Barack Obama, Master Of The Half-Truth
About the Author: I am an ex-urbanite who escaped the city life and has lived for the past 27 years in a rural, mountainous area of Virginia that in colonial and early-American times was part of the "Backcountry." Politics: Democrat by tradition, but moderate-to-conservative views on most issues; I fit the description of "traditionalist." Please visit my Web site, Backcountry Notes, at http://www.backcountrynotes.com/ Read more from this author“A truth that’s told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent.” - - William Blake.
Although many have criticized Barack Obama as inexperienced, there is one area in which he must be acknowledged as a master: the use of the half-truth. So many examples . . . which to choose?
The “John McCain Is A Socialist, Too” Half-Truth: Here’s the half-truth by Obama: “What I want to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts; John McCain opposed those tax cuts; so if I’m a socialist, John McCain is a socialist, too.” WTF? The other half of the truth: Obama wants to use tax revenues to redistribute income (to, in his words, “spread the wealth around”); McCain does not. Redistribution of wealth is a socialist tenet (”From each according to his means, to each according to his needs”).
* * * * * *
Albert Einstein’s last writing, unfinished when he died, was a draft of a speech to mark Israel’s Independence Day. In the draft, Einstein wrote, “You may think this is a small and insignificant problem and that there are more serious things to worry about. But this is not true. In matters of truth and justice there can be no distinction between big problems and small…Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted in important affairs….”
* * * * * *
The “McCain Wants To Tax Your Health Insurance Benefits” Half-Truth: This one is all over the airwaves in Obama ads. “John McCain’s health care plan will tax your employer-provided health care benefits!” OMG! The other half of the truth: the value of employer-provided health care plans would be included in income BUT would be more than offset by the $5,000.00 tax credit. It works this way: assume John Q. Taxpayer has $50,000 in taxable income and employer-provided health care of $10,000 (the average is actually about $6,000, but let’s go high to make the point). John Q’s marginal tax rate is 25%; adding $10,000 to his taxable income will therefore raise his Federal tax liability by $2,500 - - HALF of the $5,000 tax credit amount.
* * * * * *
“He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.” - - Luke 16:10 (New American Standard Bible).
* * * * * *
I could gave many more examples - - William Ayers “is a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and so on. This is all part of Obama’s campaign of smoke and mirrors.
# # #
great posting, you really have a great political blog.
pacer521
http://culturedecoded.wordpress.com
Jay, you are using half-truths to make a point. Perhaps it would be good for you to look at the spoken record instead of making assumptions?
For instance, on the issue of wealth-redistribution, how can you look at McCain’s previous statements on taxes and not come to the conclusion that he was indeed himself advocating the same thing?
Here just a few of McCain’s statements, there are dozens more:
“I don’t think the governor’s tax cut is too big—it’s just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans—and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. … Gov. Bush wants to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts. I don’t believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks. …
“I’m not giving tax cuts for the rich.”
McCain in a WaPo interview, Jan. 5, 2000
——-
“I have never engaged in class warfare. I am very much in favor of tax cuts for middle-income and lower-income Americans. I’m deeply concerned about a kind of class warfare that’s going on right now. It’s unfortunate. There’s a growing gap between the haves and have-nots in America, and that gap is growing, and it’s unfortunately divided up along ethnic lines.
“I feel very strongly that we ought to have middle-income and lower-income tax cuts, and we’ll be getting into it, I’m sure, later on in this program. Mine are basically comparable to Gov. Bush’s, in some cases far better. But I’m not sure we need to give two-thirds of that tax cut, of that money, to the wealthiest 10% of America.”
—Michigan Republican Debate, Jan. 11, 2000.
———————————–
“There’s one big difference between me and the others—I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy. I’ll use the bulk of the surplus to secure Social Security far into the future to keep our promise to the greatest generation.”
—McCain campaign commercial, January 2000.
————————————-
“Mr. President, the principle that guides my judgment of a tax reconciliation bill is tax relief for those who need it the most—lower- and middle-income working families. I am in favor of a tax cut, but a responsible one that provides significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income families. And I commend Sen. Grassley for moving in that direction. But I am concerned that debt will overwhelm many American households. That is why tax relief should be targeted to middle-income Americans. The more fortunate among us have less concern about debt. It is the parents struggling to make ends meet who are most in need of tax relief.
“I had expressed hope that when the reconciliation bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, the tax cuts outlined would provide more tax relief to working, middle-income Americans. However, I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.”
—Senate floor statement during debate over President Bush’s tax relief package, May 21, 2001. McCain ended up voting against Bush’s tax cuts.
————————————————
“I am concerned that repeal of the estate tax would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest and highest-income taxpayers in the country. A Treasury Department study found that almost no estate tax has been paid by lower- and middle-income taxpayers. But taxes have been paid on the estates of people who were in the highest 20% of the income distribution at the time of their death. It found that 91% of all estate taxes are paid by the estates of people whose annual income exceeded $190,000 around the time of their death. …
“We have no idea what our financial or economic situation will be ten years from now. … We may want to have the flexibility to provide significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. Other unforeseen issues may arise. The point is that we must think beyond the horizon. Making the repeal of the estate tax permanent fails to take these new circumstances into account.
“We will need resources to deal with … responsible tax reform that benefit lower- and middle-income taxpayers.”
—Senate floor statement opposing HR 8, a bill to permanently eliminate the death tax, June 11, 2002.
—————————————————
So, Jay, clearly we have socialism pure here. If you did not KNOW that these statements came from McCain you would surely assume a rabid socialist were making these.
Take one glaring example from those above:
““Mr. President, the principle that guides my judgment of a tax reconciliation bill is tax relief for those who need it the most—lower- and middle-income working families. I am in favor of a tax cut, but a responsible one that provides significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income families. And I commend Sen. Grassley for moving in that direction. But I am concerned that debt will overwhelm many American households. That is why tax relief should be targeted to middle-income Americans. The more fortunate among us have less concern about debt. It is the parents struggling to make ends meet who are most in need of tax relief.
“I had expressed hope that when the reconciliation bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, the tax cuts outlined would provide more tax relief to working, middle-income Americans. However, I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.”
Key statements:
“principle that guides my judgment…is tax relief for those who need it the MOST—lower- and middle-income working families.
….
But I am concerned that debt will overwhelm many American households. That is why tax relief should be targeted to middle-income Americans. THE MORE FORTUNATE AMONG US HAVE LESS CONCERN ABOUT DEBT. It is the parents struggling to make ends meet who are most in need of tax relief.
…..
However, I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee PREFERRED INSTEAD to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.”
—————————————————
Clearly socialistic viewpoints. McCain, when he voted against Bush’s tax cuts, advocated giving tax relief ONLY to the lower-income and middle-class families, but leave the upper tax rates unchanged at 39.6%. That is quite obviously a desire to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH. The main reason he cited? Because the wealthy are the “more fortunate among us” and have less concern about debt.
McCain’s statements on this subject are SOCIALISM PURE. He made many such statements, claiming that the rich don’t need tax breaks (or estate tax relief, for that matter) because they are fortunate enough, that indeed massive tax breaks should be given ONLY to the lower income earners.
Your argumentation is severely flawed because it attempts to paint one candidate with a broad brush (of socialism) while not mentioning the clearly socialistic tendencies of the other candidate. The VERY REASON McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts was explicitly because it benefited the rich MORE, and instead of arguing for slightly less tax relief for wealthy Americans McCain argued that no tax relief was needed at all for the upper income earners, that the upper tax rate stay unchanged at 39.6%.
There is no way to interpret McCain’s reasons he voted against Bush’s tax cuts NOT as socialism pure, given that instead of Bush’s tax revisions McCain preferred wealth redistribution instead by leaving the upper tax rate unchanged and only give lower- and middle-income earners breaks with the explicit reasoning that the “more fortunate enough amongst us” don’t need any tax breaks. At that point you automatically have “wealth redistribution,” as the unchanged tax rates for the upper income earners would carry a larger overall tax burden compared to the “massive tax-helped” lower- and middle-income earners.
Sorry, Jay, McCain was advocating wealth-redistribution, plain and simple, and we have the exact quotes to prove it.
Nice rebuttal georgep, liking your style - well substantiated and referenced. Although, you could of replaced most of those on-topic facts with quotes from William Blake, Einstein and the Bible - that way way we’d know you were focused on the matter at hand and not just daydreaming.
I’d started gathering recent Mccain socialist quotes, by the time I’d got here, you’ve laid down the facts and I’d just be treading ground you’ve covered.
Mccain believes in wealth redistribution to the corporations in the form of tax cuts - that money reduces the federal income and increase the tax burden on the citizen. Now is not the time to give oil companies tax breaks. Champagne socialism from a guy that has so many houses and cars even he can’t remember how many he has, against a level-headed, 1 house owning American with holes in his shoes.
The choice is yours.
the arugument that mccain is also socialist is the argument of 4 year olds…using simmple logic it would not make it alright…mccain opposed the tax cuts because he said they needed to come with spending restraints (and he was right)…for months now he has said that the tax cuts must stay in place otherwise it is as good as a tax hike…
I’ve lived in a lot of different countries and I don’t have a problem with socialism, IF that is what people want…but Obama Reid Pelosi Dodd etc SOCIALISM has been “hidden”…it is the great deception that the MEDIA has supported…
…it doesn’t represent Americans…
…the mccain is socialist too is a mindless argument for those desperate to see an obama win at their own peril…go ahead vote for obama…BUT people are not going to believe that McCain is just as socialist as Obama…just like they won’t believe McCain won’t take care of the troops…
…if what the left was offering is so WONDERFUL then why is Acorn registering pets…why is Obama outspending 7 to 1 …why is the media working so hard to control the info the public receives…because they know if the facts get out they will lose the election even at this late hour..
…even on simple facts you guys don’t get it right…mccain doesn’t own those homes …his wife does…which beats the hell out of getting a home by being in bed with Rezko types…
…or the fact that obama has received as much if not more from oil companies than mccain has…and more contributions from wealthy people than mccain has..
…while you are at it can you please explain why obama has not produced personal records from his medical history to his connections to his $$$ sources….
…a good fight is a great thing…but a decent fighter doesn’t avoid a fair fight…which is what obama has done since his first election to state politics…good ahead and vote for him but be honest at least
But why look at the whole picture Jack ?
Don’t talk about the desire to have spending cuts, they wont understand that.
Note to Jack Says:
Very well said. Its those very points that are so glaring. There’s an old phrase:
“Its so loud. How come you can’t hear it?”
For an Ideal Candidate, Perfect For the Job. There sure are a lot of Unanswered Questions for a candidate this close to voting.
Jack said “mccain opposed the tax cuts because he said they needed to come with spending restraints (and he was right)…for months now he has said that the tax cuts must stay in place otherwise it is as good as a tax hike…”
So, it was wrong in the first instance but now it’s right? How so? I can’t see how making something wrong permanent makes it right.
Jack, come on now. Did you not READ the quotes I offered? Tell me that is not SOCIALISM PURE while keeping a straight face?
Bringing the example I showed in the above example to its essence:
McCain argued that his
“principle that guides my judgment…is tax relief for those who need it the MOST—lower- and middle-income working families.
….
But I am concerned that debt will overwhelm many American households. That is why tax relief should be targeted to middle-income Americans. THE MORE FORTUNATE AMONG US HAVE LESS CONCERN ABOUT DEBT. It is the parents struggling to make ends meet who are most in need of tax relief.
…..
However, I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee PREFERRED INSTEAD to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.”
—————————————–
PREFERRED INSTEAD TO CUT THE TOP TAX RATE at THE EXPENSE OF LOWER AND MIDDLE INCOME AMERICAN TAXPAYERS.
Get it? Clearly, at the time McCain called for the top tax rate to stay the same because the rich “are fortunate and don’t need extra breaks” and he even said that the upper tax rate cut CAME AT THE EXPENSE OF lower- and middle-income earners. You are fooling yourself into some sort of stupor if you read these passages and don’t admit that clearly, CLEARLY, McCain was advocating wealth redistribution to the lower income class, and that the upper income earners were getting an undeserved tax break AT THE EXPENSE of the lower income earners. Classic case of hypocrisy, as that is EXACTLY what you accuse Obama of.
BTW, the ACORN canard? Are you kidding? So, some worker at ACORN puts in Daffy Duck or Mickey Mouse into their registration list, and you are trying to tell us that that constitutes VOTER FRAUD? That is pure insanity. Are you actually claiming that someone named Mickey Mouse, Daffy Duck or Yosemite Sam will actually show up on Nov. 4 and cast a vote, thereby THEN committing voter fraud? WHAT a canard, what an unenlightened point of view. The chances that the “pets” signed up via Acorn will actually be allowed to vote anywhere are zero, as you well know if you just think about this.
ACORN…it wasn’t just ONE worker doing it, that’s the problem.
Funny, there never seems to be any accountability when it comes to liberals getting caught red handed. it’s always a right winged conspiracy.
If I’m running an organization and many people are doing something they shouldn’t be doing. It’s a black eye for the entire group. That’s the way it is. It’s called ethics.
Of course when the Democratically controlled congress isn’t capable of taking any responsibility for anything that has happened over the last 2 years then why should the sheep ?
Every hear of Leading by example ?
What ever happened to the idea of tossing the IRS (billions in savings) and going with the Flat/Consumption tax ? Would we still be having this conversation ?
Aside from taxes:
http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212162773.shtml
“European socialists and Middle Eastern Muslims are wildly enthusiastic about Senator Obama, because he styles himself a citizen of the world who, like all liberal-progressive-socialists, aims for world government.
American liberal-progressive-socialism, in the person of Senator Obama, is a carbon copy of European socialism, and Islamic jihadists recognize that socialism offers no opposition to their ruthless jihad to enslave the entire world”
Does McCain have a desire to become a citizen of the world as well ?
I would classify McCain as a Social Conservative certainly not a Socialist. (Like Obama IS)
Obama ???…No no no McCain is much more Socialist….ehhhemmmm….
[...] Obama is certainly the master of the half-truth. The half-truth here is that he supports clean coal technology. The rest of the truth is that [...]
“Mccain believes in wealth redistribution to the corporations in the form of tax cuts - that money reduces the federal income and increase the tax burden on the citizen.”
You don’t redistribute wealth by letting people keep it.
Welcome to 1984.