure to index the AMT for inflation and the 2001–2006 tax cuts." The original email didn't include a link, so I will provide one here. 

The CBO did say the same thing THIS year: "If current law remains unchanged, the role of the AMT in the tax system will expand rapidly over time. With the expiration of a temporary increase in the AMT’s exemption amounts, the number of taxpayers affected by the AMT will jump from 4 million in calendar year 2009 to 27 million in 2010." They also said, "series of reductions in the regular income tax enacted starting in 2001 would have caused even more returns to be subject to the AMT were it not for the series of temporary adjustments (often called 'patches') that lawmakers made to the alternative tax" -- meaning that we are constantly needing patches. The patches are why emails like this circulate every year scaring people about the AMT because each year the patch from the year before expires.

So let's look at what the "left-leaning" Tax Policy Center said THIS year in regards to the 2010/2011 budget presented by Obama: "The president proposes to make permanent the 2009 AMT parameters—exemptions, rate brackets, and phaseout thresholds—and index them for inflation. That would remove a significant source of uncertainty about taxation and prevent inflation from pushing large numbers of taxpayers onto the AMT in future years. Most of the benefits of the change would go to taxpayers with relatively high incomes: about three-fourths of the tax cut in 2012 would go to households with income over $100,000. Over half of taxpayers with income between $200,000 and $500,000 would see their tax bills drop by an average of over $1,800, raising their after-tax income by more than 0.9 percent." 

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

It's harder addressing a claim when there is no basis for the claim, no link, law, article, nada. So the best I can figure is this is in reference to the H.R.2847 Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act which DOUBLES deductions on property MAKING the deduction up to $250k. This bill DOUBLED the original limit of $125k and is set to expire by 2011. So the claim that "businesses can normally expense" is based on NOW which is a doubling of the "normal" $125k. Here is what the IRS says:

"HIRE and Section 179 Deduction

A qualifying taxpayer can choose to treat the cost of certain property as an expense and deduct it in the year the property is placed in service instead of depreciating it over several years. This property is frequently referred to as section 179 property.

The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act of 2010 extends the dates of the IRC Section 179 temporary increase in limitations on expensing of depreciable business assets.

Under HIRE, qualifying businesses can continue to expense up to $250,000 of section 179 property for the 2010 tax year. Without HIRE, the 2010 expensing limit for section 179 property would have been $125,000.

The $250,000 amount provided under the new law is reduced, but not below zero, if the cost of all section 179 property placed in service by the taxpayer during the tax year exceeds $800,000." 

You can find the HIRE bill here.

Now, let's address the "This will be cut all the way down to $25,000" claim and ask, "WHAT?" Again, this is why claims that have zero back-up documentation are such a pain to address. Where did that dollar amount come from? Can you tell from reading that paragraph? No. Because the person who wrote it wants to scared and angry rather than informed. So let's take a stab at it and see if one of these two options makes sense (Both of these potential sources behind that mysterious $25,000 amount are from the IRS's explanation of the Section 179 Deduction on depreciation):

1) "You cannot elect to expense more than $25,000 of the cost of any heavy sport utility vehicle (SUV) and certain other vehicles placed in service during the tax year." ("However, the $25,000 limit does not apply to any vehicle:

Designed to seat more than nine passengers behind the driver's seat,

Equipped with a cargo area (either open or enclosed by a cap) of at least six feet in interior length that is not readily accessible from the passenger compartment, or

That has an integral enclosure fully enclosing the driver compartment and load carrying device, does not have seating rearward of the driver's seat, and has no body section protruding more than 30 inches ahead of the leading edge of the windshield.")

2) "Example. In 2009, you bought and placed in service a $275,000 tractor and a $25,000 circular saw for your business. You elect to deduct $225,000 for the tractor and the entire $25,000 for the saw, a total of $250,000. This is the maximum amount you can deduct. Your $25,000 deduction for the saw completely recovered its cost. Your basis for depreciation is zero. The basis for depreciation of your tractor is $50,000. You figure this by subtracting your $225,000 section 179 deduction for the tractor from the $275,000 cost of the tractor."

And what exactly IS depreciation? According to Business.gov it means:

"If property you acquire to use in your business is expected to last more than one year, you generally cannot deduct the entire cost as a business expense in the year you acquire it. You must spread the cost over more than one tax year and deduct part of it each year on Form 1040, Schedule C. This method of deducting the cost of business property is called depreciation." That's all. It just means you take the deduction over time -- the time you USE it.

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

When someone tells you there are "literally scores of tax hikes: shouldn't the "literally" list "scores" and their sources? It is "literally" annoying that they don't. And if you think about it, one definition of "scores" is: A grievance that is harbored and requires satisfaction. Well, I require satisfaction on that claim that I harbor grievance over. Since there is a vague reference to "the loss of ... research and experimentation tax credit" let's see what that could possibly mean. Well, again I will refer to Obama's 2011 budget in which he requested the R&E tax credit be made PERMANENT as well as fund "scores" of R&D opportunities. I guess, if you think about it, the only way to prevent that from happening would be to vote against Obama's budget.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Again, no citations. In a statement about education, you would think the person who wrote this email would do what every teacher told him to do: "Show your work", "list your resources", "support your claims". But nope. The writer of this email scares you while giving you no way to confirm whether the claims are fact or fiction. You could search the internet for days and never prove a negative. But let's give it a shot. Oh, yeah. The writer is making the ASSumption that Obama and Congress are going to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for ALL Americans. Again, you would have to buy into the myth that Obama is going to allow all of Bush's tax cuts to expire which there is absolutely no support for. None. Obama has said and continues to say that he will extend the Bush tax cuts for those making less that $200k. That's all that this is based on.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.
PDF Version Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz0sY8waPq1
Now your insurance is INCOME on your W2's......
One of the surprises we'll find come next year, is what follows - - a little "surprise" that 99% of us had no idea was included in the "new and improved" healthcare legislation . . . the dupes, er, dopes, who backed this administration will be astonished!

Starting in 2011, (next year folks), your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get.

You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many, it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse.

This is how the government is going to buy insurance for the 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases.

Here is a research of the summaries.....

On page 25 of 29: TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002 "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income."

Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what is above.

This is my favorite part because it's big and bold and yellow and WRONG. In regards to the Kiplinger's article the email says to go read, it's funny that the person who wrote the email left out a key sentence from Ms. Pryde's article: "3. A requirement that businesses include the value of the health care benefits they provide to employees on W-2s, beginning with W-2s for 2011. The amount reported is not considered taxable income." That's right: NOT CONSIDERED TAXABLE INCOME!! Why would they leave that out of the email? Because they know most people will NOT go to the article itself. They rely on people being scared and lazy and just passing on an email without digging deeper. This alone should have been the one reason to not counter each myth or distortion but it was fun doing it anyway. Since the original email didn't provide a link, I will.

Quote of the Day

"...And more important than anything else, they are lies. Whopping big, wild, dumb lies so easily debunked that it has really made me rethink my position on Net Neutrality for trailer-trash (Maybe if it took hours instead of seconds to upload this horseshit they'd get bored, give up and go back to cousin-fucking.)"

~driftglass on the barrage of wingnut smear e-mails any given day.

More Wingnut E-Mails

I've begun ignoring these things for a while, but every once in a blue moon, I get all riled up when I receive a bullshit e-mail like the one that just popped up in my box from a friend (he likes to poke the bear sometimes), knowing I'd respond to it... and reply to everyone else on the list.

To: Broadway Carl
Subject: Obituary-Very Interesting!
Born 1776, Died 2008

It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning last November's Presidential election: 

Number of States won by:
Obama: 19
McCain: 29 

Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000
McCain: 2,427,000 

Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million
McCain: 143 million 

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2
McCain: 2.1 

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. 

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." 

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase. 

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. 

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. 

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

Well... you know me. I couldn't just let it sit:

To: [Wingnuts]
Subject: Re: Obituary-Very Intersting! REAL NUMBERS AND REAL FACTS 

Here are some real numbers and some real facts in response to this email: 

Number of votes received:
OBAMA: 66,882,230
McCAIN: 58,343,671 

Number of States won:
OBAMA: 28
McCAIN: 22 

Population of States won:
OBAMA: 210,846,555
McCAIN: 95,538,235


I won't go on, but you get the point. This email is obviously false. Oh, and by the way, this email has been going around since the 2000 election. Whoever decided to resend it just substituted Obama's name for Gore and McCain's name for Bush. 

So by all means, "pass this along to help everyone realize how much is at stake," knowing that fear mongering, political smear jobs and bald-faced lies are the greatest dangers to our freedom. 

Is that all you got?

Another Smear E-Mail in a Never-Ending Series: Iraq Safer Than Chicago

Another pathetic attempt to make is seem like all is going well in Iraq, children are singing, birds are chirping, dogs and cats are happily coexisting and that if Barack Obama wins the Presidency, the US will become one major "combat zone" just like Chicago and worse than Iraq - oh yeah, and Obama's from Chicago.

Here's the ridiculously inane e-mail (as received):

The US should immediately pull out of Chicago!

CHANGE CHICAGO NOW!!!

Body count. In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago, 221 killed in Iraq .

Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Gov. Rod Blogojevich, House leader Mike Madigan, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike), Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley).....our leadership in Illinois.....all Democrats.

Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago . Of course they're all blaming each other. Can't blame Republicans, they're aren't any!

State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country. Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look'em up if you want). Chicago school system one of the worst in country.

This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois, and He's gonna 'fix' Washington politics?

Well, well... where to begin?...

As usual, the originators of these types of e-mail don't link it to any pertinent information to verify these numbers. The author doesn't specify what "six months" he's talking about. The number of US military casualties from January through June is 2008. The number for the year to date is 270.

Since I don't want to spend too much time on this, I was not able to find a homicide rate for Chicago for the current year. The total homicide rate for Chicago in 2007 was 442, a 6.2% from from the 2006 total of 471.

So let's just assume that the year to date number of 292 for 2008 is an average and close to correct. Is the author then trying to equate military deaths in Iraq to civilian deaths in Chicago? If we are acting as a police force in Iraq, shouldn't the author equate the military deaths in Iraq to police officer casualties in Chicago? If that were the case, then year to date the number would be US casualties - 270, Chicago Police - 2.

And if you're going to use homicide numbers in Chicago, shouldn't you use the Iraqi civilian casualties? Or do those innocent civilians not count?

The death toll of Iraqi civilians has been very sketchy depending on who's counting. From the Congressional Research Service updated on August 27, 2008:

...For some time, the United Nations attempted to release comprehensive statistics on Iraqi civilian deaths. From August 2005 to March 2007, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) published a series of quarterly reports on human rights in Iraq that included sections on Iraqi civilian casualties. On April 25, 2007, however, the Iraqi government announced its intention to cease providing civilian casualty figures to the United Nations. Ivana Vuco, a UN human rights officer, stated, “[Iraqi] government officials had made clear during discussions that they believed releasing high casualty numbers would make it more difficult to quell unrest.”

...In an interview with the Boston Globe, Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, the chief U.S. military spokesman, said Iraqi ministry civilian death tolls estimates have risen from a low of 568 in December 2007 and 541 in January 2008 to roughly 721 in February 2008 and 1,082 in March 2008. “There was somewhere on the order of a 25 or 30 percent increase in the number of civilian casualties when you consider March compared to February,” Smith said, although “the numbers are still nowhere near what they had been last summer.” The New York Times reports that the Iraqi Health Ministry lists a total of 865 civilian deaths for July 2008 and 975 deaths for June 2008.

So, 975 Iraqi deaths reported in June as opposed to a claim of 292 deaths in Chicago for an unknown six month span. Kinda blows that e-mail out out of the water, doesn't it? And you'll forgive me if I believe that these "official numbers" aren't exactly accurate. With the reluctance of the Iraqi government to release their casualty numbers, the zealousness of the Bush administration to tamp down the numbers and use the surge as an end-all-be-all for success in Iraq, who knows how many Iraqi civilians have been killed?

Here are some other estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths from the same congressional report:

Iraq Body Count - March 19, 2003 - August 22, 2008: 86,661 - 94,558
Iraq Coalition Casualty Count - April 28, 2005 - August 22, 2008: 43,099
Brookings Iraq Index - May 2003 - August 14, 2008: 113,616
The Associated Press - April 2005 - February 13, 2008: 34,832 dead - 40,174 wounded
The Iraq Family Health Study (the “WHO study”) - March 2003 - June 2006: 151,000
The Lancet, “Mortality after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq” - March 19, 2003 - July 31, 2006: 426,369 -793,663

And finally, this number from Just Foreign Policy.Org:

The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion.

As for the tax rate and the debt, the national debt $10 TRILLION and a yearly budget deficit of over $400 billion, but I'm not going to get into that portion of this stupid ass e-mail because for me, the main issue was the ludicrous idea that Iraq is safer than Chicago.

Maybe the originator of this e-mail should take a walk down a Baghdad street and compare it to a walk down a Chicago street. If given the opportunity, I'd bet my house they would pass on it.

Smear E-Mail Redux - Obama & McCain On The Issues

Here we go again. Another Obama smear e-mail, this time comparing the supposed stances each presidential candidate. Once again, the list of unverifiable information in the e-mail is astounding. But I'll go through them by actually doing as little research, as the sender of this e-mail most likely has not.


2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS

ISSUE: Favors new drilling offshore US
JOHN McCAIN - Yes
BARACK OBAMA - No

False. Obama opposes offshore drilling as the sole solution, but said he would consider a compromise if it were part of an overall comprehensive policy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and point us toward a path of new, renewable sources of energy.

From CNN.com 8/3/08 - Obama said Friday that he would be willing to compromise on his position against offshore oil drilling if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs.
"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama told The Palm Beach Post early into a two-day swing through Florida.
..."I made a general point about the fact that we need to provide the American people some relief and that there has been constructive conversations between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on this issue," he said during a press conference in Cape Canaveral. "What I will not do, and this has always been my position, is to support a plan that suggests this drilling is the answer to our energy problems," Obama added.
"If we've got a plan on the table that I think meets the goals that America has to set and there are some things in there that I don't like, then obviously that's something that I would consider because that's the nature of how we govern in a democracy."

And let's think about this logically. The oil companies currently own approximately 63 million acres of offshore leases that they are available to drill on and currently do not drill on. Even if they started drilling today, which is what John McCain proposes, there wouldn't be a drop of oil produced from any of the sites until 2017, nine years from now, and not a drop of usable oil because of the lack of refineries until 2030. That's twenty-two years from now... is that going to help short-term gas prices? And ultimately, if the oil companies did drill and got the oil out of the earth, it is now their oil, which goes on the global market. It isn't going to be sold exclusively to the United States. So to say that offshore drilling is going to reduce our prices is a false argument.


Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it.
JOHN McCAIN -Yes
BARACK OBAMA - No

Okay gang, everyone say it with me. Judges do not make laws. Congress makes laws. Judges interpret the laws. Now if you want to get into a philosophical argument about Obama and McCain's stances on Roe v. Wade (I like to call it a patient's right to privacy not a woman's right to choose) then have at it. But for someone like McCain who vowed to appoint Supreme Court judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, isn't that the same as saying that his judges would "interpret" the law to his liking?

OBAMA: When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.
Others, like Justice Breyers, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far--that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account.
I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.
I see democracy as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison's design is not that it provides a fixed blueprint for action. It provides us with a framework and rules, but all its machinery are designed to force us into a conversation.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 89-92 Oct 1, 2006

Served in the US Armed Forces
JOHN McCAIN - Yes
BARACK OBAMA - No

True. Duh... what does that have to do with anything? Is this to infer that McCain would support the troops and Obama wouldn't? The same McCain that voted against funding the troops in the middle of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over a dozen times and didn't even have the guts to vote on the new GI Bill, deciding instead to skip the vote, that John McCain?


Amount of time served in the US Senate
JOHN McCAIN - 22 YEARS
BARACK OBAMA - 173 DAYS

False. I don't know when this e-mail was originated, but Barack Obama won his senate race in November of 2004 and was sworn in as a US Senator in January of 2005. I know that math is hard for some Republicans but just for the record, today is August 31, 2008. I think that's more than 173 days. He also spent 8 years as an Illinois State Senator from 1997-2004.


Will institute a socialized national health care plan
JOHN McCAIN - No
BARACK OBAMA - Yes

Sigh... Yes, those evil social programs like Medicare and Social Security and public schools, and police and fire departments and the post office... boy they've made our lives a living hell, haven't they? And oh, by the way, every member of Congress including John McCain gets affordable health insurance... the kind that Barack Obama wants everyone to have. You can see his detailed health care plan here.


Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy.
JOHN McCAIN - No
BARACK OBAMA - Yes

False. See Obama's stance on abortion here.


Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately
JOHN McCAIN - No
BARACK OBAMA - Yes

False. Since when does "being as careful getting out as we were careless getting in" constitute "immediate" pull out? This is just another scare tactic for those who believe Iraq is the central front on terrorism (Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until after we got there). but even if you debate that issue, here is what Barack Obama said:

Barack Obama offered his "Plan for Iraq" in an op-ed in today's New York Times, affirming that he would begin a "phased redeployment of combat troops" that would remove them in 16 months, by summer of 2010.

You can read the Times Op-Ed here. Also, since it seems that the Bush Administration and the government of Iraq are in negotiations for a timeline for US troop withdrawal, then I suppose Obama was right after all.


Supports gun ownership rights
JOHN McCAIN - Yes
BARACK OBAMA - No

Here are a quick couple of quotes regarding Obama and his stance on gun ownership rights:

"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it."

"...I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions."

And seriously, does anyone really oppose registering and licensing guns for law abiding citizens, while at the same time, trying to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill? Haven't we had enough random bell tower, college campus shootings?

You can view Obama's more detailed stance on gun control here.


Supports homosexual marriage
JOHN McCAIN - No
BARACK OBAMA - Yes

False. From CNN.com:

Barack Obama opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban. Says he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. As stated on the Obama campaign Web site, he supports full civil unions that "give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights." Says the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Advocated legislation that sought to expand federal hate crimes law to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Says the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy needs to be repealed.

John McCain also opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment.


Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase
JOHN McCAIN -No
BARACK OBAMA - Yes

False, as you will see in the related issue below. You can also see Obama's detailed economy plan here.


Voted against making English the official language
JOHN McCAIN - No
BARACK OBAMA - Yes

True. Here's the reason.

"I believe the American people understand in order to succeed in our society, immigrants need to learn English. But the amendment would do a number of things that are problematical. The first is that it is contrary to the provisions of law that exist in many States. For example, in New Mexico, you have in their State Constitution, a provision that says that many of the documents within that State have to be provided in both English and Spanish. The same thing is true for the State of Hawaii. I believe this is a States rights issue, and those constitutions of those States ought to be respected. I do not believe it is a matter we ought to be imposing here from Washington DC. Also, this amendment would undo an executive order conceived by President Bill Clinton and implemented by President George Bush. Both recognized it is important that people who have limited English proficiency receive the kinds of services so they can understand what is going on in terms of the interface between the Government and themselves."

Common sense, no?


Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals
JOHN McCAIN - No
BARACK OBAMA - Yes

False. This is simply a twist of the wording to confuse the reader into thinking that any illegal immigrant can apply for Social Security benefits. What the bill was actually about was to reduce fraud and prevent identity theft by undocumented workers. What it would have done was to deny benefits accrued to those who paid into the system after they became legal. Barack Obama voted yes to kill the bill on the basis of the following:

"Americans understand that for years there are undocumented workers who have tried to follow our laws and be good neighbors and good citizens, and have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund.
Once that person regularizes his or her status, and as they proceed down the path to earned citizenship, they should have the benefit after having followed the law and made those contributions. That is fairness.
We should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts. That is not fair. It does not reward their hard work or their financial contributions.
The amendment proposes to change existing law to prohibit an individual from gaining the benefit of any contributions made while the individual was in an undocumented status. I oppose this amendment and believe it is wrong."

And by the way, it's also false because McCain voted WITH Obama to kill the bill as well.



*******
The second part of this e-mail deals with the claim that Obama would kill us on the tax front. This has been debunked at FactCheck.org, a non-partisan group.

They write:

"Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama's actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up. This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate."

I'll provide their answers here to the following claims as well but feel free to check the link above.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN - 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.

OBAMA - 28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)

False. The claim that Obama would impose a 28 percent tax on the profit from "all home sales" is false. Both Obama and McCain would continue to exempt the first $250,000 of gain from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) which results in zero tax on all but a very few home sales.

It's untrue that Obama is proposing a 28 percent capital gains tax rate. He said in an interview on CNBC that he favors raising the top rate on capital gains from its present 15 percent to 20 percent or more, but no higher than 28 percent. And as for a 28 percent rate, he added, "my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that." Furthermore, he has said only couples making $250,000 or more (or, his policy advisers tell us, singles making more than $200,000) would pay the higher capital gains rate. That means the large majority of persons who pay capital gains taxes would see no increase at all.

DIVIDEND TAX

MCCAIN - 15% (no change)

OBAMA - 39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')

False. Another false claim is that Obama proposes to raise the tax rate on dividends to 39.6 percent. Dividends currently are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, and Obama would raise that to the same rate as he would tax capital gains, somewhere between 20 percent and 28 percent but likely "significantly" lower than 28 percent. This higher tax also would fall only on couples making $250,000 or more or singles making more than $200,000.

INCOME TAX

MCCAIN (no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

Patently false. The claim that "Under Obama your taxes will more than double!" is also false. The comparative rate tables this e-mail provides for McCain and Obama are entirely wrong, as we explained in an earlier article March 13 about another false e-mail from which these tables are copied. It is supposedly a comparison of tax rates before and after the Bush tax cuts, but it grossly overstates the effect of the Bush cuts. Furthermore, Obama proposes to retain the Bush cuts for every single income level shown in this bogus table.

The false numbers in the e-mail were copied from a similar smear accusing Bill Clinton of the same thing in 1999. It was just copied Obama's name was inserted. Shameless.

INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN - 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA - Restore the inheritance tax Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.

FALSE! The claim that Obama proposes to "restore the inheritance tax" is also false, as are the claims that McCain would impose zero tax and that Bush "repealed" it. McCain and Obama both would retain a reduced version of the estate tax, as it is correctly called, though McCain would reduce it by more.
The tax now falls only on estates valued at more than $2 million (effectively $4 million for couples able to set up the required legal and financial arrangements). It reaches a maximum rate of 45 percent on amounts more than that. It was not repealed, but it is set to expire temporarily in 2010, then return in 2011, when it would apply to estates valued at more than $1 million ($2 million for couples), with the maximum rate rising to 55 percent.
Obama has proposed to apply the tax only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), holding the maximum rate at 45 percent. McCain would apply it to estates worth more than $5 million ($10 million for couples), with a maximum rate of 15 percent.


NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

FALSE! The e-mail continues with a string of made-up taxes that it falsely claims Obama has proposed. He has not proposed a tax on new homes with more than 2,400 square feet, or a new gasoline tax or a tax on retirement accounts. The most laughably false claim is that Obama would tax "water."

Two claims in this message, while not completely false, are still grossly misleading.

The claim that Obama would impose "new taxes on natural resources" may refer to his support for a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, which indeed would impose large costs on industries burning coal, gas or oil and, indirectly, on their consumers. But McCain also supports cap-and-trade legislation, and even coauthored an early version of a bill that reached the Senate floor this year. Obama's plan would give the federal government more of the revenue from auctioning pollution permits than McCain's plan. Whether cap-and-trade amounts to a "tax" is a matter of interpretation. The fact is neither McCain nor Obama call it that.

There is also some truth to the claim that Obama would impose "new taxes" to finance his health care plan, depending on your interpretation of "new." He has said he would pay for much of his plan "by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do." That would certainly be a tax increase for those high-income persons, compared with what they are paying now. But whether that's imposing a new tax, or just letting an old one come back, depends on your point of view. It may well be that Obama will eventually propose tax increases to finance some of his plan. We've noted before that the "cost savings" that he says will finance much of his plan are inflated and probably won't materialize, according to independent experts we consulted. But it's wrong to say that he's proposing such taxes now.

The short answer to our reader's question is, no, this message isn't real. It's a pack of lies.

**************

Here's a chart from the Washington Post that breaks down Obama's and McCain's tax plans by income demographic. While both Senators are proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families, Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy.

Notice the misleading final line of the chart stating McCain's "Average Cut" would be more than Obama's. Well sure it is when you're giving a 4.4% tax cut to those making almost $3 million per year and a 0.2% tax cut for those making under $20,000 per year. (Click on chart for full size.)

And one last thing regarding the final asinine line of the e-mail: "New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!"

Someone should tell the citizens of Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, and a host of others that they're apparently living in a third world country because they receive universal health care!