Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 10/ 1/2008

Obama's 'Trillion Dollar' Spending Plan

By Michael Dobbs


"Under Barack Obama's plan, the government would spend a trillion dollars more, even after the bailout. A trillion dollars. Who pays? You do. New taxes. New spending. New debt. Barack Obama's plan: It will make the problem worse."
Republican National Committee Ad, Septemebr 30, 2008

A new GOP ad claims that Barack Obama is planning to spend "a trillion dollars" in new government programs, such as health care and investments in green technology. John McCain has made a very similar claim. In a campaign stop Monday, in Columbus, Ohio, the Republican presidential candidate said that his Democratic rival was proposing "more than $860 million" in new spending. The Obama camp contests the claim. So what is the truth?

The Facts

There is clearly a significant philosophical difference between the two candidates on taxing and spending. Independent analyses show that McCain would raise less money in taxes than Obama, but he would also spend less. According to the independent Tax Policy Center, neither candidate does anything significant to curb the projected increase in the size of the national debt by trillions of dollars over the next decade.

The non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculates that Obama has promised a total of $990 billion in new spending over his first four-year term. At the same time, he has also proposed spending cuts that amount to around $989 billion, so the net cost roughly balances out. The debt will continue to increase, more or less in line with current projections, based on keeping most of the Bush tax cuts.

"Obama has talked about a lot of new spending initiatives, but he has also talked about new ways to curb spending," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee, whose detailed budget analyses are available here. "I give him points for holding the line."

A very different calculation has been made by the conservative National Taxpayers Union, which has compiled a much more detailed list of the two candidates' proposed spending plans. According to NTU calculations, Obama is proposing net spending increases of around $292 billion a year, or more than $1 trillion over four years.

The NTU Foundation tally includes many smaller spending proposals (less than $2 billion each) ignored by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Together, these campaign promises add up to tens of billions of dollars a year. But that by itself is not sufficient to explain the discrepancy between the two thinktanks. The NTU Foundation appears to be using a different methodology for some of the big-ticket items, such as health care spending. Over the next few weeks, I will attempt to compare the two sets of analyses to determine which is closer to the truth.

The NTU Foundation looks only at spending, and makes no attempt to look at the overall fiscal implications of the two candidates' tax plans. Senior analyst Demian Brady said it was unclear whether the Obama spending proposals would be financed by tax increases, or an increase in the national debt.

Jason Furman, a senior Obama economics adviser, dismissed the NTU analysis as politically "partisan." He said that the NTU was counting Obama's refundable health tax credits as extra government "spending," and ignored various spending cuts proposed by Obama. The McCain campaign did not respond for a request for comment.

The Pinocchio Test

Barack Obama has proposed a series of big new spending initiatives on the campaign trail. He has also proposed some significant spending cuts. Economists disagree about the likely fiscal impact of the Obama proposals. Even allowing for this disagreement, it is nevertheless clear that neither the Obama plan, nor the McCain plan, will put the country back on the path to fiscal health. Neither campaign is being completely honest about the economic challenges ahead. Two Pinocchios apiece.

(About our rating scale.)

By Michael Dobbs  | October 1, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  2 Pinocchios, Ad Watch, Barack Obama, Economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Great Bracelet Debate
Next: Vice Presidential Debate: St Louis

Comments

Is there no end to the distortions, exaggerations and outright lies of McCain and his supporters? I thought the outrageous lie about sex education for preschoolers was beyond the pale. Now this? It is a shame how far McCain, a once honest and straight talking man, has fallen.

Posted by: Tim | October 1, 2008 6:44 AM | Report abuse

wg802yojiq6aiw3 http://www.582033.com/538936.html > rqevs82z5eq [URL=http://www.1072783.com/780826.html] 7hjb98on0a [/URL] gqnl39lv7gwo3jyt

Posted by: ovqng5h94o | October 1, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

9suhv4hcuu9ruwb04 http://www.159602.com/1034919.html > 9t7flzgjtmumw [URL=http://www.750997.com/927765.html] 9s2g7kul [/URL] 9zil8gdssedqt9iu

Posted by: s41df9mj4o | October 1, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

The hyperlink in the first paragraph needs to say "more than $860 billion". The implications of the misquote are amusing.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

http://4thoffense.com/mc.html

John McCain sponsored this bill TEN MONTHS after it died in committee and more a year and a half after it was first submitted. He did NOTHING to revive the bill and is using this as an excuse for his efforts at regulation. This man has no shame.

Check out http://thomas.loc.gov and sarch for the bill S.190 for the 109th congress. There are 3 cosponsors. Two of them were real and one was fake.

COSPONSORS(3)
Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] - 1/26/2005
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] - 1/26/2005
Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 5/25/2006

http://4thoffense.com/mc.html

Posted by: Stop Lying, McCain! | October 1, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Your analysis is flawed since Obama has already indicated that under his administration the bush tax cuts will expire and return to pre-bush methodology; thus ending the regressive cuts rammed thru by GOP legislative control.

Fact checker veracity also requires monitoring.

Posted by: Jaybee | October 1, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

An update to the "Fact-Checker" tally since end of June, to illustrate the 'balance' that the Washington Post brings to the policital landscape.

- 15 against McCain/Palin
- 5 against Obama/Biden
- 5 neutral

Posted by: dbw1 | October 1, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

What's wrong with spending that makes our economy more productive?

Nothing--the problem is when spending has the opposite effect.

The acid tests are:

A. Does GDP grow faster than National Debt -- i.e. is Nat Debt/GDP going down? Under Republicans, the answer has been NO. Under Democrats the answer has been YES.

B. Does DGP grow faster than gov spending -- i.e. does gov spending as a percentage of GDP decline? Under Republicans, the answer has been NO. Under Democrats, the answer has been yes.

McCain wants to retain and deepen Bush tax cuts, while freezing spending except for the Military. Since Bush's tax cuts create a structural deficit, spending on interest on the Nat Debt will grow too. The net result will be starving public investment and a national debt and government expenditures that grow faster than the GDP. More of the same.

Posted by: mnjam | October 1, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I have just discovered that your newspaper and comments on this election is pro-McCain and anti-Obama. This is not good enough. I had expected a balanced analyses from you or your newspaper on the on-going electionary campaign but am highly disappointed(Presidential Election).

If you are aware of the enormous difficulties ahead of the U.S. citizens resulting from the greed and acts of the lobbists in Washington who are now running Mccain's election, you won't run Obama down the way(s) you have done with your newspaper. Please let us join hands together to fight these Washington rougues who have held us hostage for over eight years of Bush administration, which McCain has supported more than 90%(ninety percent). They have fixed America and her citizens into thier pockets. They are after what's good for them and not what's good for the majarity of Americans, who are not as wealthy as they are. They have become oppressors. They must be defeated this time around. What President Bill Clinton built for Americans in eight years have been destroyed by these people in less than four years and created the worst economic disaster for us which last occured in the great depression of the 1930s in U. S. history. Today, these people are all around McCain, bringing out falsehood and obnoxious ads against Obama and you seem to be happy about it, going by your comments and analyses.

Remember what happens to the head goes down the entire body. America is the head of the entire world and what happens to America affects the rest of the world hence the financial crises in U.S. tumbled the financial markets from Cape Town in South Africa to Cairo in Egypt, from Lusaka through Abuja to Banjul. Ask the man in Mosco,London, Paris, Rome Sidney, Seoul, Pyongyang, Tokyo, Toronto, Beijing, Hong Kong, Rio De Janeiro, etc. They will tell you their financial crises stem from the problems in U.S. financial market. The entire world need a change in United States so that the mess the Bush administration, which MaCain supported ninety percent puts us will be cleared.

Thanks and have a good day.

Posted by: Goddy Omoijiahina. | October 1, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

dbw - The Fact Checker isn't there to provide a false sense of balance. It's to look at claims as they come up. Obama picked up 4 Pinnochios, deservedly, for distorting McCain's position on social security. McCain likewise for claiming that Obama wanted to teach sex ed to kindergardeners. [By that definition, my toddlers' interest in their pee pees qualifies as sex ed.]

Rather than post ad hominem attacks, respond to the analysis of the day. You don't dispute the Fact Checker's analysis, so you attacked the Fact Checker as partisan.

I say the sun is going to rise. You say I'm an idiot. Therefore, the sun isn't going to rise?

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | October 1, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Just like Clinton Obama will throuw out his campaign pledges within 3 months of taking office. To understand Obama is to understand his cronies in the current crisis.

How did the Fannie Mae fiascos get us to the current crisis, below is a very good start of the culprits so greatly appreciated by Dodd, Frank, Obama, Pelosi and crowd wishing to get this whitewashed with the bailout.
Where are they now, followed by how they got there:
FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor
TIM HOWARD? ?Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
JIM JOHNSON? ?Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee
IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE EXPERTISE - THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. ? Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street ?

Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street.

Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. ?Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae ?when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years." ?Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.

Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ . The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner." ?These charges were made in 2006. ?The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.

Net windfall . . . $190 million!

Tim Howard - ?Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books. ?The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,"

On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.

Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!

Jim Johnson - ? A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. ? A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." ? Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. ?

Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.

Posted by: johs | October 1, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"A very different calculation has been made by the conservative National Taxpayers Union, which has compiled a much more detailed list of the two candidates' proposed spending plans. According to NTU calculations,..."

The appearance of that passage in what purports to be the "fact check" column of the Washington Post tells you all you need to know about the sorry state of our political discourse.

Posted by: zukermand | October 1, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Exactly what was your point, Zukermand?
That the NTU is marked as conservative and the other as nonpartisan? That the NTU calculation wasn't fact checked? If so, you deliberately ignore the later statement: "Over the next few weeks, I will attempt to compare the two sets of analyses to determine which is closer to the truth."

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | October 1, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Jennifer | October 1, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

If spending continues, this country will go broke, or the "rich" will have to pay very high taxes to pay to keep the government going. Obama, if elected, will not be able to resist more government programs. The plan by the Democrats is to have more than 50% of the electorate pay no taxes. The problem with this is, there will be fewer wealthy people left to make up the difference. The wealthy are not stupid and will find ways to shelter or move their money to a safe haven. When that happens, the country will collapse.

Posted by: Jeff in Orlando | October 1, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

The present economic mess affects us all in a very immediate way and the American public has a right to know how we got to this point. I urge you to watch the you tube video listed below with an open mind, as an independent thinker. If you feel it has value, please pass it  along. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4

Posted by: Janet Lovelady | October 1, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Goodness, Republicans complainging Democrats deregulated the finance market?
What next, cats barking at dogs?

After reading this guy for the last several months I've got to point out he routinely irritates me and I'm very liberal and would not normally consider voting for McCain.
So when I see conservatives claiming he's in the tank for my candidate, I have to assume he's at least trying to maintain a non-partisan position. The proof he is non partisan is not that he agrees with you all the time, it's that he doesn't (if your a partisan, like me).

Posted by: dijetlo | October 1, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

In your "Four Pinocchios for Biden's Tax Fabrication" article, you gave Biden four Pinocchios for stating the costs of a measure while ignoring the savings from it.

Now when the RNC does exactly the same thing, you give them two? How do you justify these apparent contradictions in your standards?

In this article you give the Obama campaign two Pinocchios, but you don't actually claim any specific false or misleading statement made by his campaign. The statement in question in this column was made by the RNC.

The only negative thing you really said about was that Obama didn't propose any plan to deal with the mounting debt. While this is true, he hasn't made any claim to the contrary. It makes you look like a hypocrite when you give away Pinocchios for policies you don't like, rather than facts.

It almost seems like you just threw in 2 Pinocchios for Obama so that you wouldn't get complaints from the conservatives about "liberal media bias".

The irony here is that you just had an article about working the refs, but seem completely unaware that you've been worked over yourself.

SHOW SOME JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY OR GO BACK ON VACATION, DOBBS!

Posted by: Fact Wrecker | October 1, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Fairlington Blade:

First, I don't recall calling you an "idiot".

Second, if you had been around you would know that the "Fact-Checker" has blissfully ignored many unsubstantiated claims made by Obama and Biden in speeches and ads. The "Fact-Checker" tends to obsessively "check" on only McCain/Palin claims and ads, and has humorously accused McCain of "lying" even when McCain merely used the Washington Post as his source.

So your ignorance aside, the tally is no "ad hominem" attack, although you can give yourself a star for using a big word today.

Otherwise, your response is lacking in anything substantive, so I guess maybe you are an idiot....

Posted by: dbw1 | October 1, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"An update to the "Fact-Checker" tally since end of June, to illustrate the 'balance' that the Washington Post brings to the policital landscape."
---
Or to illustrate the 3-1 lie ratio McCain brings to the election.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor

JIM JOHNSON? ?Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee "
Zukermand
--------
Ok, now let's look at the facts, Obama's relationship with Raines amounts to an Obama aide taking a phone call from Raines. Raines has never worked for or consulted with the Obama campaign.

So please don't lie, it screws up the democratic process.

Jim Johnson was hired to be on the VP selection committee, he was let go early on in the process.

Shall we bring up Rick Davis?, you know, McCain's CAMPAIGN MANAGER who was still receiving payments as a lobbyist for Freddie/Fannie up until Aug. apparently for doing nothing?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

An update to the "Fact-Checker" tally since end of June, to illustrate the 'balance' that the Washington Post brings to the policital landscape.

- 15 against McCain/Palin
- 5 against Obama/Biden
- 5 neutral

You seem to be indicating that the "Fact-Checker" is bias. Quoting numbers proves nothing, other than McCain/Palin have told more lies. If you want balance, write the McCain campaign, and tell them to stop lying.

Quit blaming the 'liberal' media for McCain's problems. You, Fox News and the rest of the Neocons are pathetic. You've taken this country back in history almost 70 years.

We're all tired of it. PLEASE SHUT UP!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Dear Senator McCain,

You have asked for my help. Now I'm asking for yours. I love this country. I have been a loyal GOP supporter for many years and HAVE made a donation to your candidacy. But myself and many other supporters are getting the feeling that you just don't understand that you can't allow the Dems and liberal media to get away with this financial debacle that they have caused themselves and are blaming on the GOP as usual. And, this VP debate being hosted by Gwen Ifill? What is with that? If you want our continued financial support, you will have to start fighting back. That recent TV interview with your supposed captor at the "Hanoi Hilton" was over the top! Please don't allow this country to go down the toilet. I respectfully ask that you immediately cancel this debate unless a "Fair and Balanced" host is found. It IS time to point fingers at the perpetrators and it's your ONLY chance if you expect to win in November. You have the nomination. Don't go down without a fight. Don't let us down!

Republican-Veteran-Patriot

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Jeff in Orlando wrote:

"If spending continues, this country will go broke, or the "rich" will have to pay very high taxes to pay to keep the government going. Obama, if elected, will not be able to resist more government programs."

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

That would seem to be his plan:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series8.aspx

Posted by: NativeNorthernVirginian | October 1, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous:

You only prove you are one of the dolts who continues to assume Obama/Biden can do no wrong.

There have been plenty of Obama/Biden fish-tales recently ('McCain wants to give $300B to the rich' or 'helicopter forced down in Al Quaeda territory', anyone?), and the Post "Fact-Checker" continues to display lop-sided bias by deciding those aren't "newsworthy", and continues to pound away on any perceived mis-step by McCain/Palin.

To pretend that the running tally of the Fact-Checker is what it is because McCain/Palin is lying more than Obama/Biden is the height of stupidity...and you qualify with flying colors.

Either you are willfully blind, or just not very bright. Either one isn't a good choice....

Posted by: dbw1 | October 1, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous:
"So please don't lie, it screws up the democratic process."

First, you implore McCain backers to "please don't lie".....and then you lie about Rick Davis.

Nice. Thanks for adding zero value to the discussion.

Posted by: dbw1 | October 1, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

dbw1 is upset because so far we have these tallies:

- 15 against McCain/Palin
- 5 against Obama/Biden
- 5 neutral

dbw1! beware the "symmetry of sin" or perhaps more appropriatly "the sin of symmetry". In other words, you can't damn the Washington Post for this.

Here is a suggestion to help you understand.

Google this:

"pattern of deceit presidential campaign"

Do you want to blame WAPO for these results? You know what the problem is here?? I think I just hit on something. We have LIBERAL INTERNETS!!

http://www.google.com/search?q=pattern+of+deceit+presidential+campaign

More about "symmetry of sin" here (sorry but it is another WaPo article).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091602874.html

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a liar, and you are fools to believe his lies.

Obama says that he will tax the upper 5% and not tax the lower 95%.

That is a lie.

Obama can't fund all of the spending he proposes unless he get's more tax revenue, and additional taxes on the upper 5% simply do not provide enough revenue. And the bailout will also require more taxes.

So get ready middle class. You will be taxed.

And you are fools if you think that you will not be taxed simply because Obama made a promise.

Obama's promises are worthless.

Obama has lied to us before, and he has voted to raise taxes on us before. That is his record.

Posted by: You_correctly | October 1, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama and Biden tried to ram thru the Senate Forein Relatiosn committee their Global Poverty Act which GUARANTEES that the US will send about 85 BILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY to the UN for other countries. Can u imagine what that will do to our economy ? They care about OTHER countries ...What about us Obama ????

Posted by: junglejim123 | October 1, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Exactly what was your point, Zukermand?
That the NTU is marked as conservative and the other as nonpartisan? That the NTU calculation wasn't fact checked? If so, you deliberately ignore the later statement: "Over the next few weeks, I will attempt to compare the two sets of analyses to determine which is closer to the truth."
BB
Posted by: Fairlington Blade
==================

The NTU exists to muddy the water and propagandize on behalf of the GOP. A "fact check" column should never cite other than authoritative and reliable sources unless they are the subject of the article. Uncritical references like this confer undue legitimacy and should be discouraged.

Posted by: zukermand | October 1, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

We aint voting for no one what spends more money than we can count. ...............
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/10/01/rednecks-for-palin-wasilla-aa/

Posted by: Ohg Rea Tone | October 1, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Reply to Republican Veteran. Give me a break and go do some push-up or sit-ups. First of all the woman, is only going to ask questions, in which both candidates will have to answer. It's not like she is sent there to interrogate the candidates. Wait minute! maybe you have a problem with the color of her skin. The truth of the matter is, your candidate wants to leave this country in war with everyone, and that is what's killing us financially. Your first homeboy(BUSH), which apparently all you republicans seem to pretend as if he does not exist and that you put him in office. You republicans are responsible for americans decline, because you elected an idiot to office, and here we go again, you want to put McCain, who honestly could bit the big one at any time, and sorry, but you guys know darn well, Palin is not prepared to be the vice-president, but you still want to put them in office. And it's not country first, it's american people first, if we are taken care of, then the country will be taken care of. It's apparent, that while your time in the military, you weren't in charge of any soldiers....2-time Iraq War Veteran.

Posted by: Independent Iraq War Veteran | October 1, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

On Wednesday, the Times reported that Freddie Mac had paid Davis's firm, Davis Manafort, a monthly retainer free of $15,000 from the end of 2005 through August 2008. Similar reports appeared in The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Roll Call, and Newsweek.

The McCain campaign responded to the latest batch of reports with a classic non-denial denial: It furiously rebutted something that was never alleged. A McCain blog entry by spokesman Michael Goldfarb said that the New York Times had made a "demonstrably false" allegation, charging that "Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month."

In fact, the newspaper reports pointed out that the payments were to Davis's firm, rather than Davis himself, and that Davis is not receiving a salary from his company while working for McCain. The reports also noted that Davis remains a partner in Davis Manafort and stands to benefit over the long term from its success. Davis's close ties with McCain were cited as the primary reason for payment of the retainer by Freddie Mac to Davis Manafort.

Even as it attacks the New York Times as "an Obama advocacy organization," the McCain campaign frequently e-mails reporters with articles from the paper that critically examine the record of the Democratic presidential candidate.

Posted by: McCain is Dishonest | October 1, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

sorry forgot to cite the source on that above quote:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/?hpid=news-col-blog-viewall

Posted by: McCain is Dishonest | October 1, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Reply to You_correctly: Well at least he can remember to lie. Your boy has one foot in the graveyard and the other on his casket. And his VP selection is a joke, this is job that runs the world, not shoot wolves from helicopters or take pictures with a moose. I am tired of you republicans finding the most non-intelligent people to endorse and think, Oh they are the best thing for the country(Bush)Sorry, you guys don't want to claim him anymore. And your boy McCain has not stopped lying for the last 30 years, he told the biggest lie, when he chose his VP, out of all the intelligent republican women, he could have chose. He chose the one that has no earthly idea of what's going on. And the interview with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, both of whom are republicans, showed exaclty what McCain thinks of the American people.

Posted by: Independent Iraq War Veteran | October 1, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

dbw - You apparently misunderstand the meaning of "ad hominem" as well as deliberately misconstrued my remarks. [Yes, I use 4 syllable words on occasion. Read slowly if you must. I'll wait for you to finish.]

You didn't dispute the Fact Checker's analysis. You simply attacked the Fact Checker in hopes that the rubes would then dismiss anything written in the column. Guess what? We're not idiots.

Since you didn't understand the example, I'll put it in different terms. I say: It's going to rain tomorrow. You respond: you're a socialist! Guess what? It's STILL going to rain tomorrow. It doesn't matter if the forecast was made on CNN or Fox News.

And just to finish off on a formal note. The definition of ad hominem:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument {McCain distorts the facts} or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making {the Fact Checker is a commie pinko liberal} the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington blade | October 1, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Zukermand - thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure if your objection was the labeling of NTU or its usage.

I respectfully disagree as I think the Fact Checker injected a little saline solution (as in a grain of...) into the commentary. Including smaller proposals seems legitimate; wholesale recalculation isn't. However, I trust our dear Messr. Dobbs to fact check NTU as effectively as he has sex-ed to kindergardeners, corkscrew landings in Bosnia, and other campaign oddities.

Cheers,

BB

Posted by: Fairlington blade | October 1, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

zuckermand:
"The NTU exists to muddy the water and propagandize on behalf of the GOP."

You mean sort of like the Washington Post exists to propagandize on behalf of the DNC?

Posted by: dbw1 | October 2, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Fairlington blade:
"You didn't dispute the Fact Checker's analysis. You simply attacked the Fact Checker in hopes that the rubes would then dismiss anything written in the column. Guess what? We're not idiots."

But you sure are doing your best to prove that you are what you claim not to be....an idiot.

I have challenged several "Fact-Checks" by Michael Dobbs, as he continues an obvious campaign for Obama/Biden. So you can pretend, as ignorant folks are prone to, that this particular article exists in a vacuum.

I have responded to and challenged several previous "Fact-Checks"; feel free to scroll back through a few if you are dying to know my opinion of those.

But sticking your head in the sand and pretending a 15-5 lopsided tally by Michael Dobbs doesn't mean anything only proves that you have very limited capacity for intellegent thought.

Posted by: dbw1 | October 2, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Fairlington blade:

You argue that my demonstration of Michael Dobbs previous bias against McCain is irrelavent to the discussion of this particular "Fact Check".

So then you must obviously agree that if Sean Hannity accuses Obama of communist ties via Bill Ayers, we should just take it at face value and assume Obama must have communist leanings, rather than include in the analysis that everyone knows Hannity supports McCain?

See how your shallow logic doesn't work when you apply it to the other side of the road? Maybe you should cut-and-paste some more big-word definitions from your dictionary this morning, since you are clearly better at pasting the words of others than developing your own line of thought....

Posted by: dbw1 | October 2, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

a VERY liberal media sourse,
as a fact checker?
this is a perfect example
of how obama lies like a
rug, and without independent
media in amerika...
they just keep pushing the
propaganda. the last democrat
to get elected, was also a
blantant liar. I remember the
bill clinton tax cuts, THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
just like this jokers lies.
I wonder if obama knows the meaning
of 'IS'.....
I'm sure he 'gets it'
just like monica and bill did.
good luck you dopes!!!
NOBAMA

Posted by: steelworker for mccain | October 2, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA 08'!

Posted by: morgan | October 2, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse


First of all, Obama strongly supports responsible government spending and voted in 2005, 2006, and 2007 to reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) federal budget rules, requiring new increases in discretionary spending to be offset by a reduction in other areas of government spending.

He's benn outspoken about abuse of NO-BID GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS and plans to put a stop to it. For ex, wasteful and fraudulent contracting for hurricane recovery in the Gulf Coast cost the US taxpayer $2 BILLION.

And did you miss the KERRY-OBAMA FAIR SHARE ACT/2008, Bob, which put a stop to the fleecing of the American taxpayer by US government contractors. THE FAIR SHARE ACT CLOSES THE LOOPHOLE that allowed firms like KBR, subsidiary of VP Cheney's Halliburton, to avoid paying Social Security & Medicare taxes by creating shell companies in Cayman Islands. Smart action taken by Kerry-Obama will generate SEVERAL BILLION DOLLARS annually that Bush-Cheney threw away.

Obama proposed closing the ENRON LOOPHOLE in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, inserted into the bill by Sen. Phil Gramm (supported by John McCain) allowing the gaming of oil prices by speculators. The Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC) predicts that closing this loophole could reduce the price of crude oil by 25% & REDUCE THE GOST OF GASOLINE AT THE PUMP BY AS MUCH AS 50%. The CLOSE THE ENRON LOOPHOLE ACT /2007 was fought against fiercely by lobbyist, Wayne Berman, Co-Chair of McCain's Finance Committee, but finally incorporated into the 2007 Farm Nutrition, and Bioenergy Bill that recently passed Congress. This is the "Farm Bill" McCain, during the presidential debate, sneeringly criticized Obama for supporting, accusing him of endorsing "pork". BUT, McCain, a no-show for the vote, omitted the fact that the "Farm Bill" may also give back to voters 1/3 to 1/2 the money they're currently spending on gas!

Obama's been specific about Washington waste - citing, for ex, that in 2007, $1 BILLION was wasted on a reading program that doesn’t help children learn to read. HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in improper payments for Medicare and Medicaid, thanks to a Republican lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry . $4 BILLION LOST ANNUALLY in corruption-based Iraq-related spending. And every year federal taxpayers pay $60 BILLION to provide corporate welfare and special interest tax breaks.

Just by scratching the surface - Obama has already identified at least $300 BILLION a year in savings. And, of course, after a responsible withdrawal from Iraq at the appropriate time, $150 BILLION of escalating debt will be stopped.

Obama has introduced or been a co-sponsor of FIVE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS to clean up Washington, curb the influence of lobbyists and eliminate earmarks abuse: Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act, Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, The Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness through Advance Notification, Updates, and Posting Act (The CLEAN UP Act), Google for Government Act

Obama doesn't just talk, or whine about "pork barrel spending", he has already taken action and has more very specific plans to stop government waste, improve transparency (no more energy bills which cheat the taxpayer created behind closed doors by Vice President Cheney!) close down loopholes and free up budgets - all explained in detail in the pdf below.
obama.3cdn.net/0080cc578614b42284_2a0mvyxpz.pdf

Posted by: Annemarie | October 2, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse


http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/addi/

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404EFDD173CF932A25751C1A9659C8B63
The Comptroller of the Currency ruled in August in an individual case that national banks did not have to comply with state predatory lending laws. It then proposed to make formal its decision to grant all national banks exemptions from state lending laws.

State officials and consumer groups have opposed the move to override state laws aimed at protecting consumers, including those to curb ''predatory'' lending practices.

"I understand that the regulatory barriers at the federal, state, and local levels can add as much as 35 percent of the cost to the homes. In order to make sure there's more affordable homes, we must remove the regulatory barriers on our home builders." George W Bush

http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr04-006.cfm&CFID=13434646&CFTOKEN=29731262

Bush's Zero Downpayment initiative

Republicans love claiming Clinton Did it.

Posted by: Donaldd | October 2, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

OMG, ya'll are all acting like the politicians. For me, the truth is as in Jerry McGuire "Show me the money". This is all that is required, show us the facts of this "Bail-out". We are not stupid people, therefore let us advise what should or should not go into this "New" Bailout. Come on, I dare you. Put up or shut up.
Contact your Congress representative. This bupkus of how to treat (protect) Wall St. golden parachutes should be taken off the table altogether.
Tks.

Posted by: Gayla S. | October 2, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Jennifer | October 2, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone even read the loooooong boring ranting entrys. Just wondering

Posted by: Mary | October 2, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

LIGHTNING POLL: $700 Billion Bailout?

http://www.votenic.com

Posted by: Joe | October 2, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me anonymous "letter to Senator McCain." It is amusing for you to insist that McCain "cancel" the debate until someone "fair and balanced," can host the debate. How about listening to the debate and forming an independent opinion. Or you could go to FOX afterwards for the neocon version. Fair and balanced is an oxymoron invented by FOX News, itself an oxymoron. Maybe Bush could be the moderator, we know how honest he is. To insinuate that the debate will be anything other than fair just shows your ignorance and partisanship. And your signature Republican Veteran.....just stop there, adding Patriot is just redundant since we are all patriots. I don't need to wear it on my sleeve or make proclamations then insisting anyone with a different opinion isn't a patriot. So please stop branding yourself Patriot, act like one. It reminds me of the person I worked with years ago who carried a bible constantly, claimed to be so pious, honest, caring. Turns out he lived off of and beat his wife, tried to pick up mine and was generally a loser. We referred to him as PePe.
I enjoy the many varied sources for news, fact checks, etc. and I'm sure by the way we don't need to be in IRAQ any longer than they want or need us there. Have a good day...

Posted by: Randy - Cleveland | October 2, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

A curious coincidence! On 0:11 of this add it looks like it says "buy gun with money", no?. Then from 0:13 to 0:16, sentences "fire" at Obama. True, False?

Posted by: Bing Wyse | October 2, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

I live in Michigan and when we had a chance to elect a businessman (Dick Devos) as governor, we sent a liberal democrat (Granholm) back to office. In the dictionary you would find Michigander between masochist & moron. With Obama's sleazy associates, I don't even know how he can get a security clearance! Guess this state wants Obama to spread socialism to the rest of the country. Misery loves company!

Posted by: Janine | October 4, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Well said.

"An update to the "Fact-Checker" tally since end of June, to illustrate the 'balance' that the Washington Post brings to the policital landscape."

- 15 against McCain/Palin
- 5 against Obama/Biden
- 5 neutral

Posted by: BIZ OWNER | October 6, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

If either candidate thinks that he can continue "business-as-usual" in Washington, he should probably think again.

The economic problems of the country will make it difficult, if not impossible, to spend more money, thereby putting the US government in an even worse economic situation than it currently faces.

I sincerely hope that the childish economic policies of the Bush administration have shown convincingly the need for a responsible executive.

From what I have seen during this campaign, John McCain is not responsible enough for the job he seeks. Instead, he has shown himself hysterical and clueless about the lives of most of the citizens he wishes to rule.

Posted by: marik7 | October 6, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

After reading all the comments posted above I see stark and heated difference between the sain and the liberals. I say take a look at the red and blue county by county and split the country in two. You guys have yours and we have ours. And if one has to go into the ohters area then that would just increase revenue for the other. If one has to go to L.A on N.Y. for work the get revenue for that. If one wants to go on vacation in Nor. Cal. or skiing in Idaho they get revenue. Try it for 4 years and see which is better overall and adapt it for everyone. I know it's a dumb idea you dumbass, I'm just sick of hearing the hate speech vomited out the lefts mouths.

Posted by: DA WHIT | October 6, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, I don't have hours to spend doing on line research like
this individual did, but I couldn't agree with her more. You can't
believe what the hell the media is putting out there - it's all a bunch
of slanted crap!

I think it's important to send this on so anyone that is open to ideas
and wants what is best for out country can have good information to use
when making up their mind regarding who to vote for. This is not a
political slant, but a REAL person doing research on an individual who
will be in charge of our country. Just read it and make your own
decisions.

This election has me very worried. So many things to
consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I
have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all
the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say
this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view
MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground
to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking
'where did the money come from for Obama'. I have
four daughters who went to College, and we were middle
class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked
hard and there were lots of student loans.

I started looking into Obama's life.

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in
California . He is very open about his two years at
Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his
time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply
himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name
he used all his life) during this time had two roommates,
Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan .
During the summer of 1981, after his second year in
college, he made a 'round the world' trip.
Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia , next Hyderabad in
India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with
his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his
father's family. My question - Where did he get the
money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children
would have had money for a trip like this when they where in
college. When he came back he started school at Columbia
University in New York . It is at this time he wants
everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the
tuition is at Columbia ? It's not cheap to say the
least! Where did he get money for tuition? Student
Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as
a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicag?
Why not New York? He was already living in New York.

By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko,
born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in
Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery
this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the
Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional
Association'. About two years later, Obama entered
Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is
for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law
School? More student loans? After Law school, he went
back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned
down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill
& Galland. Guess what? They represented
'Rezar' which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one
of Obama's first major financial contributors when he
ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early
fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David
Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with
'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race.
In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwood District
of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price).
With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money
for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita,
purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London
Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire
loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new
home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with
Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie
Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now
Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major
decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett
born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran ! Do we see a pattern
here? Or am I going crazy?

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley, advisor
to Obama, was 'sacked' after the press found out he
was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which
controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week,
buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers
reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked
their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is
elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that
where born in Pakistan ? They are in charge of all those
'small' Internet campaign contributions for Obama.
Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle
class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East ?

And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The
Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on
'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on
talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'.
When questioned, 'he made a mistake'. Some mistake!

All of the above information I got on line. If you would
like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama;
Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited
Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008;
The Times May 10, 2008.

Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information
on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent'
members of the press been reporting this?

A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the
enemy from within'!!!

Posted by: John | October 7, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company