CSPAN spin room spin. Please help me debunk the "welfare to 45 million" meme

[NYC_SKP]

McCain spokestwit, Steve Schmidt, explains to the international media that Obama's middle tax cut will do this:

45 million Americans pay more taxes. Obama's tax program will mean checks being written to all of these people who pay no taxes at all.

I can't seem to find a factcheck.com or other rebuttal to this stupid, but potentially persuasive, assertion.

Thanks in advance.

NYC_SKP :patriot:

[4lbs]

1. Ask Schmidt how he came up with this number.

Schmidt should be very specific and detailed about his answer.

One thing Repubs do is spout off crap like this, and when you ask them to explain it, they can't and then try to change the subject.

[NYC_SKP]

3. I would, but I'm not actually there in the spin room with him.

:hi:

I've heard the same thing on trash radio, Limbaugh and others, not sure if they use the same numbers, and was hoping it had been addressed at a debunking site or in an article, but cannot find any using the Google...

[Dragonfli]

2. It is made of whole cloth

Hard to refute stuff they just make up.

[sandnsea]

4. If you work, you pay taxes

Everybody pays FICA and yes they are using that as part of the budget. That was Clinton's surplus that Bush gave away to the rich.

[NYC_SKP]

5. But this baldface lie about writing checks to nontaxpayers goes unchallenged.

And that pisses me off, though I'm sure it's challenged officially somewhere.

Near as I can tell, the lie is constructed this way: they change "95% of taxpayers" getting a break to "95% of all Americans" getting a check.

It's like the slight of hand used with the figures on insurance plans, $5000 per family vs $5000 per individual.

Fuckers.

[sandnsea]

7. Oh I know

As I've said about ten times tonight, even Joe the Plumber is lying, he told Katie Couric he doesn't actually make $250,000. It debating over completely made up shit is a Republican trait that they're born with. And what about McCain's $5,000, it's refundable which means HE is the one who is going to write checks. Are low income families not going to get money to pay for their health insurance? Critical thinking skills, desperately needed.

[NYC_SKP]

8. Did you see this about Joe the Plumber, related to Keating?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7474700

[sandnsea]

10. Oh man

What a piece of work. I can't wait for this to hit the news.

[DefenseLawyer]

6. I am tired of "debunking" bullshit.

If people are buying what they are selling at this point, no manner of "debunking" is going to save them.

[NYC_SKP]

9. Good for you, thanks for nothing. You must be proud.

I've never asked a "help me debunk this" before, and I don't particularly care that you don't care for such queries on a discussion board, which happens to be a place to share ideas and to share information.

I hope you feel better in the morning.

And thanks for the kick.

[IndyJones]

11. This is what the WSJ says:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

[NYC_SKP]

24. MY HERO! Thanks for the link!

:toast:

[IndyJones]

27. You're welcome! :)

[DefenseLawyer]

16. Well "debunking" posts like yours

all seem to have one thing in common- repeating some rightwing bullshit that there just doesn't seem to be any answer for and we are all doomed. Who are you needing this information for? Are you planning on voting for McCain if you can't find an answer to Steve Schmidt's latest baseless talking point? Is there someone you know that was planning on voting for Obama until he or she heard Steve Schmidt's latest baseless talking point? I mean really. What is your goal here? Help me out.

[NYC_SKP]

20. You don't know me, if you did you wouldn't attack.

But since you ask, I'd hope that someone would have provided a link and this would all be done.

I am familiar with the concern posts provided by the type of insincere members (trolls) who seek to disrupt, but if after trying to find reputable sources to put this to rest I can't come to a discussion board to which I regularly donate money to ask fellow members if they've read anything put this to rest, then it isn't really a discussion board.

So, thanks for your concern, but you're way off on my intentions for asking for information on this matter.

[DefenseLawyer]

25. I am not attacking you. Really.

It may seem like I am, and I apologize for the tone and for my frustration. My only point is that if there are still people that would actually buy that crap as a reason to vote for Mccain, those people are a lost cause. You are wasting your energy trying to convert those people. It's late. Forgive me.

[NYC_SKP]

30. No problem, DefenseLawyer.

I get tired of the "help me debunk..." threads myself, but as someone who gets into conversations with swing voters, I just like to have the best data and there's plenty of great data at DU.

IndyJones had a couple informative comments.

Take care, DL! :toast:

[Jed Dilligan]

12. There are then forty five million Americans

who never buy anything but unprepared food. Ever heard of a sales tax, Steve?

[IndyJones]

13. Sales taxes are a state tax, not a federal tax. They are talking about fed, not state.

[Jed Dilligan]

14. He said "pay no taxes." Might as well take his words at face value.

Poor people who are exempt from income tax generally pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than people who pay income tax.

[IndyJones]

15. Yes, you should. And since Obama can't control state taxes, he could only be talking about fed.

[Jed Dilligan]

18. To me this isn't an election issue.

It's an issue of demonizing the poor by acting like they get something for free.

[IndyJones]

21. I don't think that explaining how the tax credits will work and how much

they will cost is demonizing the poor. It's just talking about how it will work and how much it will cost.

I don't like that it creates disincentives for people to earn greater than $40K. If the WSJ perspective is wrong, I'd like to see another perspective that shows how it's wrong and how it does not create disincentives to earn more than $40K.

[Jed Dilligan]

49. "Disincentive" = right wing bullshit

[goletian]

17. tax credits are already in place. so some people dont pay taxes because...

they are already benefiting from existing refundable tax credits that reduce their taxable income. its dishonest to say its welfare, imo. mccains health plan idea depends on a refundable tax credit, too. also keep in mind, when people talk of individuals who work and pay no taxes, theyre including people who do pay taxes but are refunded what they pay into the system, or sometimes get more back than they pay in, due to refundable tax credits. these have been in place for a while, and i believe they have bipartisan support as theyre a good way to help low earners.

[EFerrari]

19. What is persuasive about it? It's just the same right wing bullshit

that says somehow Democrats are going to give away free money.

It's obviously false.

People who don't pay taxes don't get tax breaks.

[IndyJones]

22. You don't have to pay taxes to get tax credits.

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96466,00.html#QA2

[EFerrari]

26. Everyone who files has paid something.

Even if you wind up getting a refund via a tax credit, the government has used your money for a year.

[IndyJones]

28. No, plenty of self-employed individuals haven't paid anything.

[EFerrari]

34. Self employed people have to file quarterly reports

to be in the system.

If they're not in the system, they can't get a tax credit.

[IndyJones]

37. Of course they can. File a Schedule C with the 1040. Those who don't owe money

for quarterly payments or who just don't do quarterlies won't file them. I have seen enough Schedule Cs to see that people often don't file quarterlies. It's not necessary to file them to file the annual return and get tax credits.

[EFerrari]

39. Most (the few) people who go down that route wind up in court.

Are you also afraid welfare queens will spend your money on their crack?

[IndyJones]

40. No they don't. Okay, now you're just making stuff up. If you don't pay your

quarterly taxes, then you pay them with the 1040 along with a late payment penalty, unless you have tax credits that exceed your liability in which case you still owe nothing.

I don't know where the welfare queens comment comes from, but I'm guessing that you have to toss that sort of comment out there because you are making this stuff up as you go.

Please show me an example of someone who is in court for not paying quarterly taxes when they owe zero and get a refund when they file their 1040.

[EFerrari]

47. No, that's not the point. The point is that the few people who

don't turn in quarterly payments wind up finding themselves in trouble at some point or another. And don't bother with the browbreating, I've helped too many bosses get ready to deal with IRS or with the State or with the Social Security Administration.

[NYC_SKP]

29. But you do have to be a wage earner, right?

Which suggests that the credit is a credit against income taxes due, and not available to non-working people, right?

A2. To claim the EITC on your tax return, you must meet all of the following rules:

*
Must have a valid Social Security Number
*
You must have earned income from employment or from self-employment.
*
Your filing status cannot be married, filing separately.
*
You must be a U.S. citizen or resident alien all year, or a nonresident alien married to a U.S. citizen or resident alien and filing a joint return.

:shrug:

[IndyJones]

31. You have to file a tax return, so yes, you would have to show some sort of income.

I'm not sure what point you're making. (Not being snarky, just trying to understand.) :)

[IndyJones]

33. I think I see what you're saying. A tax credit can bring your liability

to a negative number, meaning a refund.

So it is possible to have a low or zero liability and tax credits that exceed those amounts to give you a refund.

Is that what you're saying?

[NYC_SKP]

41. I don't know if that's what would happen or if that's the intent of the candidate.

I think the most that could happen is that the credit would be counted against any taxes withheld, but only up to the amount withheld.

As I re-watched the debate, Obama was careful in saying "95% of working americans would get a tax break.

I expect to hear utter BS from talk show hosts, but when Steve Schneider pushed the meme on CSPAN after the debate, I was pretty surprised at the assertion, which I think is just made up, but over the top in my memory of what comes out of the official campaign.

[NYC_SKP]

23. That it's right wing bullshit doesn't mean that it doesn't have legs with a few.

I've been phonebanking a lot, particulars like this don't hardly ever come up in a conversation, but sometimes the respondent wants a response.

As someone who likes to have the facts, I'd like to read an article that lays it to rest.

Maybe there isn't one, maybe nobody's cared to dignify the bullshit with a rebuttal, but I'm getting tired of hearing it and if it's ever raised to me I'd like to have something to say other than that's bullshit, a response that doesn't exactly scream "I have the facts".

As I said upthread, all I can figure is that they are twisting words and context, saying "well if you're giving 90% of americans a break, I guess that means writing checks to even nontaxpayers".

Almost every BS talking point has been debunked, no matter how high it's BS content, I just thought that someone might have a link.

:patriot:

[EFerrari]

32. I understand and sorry, I don't have a link.

The real message here is that Democrats will give YOUR money away to poor (minority) people. The right wing really is that horrible.

The problem we have is not the $200 poor working people get back on a tax credit but the zero corporations pay. But, trust the Republicans to focus on the small change and not the billions that the Bush administration "lost" in Iraq.

[IndyJones]

35. Even if you agree with his tax plan, can you see that it is not good to create

disincentives for people to want to earn more? His tax plan creates a disincentive for people to earn over $40K and I think that really needs to be examined further.

[EFerrari]

36. No tax plan ever will stop people from earning more than $40K.

In general, people want to be able to feed and clothe and house their families.

[IndyJones]

38. So you don't see the disincentive? Plenty of others do, fortunately and

hopefully it would be addressed.

[EFerrari]

48. Yes, plenty of people do and we call those people Republicans. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

42. After all these years of greed, I'm cool with nobody earning under 20K paying taxes.

So if checks are written to refund 100% of their withholdings, fine.

We've all been fucked for too long, and this last few years is just unbelievable.

My retirement was in my house, now worth 1/2 of it's former value, and in AIG/Valic, and a little 401k.

[TheKentuckian]

43. disincentive?

People went out and built wealth in much higher tax environments. It seems folks were ecstatic to make millions, even when the top rate was 70 and even 90%.

Are people foolish enough to suggest that they'd walk over thousands and maybe tens of thousands because someone that makes much less pays a smaller percentage?

If you want to make that trade then I'd have to call you a spiteful fool.

If we weren't socialist under Reagan then we'll be less socialist than that under Obama if tax rates are the issue. I don't know why we even give voodoo economics the time of day. All those principles have REPEATEDLY shown to be false. I don't care how simple, great, and fair they sound because the reality on the ground is the crap doesn't work for 95% of our citizens or our country and most of that 5% is deluded like the Joe the Plumbers of the world. Its really only working for the top 2%.

[No Elephants]

44. Neither factcheck nor anyone else can keep up with the lies. But, what about doing your own

research?

[NYC_SKP]

45. Working on it, DU is one resource for research. nt

[and-justice-for-all]

46. We will get a check???

I doubt that.

We will be paying lower taxes or at least it will remain the same and not go up. Where as people making over 250,000 a year will see a tax increase. Which I doubt they will even notice. When they put more money in the middle classes pockets, they will spend it. The middle class and poor make up over 95% of the population, so they will in fact be feeding their tax break right back into the economy their buy creating jobs.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Greedy rich people horde their money, stash it in offshore accounts even to avoid taxes, which is a crime. So why continue to give them tax breaks while the majority suffer because of it. ENOUGH.

Capitalism needs a stake driven right into its heart.