False Talking Point Alert — Number One in a Series

$326 billion in the stimulus is tax cuts, not spending, which brings the Democrats number down to $686. That’s not even remotely controversial;
———-
Wrong, it is highly controversial.
As long as Politifact claims the tax cuts, which end up being a gaggle of MOSTLY handouts, are not an expenditure, any conclusion they draw is false, and deliberately so.
In addition they claim less than 500 billion in cost for the stimulus.
The Obama congressional budget office scored differently and included the tax credits as expenses.
Politifact is adjusting numbers to achieve a predetermined conclusion.
Their numbers they use in their premise conflicts with those of the congressional budget office.
They have no credibility.

Looks like Politifact has them pretty cold.

Who runs politifact?
Why are we considering anything they say valid.
I could throw together a bunch of numbers put them on a website and skewers facts to support them.
That sure seems to be what Politifact did.
I agree this is silly. Why is Jake posting something from a site with no known credibility?
If we have to argue over numbers lets at least begin with something that is legitimate on it’s face, such as government sites, (for what they are worth).

So amazing how the Republicans suddenly deeply concerned with spending. It was a “war necessity” under Bush. Now it’s just liberal “waste.”

“Since its a news outfit, I doubt you can deem them trustworthy to fact check Dear Leader.
So sayeth the Ashley Todd hoax spreader.

“Mitch McConnell should have just said, “Every 30 seconds an American declares bankruptcy due to an inability to pay taxes”
Then nobody would fact-check him.”
Actually Republicans tried that BS with the estate tax claiming that families were put in dire straits.

Concerned in OH:”When the “tax cut” is reducing the amount of money you have to pay the IRS, then you don’t consider that as spending.”
So at a bare minimum, 70% of the tax cuts in the stimulus bill should NOT be considered spending by your definition. (Probably more – I just looked at the few biggest numbers.)

“I have to ask again why we are arguing about information from a seemingly non credible source.”
ROFLMAO!
Yes why are we arguing about number coming from Republicans!

This is ridulous.
The point still stands: The Community Organizer’s ideologically-based spending spree (cloaked as “stimulus” to move the economy forward) is mortgaging America’s future.

These TAX REDUCTIONS account for $237 billion, or over 70% of the tax cuts.
You said the tax cuts “MOSTLY” consist of handouts. Mostly indicates at least a majority. So which of the three above reduction in taxes collection are you defining as handouts?
Posted by: jhw539 | Mar 5, 2009 12:41:08 PM
———–
Here we go again.
There are a litany of items you did not include.
I don’t know where you get your numbers.
Some examples, but not limited to
-The earned income tax credit-
-The make work pay program
-tax “credits” for car and home purchases
I dispute your percentages and dollars, but even if you are correct, , Politifact claims none of these are expenditures.
That means they are using a false premise. Even by your numbers at least 30 percent should be an expenditure. They are deliberately avoiding the facts as they interfere with their partisan conclusions.

President Bush spent in seven years on the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina combined
====
If Politifact is going to be so literal about the “in one month” part of the statement, why do they refuse to be literal about the rest of it?
McConnell said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He didn’t talk about base enhancements around the world, or operations in the Philippines.
McConnell also very clearly spoke about what Bush spent in 7 years, but Politifact wants to take what the Obama administration – yes, they are his wars now- will pay and attribute it Bush.
I suppose this fits in the “its old business” accounting model ala the omnibus spending bill.
They are probably right that McConnell isn’t *literally* correct. It’s a rhetorical argument Poltifact is trying to use numbers to make.

“They are probably right that McConnell isn’t *literally* correct.”
Fake but accurate, then?
I thought right wingers rejected such arguments.

Fake but accurate, then?
========
Not really.
Unless someone misunderstood McConnell to be saying Congress actually sent the checks out for the entire cost of the stimulus and S-CHIP in one month.

jhw:Don’t be dense – they AREN’T being literal about the one month spending thing. If they were, Obama has spent almost nothing,
=======
Politifact (as quoted by Jake):Using the methodology by which the Republicans calculated Bush’s war spending, they should pin on the Democrats just the stimulus spending that went out the door in that one month, which would probably be somewhere close to zero.

MNM:”Combining his democrat leaning, with his inability to count any tax cuts as expenditures I will discount any information this man offers.”
So I take it that means you have NO source of ANY reality to support your laughably false assertion that the tax cuts are “MOSTLY” handouts? Why did I waste my time thinking you actually cared when you asked about the facts.
Funny how ‘liberals’ are willing to debate the facts regardless of where they come from, but you deny reality unless it is from someone with your identical ideological bent.

I will use your numbers and still they prove Politifact wrong. It doesn’t compute.
Links are not permitted or I would include one here and to the congressional budget summary of this bill.
Even using your numbers, where ever they come from Politifact is lying!
I don’t care about wordsmithing and will concede your percentages, but they still prove my point.
Politifact is deliberately lying.
—————————————
The most significant items for individuals are:
Making Work Pay: For 2009 and 2010, $400 per person tax credit for AGI under $75,000; phased out to $95,000 (double everything for married filing jointly).
One-time $250 payment to Social Security and other fixed income recipients.
AMT patch for 2009: increase AMT exemption amount from 2008 levels by $500 per person or $1,000 per couple.
First-time homebuyer tax credit: If you never owned a home in the last three years and your AGI is under $75,000/$150,000 (phaseout to $95,000/$170,000), and you buy a primary residence between Jan. 1 and Nov. 30, 2009, you get an $8,000 refundable tax credit, which does NOT have to be repaid if you hold the home for three years. Sorry for folks who bought in 2008.
Tax deduction for buying a new car: If your AGI is under $125k/$250k (phaseout to $135k/$260k), and you buy a new car (not used car) under $49,500 after the law is signed until the end of 2009, you get a tax deduction for the sales tax. No deduction for car loan interest. Non-itemizers are also eligible for this deduction.
Expanded HOPE credit for education and renamed to American Opportunity Tax Credit.
For more details, please read the CCH briefing or the full text of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

MNM:”I will use your numbers and still they prove Politifact wrong. It doesn’t compute.”
What? You don’t include any funding totals. Where is the information REQUIRED to get the barest hint of the tax cut funding allocation(for example $70 billion to the AMT tax relief)? And why are you including one time aid (such as the $14.2 billion to social security recipients) as a tax cut? Politifact didn’t.
Don’t you have ANY source of facts to support your opinion? Hasn’t Rush at least had his staff break something down about this yet?

Straight out of the Liberal Playbook: “Distract and Redirect Conversation”
Regardless of who said what using what numbers and what assumptions, The Community Organizer (I’ll refer to him as “President” when he starts acting like one) is on track to:
1. Double the national debt before end of first term
2. Double the national debt AGAIN prior to end of 2nd term (if re-elected)

Face it Democrats, Bush might have spent like crazy, but Obama is crazy. There’s no way around it. Our children are going to be reallyreallyreally mad at us unless we stop the crazy person’s behavior.

That’s using the REPUBLICAN methodlogy not their own maybee.
===============
Not really.
The problem (in part) is it’s a “money actually spent” vs. a “spending bill approved argument”.
Look at this part, for example:
—Why is it ok to say the Democrats “spent” that in one month, but it’s not ok to hold Bush responsible for the longer term costs of the war, even through, say, just fiscal 2009? (To say nothing of the trillions of dollars in long term costs — such as healthcare — that economists say are the inevitable consequence of the portion of the war Bush waged directly;—-
McConnell can turn around and say “What about the longer term costs of the stimulus bill? The expansion and maintenance of the green energy programs the bill only provides a start for? The cost of the interest? The loss of wealth in the stock market since it’s unpopular passage? What about the effect of the increase of the welfare roles the stimulus package encourages?” All those costs are as attributable to the stimulus bill as the costs the Politifact author is trying to attribute to Bush.
The author has no real methodology. To be fair, the Republicans don’t either.
As I said, it’s a rhetorical point that is dragged down into silliness.

jpt: Don’t you have ANY source of facts to support your opinion? Hasn’t Rush at least had his staff break something down about this yet?-
———-
I plainly stated I would use YOUR NUMBERS, just to avoid the argument.
You account for 70% of the 326 Billion dollars. I will accept the 30%, for the sake of argument. That is still almost 100 billion dollars that Politifact ignores as expenses.
What are trying to accomplish.
I am pasting in a link to a site for the ‘finance buff”
A non partisan site that simply analyzes the numbers. That is where my numbers come from. That and the CBO
I predict the link will quickly disappear, so act fast if you truly intend to follow up.
This blog does not let links stand.

jhw539
—-
Unless and until Politifact includes some portion of the tax cuts as expenses their conclusions are invalid.
You now attempt to adjust Politifacts supposed facts about Iraq to “help” them be right.
I included the one link, which you minimize and mischaracterize. Perhaps they expect a knowledge base, that would allow you to interpret that information, that you lack. I also include a reference to the congressional budget office, I only hope you checked the CBO numbers, as they are the bottom line on this and they counted all of the “tax cuts” as expenses.
You have no argument that will overcome their deliberate omission of tax credits in their calculation of expenditures.
The rest of this is simply wasted distraction.

The very fact that many of you are evening trying do defend those clowns is hysterical. What many of you are missing is that this is the kind of smkoke and mirrors that the Republicans use to get away with. Their problem is that a greater number of the American people woke up. Their approval rating is down to 26%. This why they are irrevalant and will remain so. To put their numbers into context, we should add money that will be spent to money that has been spent which is none to come up with this garbage. Get over it! That party is populated with losers and I for one couldn’t be happier!

Regarding Polifact’s (“our good friends” according to allegely objective journalist Tapper) claim that the “tax cuts” arent spending:
When one pays no income taxes, paying them money cannot be called a “tax cut”. Of the 326 billion in alleged “tax cuts”, about 200 billion goes to folks who PAY NO INCOME TAXES. Accordingly, it’s “indisputable” that the 200 billion is SPENDING.
The counterargument that some of those who get the 200 billion pay PAYROLL taxes, i.e. SS/Medicare, is disingenious at best. Do you lefties realize that cannabalizing the social security payroll taxes makes SS EVEN MORE LONG TERM INSOLVENT? Defend that, lefties.
I mean seriously – y’all won – that’s great – but stop lying about your agenda to engage in massive social spending via transfer payments to the non income tax paying poor and huge government bureaucracies. Stop lying like the Messiah did when he stated he’s not in favor of big government — WHAT A JOKE!!! — only someone with an iq under 100 could possibly believe Obama’s statement in the face of his ACTUAL POLICIES.

Politifact’s analysis assumes that the $326M in “tax cuts” is indeed tax cuts vs. what it really is, which is a redistributive welfare payment which goes to individuals who do not even pay any income taxes. I would consider welfare spending.

Ryan,
Is that kind of like claiming your going to give 95% of Americans a tax cut, when not all of that 95% of Americans actually pay taxes?

Anyone who doesn’t know that EVERY single American, (and EVERY illegal immigrant) pays taxes is either willfully ignorant or deliberately disingenuous.

Newsflash: When consumers aren’t spending, and business isn’t investing, if the government doesn’t spend and spend big, the economy will get worse.
It’s not really that complicated.