Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

Duck Soup — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 14:48:24 GMT

I agree with the other posters that Senator McCain lost the debate. There's more to the story. Obama trounced McCain. It wasn't even close.

The media, which is stuck in he said she said mode, misreported the debate as a draw. Foreign policy was supposed to be McCain's strong suit, yet he got crushed in this debate.

It's no surprise that our media continues not to report the obvious facts in front of their face. This is the same media which dutifully reported Bush's false claims before the Iraq war that Sadaam had WMD and ties to al Qaeda. Since then our media has failed to hold this Administration accountable for a record that rivals the very worst in American history.

This election will not even be close. And a side story to Obama's landslide victory is that it will be yet another indictment of our failed media.

Here is how McCain got crushed. There were two major issues in this debate.

1. The economy. Obama said that our economic crisis "is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies -- promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain -- a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down . . . It hasn't worked."

Obama said Americans need change. Obama said ordinary Americans in the middle class need a break. America's middle class, not America's richest, are the ones who need a tax cut, said Obama. The middle class needs help with healthcare, he asserted.

In contrast, McCain offered no explanation why with great fanfare over the past two days he had just "suspended" and restarted his campaign over the economic crisis, or what he had achieved by doing so. Just two weeks ago McCain declared that the fundamentals of our economy are sound. McCain did not explain why this economic crisis blindsided him.

Instead of offering any realistic solutions, McCain kept railing about $18 billion dollars of tax cuts in the face of a $700 billion economic crisis and a $300 budget shortfall projected in McCain's budget. He could not defend his proposal to continue Bush's tax cuts for America's richest people and large corporations.

McCain claimed to provide a tax cut for the middle class. McCain's tax break for the middle class is a trick. McCain would take all that money and then some right back by taxing employer-provided health care. Regardless of whether that giant health care tax is directly on the employer or the worker, the middle class ultimately will bear it.

McCain's plan for healthcare is to tax employer-provided health insurance and thereby level the playing field in the market for health insurance. McCain's undue reliance on raw free market forces to fix healthcare is unwise; we are now seeing that the market can fail in times of crises.

2. Foreign policy. Obama also handily won this part of the debate by offering a broad vision for America's foreign policy. Obama reaffirmed his commitment to end the war in Iraq responsibly, focus on defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban, and to thereby restore America's standing in the world after eight years of decline.

McCain presented no vision for America's foreign policy. McCain has a narrow focus on Iraq. McCain would continue the present course of occupying Iraq at great expense to the taxpayer, while, as McCain put it a few years ago, "muddling through" in Afghanistan. McCain offered no explanation as to how America can afford the cost of the indefinite occupation coupled added to his tax cuts and now the financial bailout.

In response to McCain questioning Obama's judgment for opposing the escalations in Iraq, Obama took the focus back to the bigger story in Iraq that McCain is unable to acknowledge or address:

"And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong."

For those who missed the debate, here is the transcript: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/

After the debate Joe Biden, Obama's running mate, gave post debate interviews. John McCain told his running mate Palin that she could not appear in post-debate interviews. This raises serious questions about Palin's fitness to assume the job of stepping in for the President.

The concern regarding Palin's lack of readiness is heightened by McCain's 73 years of age and his multiple bouts with cancer. At least one respected conservative commentator, Kathleen Parker, has just called for Palin to step down after Palin gave a series of disastrous interviews demonstrating her unfitness to be President. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=

"Finally, Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted." (see above link for more)

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

TomTraubert — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 14:50:27 GMT

Andrew.

You have misstated and mangled what Factcheck said about Obama's tax plan. Fact check says

"That should be 95 percent of families, not 95 percent of "American people."

People are not families are not households. So while Obama should have said "families" not "people" you should not have added in the irrelevant "Households" just because it had a different number. That's misleading.

You and Factcheck are incorrect and misleading about McCain's health care plan. Employers would lose their tax writeoff for their contribution to employee's health insurance. Obama's plan does not call for taxing employers, as you and Factcheck imply.

Obama said "Your employer now has to pay taxes on the health care that you're getting from your employer." That is a true statement, and both You and Factcheck are misleading and incorrect about what Obama said, and the facts about McCain's health plan.

One would think that Factcheckers, and reporters of Factchecks, would be careful about their facts, and be careful not to be misleading in their factchecking reports.

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

Andrew Romano — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:28:34 GMT

Thanks for writing, Tom. The bullet-pointed summary above is reprinted verbatim from Factcheck, so no, I did not misstate or mangle what the organization said about Obama's tax plan. I simply reposted it. For context, here's their full analysis:

Tax Cut Recipients

Obama overstated how many people would save on taxes under his plan:

Obama: My definition – here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase.

That should be 95 percent of families, not 95 percent of "American people." An analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that Obama's plan would decrease taxes for 95.5 percent of families with children. Overall, 81.3 percent of households would get a tax cut under his proposal.

Andrew again here: The difference between "households" and "families" is not irrelevant, as you state. According to the Census Bureau "a household is defined as one or more people living in a residence. A family is more than one person living together, either married or of the same bloodline." As Factcheck points out, the 95 percent number refers specifically to "families with children"--which is a smaller group than either families (which could mean a married couple without children, or two brothers living together, a single dad, etc.) or households (which means every home in America, whether it consists of one person or a big happy family). So when Obama says that "95 percent of [the American people]" would get a tax cut under his plan, he's wrong; there are a lot of people who live alone, or live with a friend, or don't have children. The more accurate number when referring to "the American people" is 81 percent--as Factcheck points out.

Again, thanks for reading,

Andrew

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

TomTraubert — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:40:37 GMT

Thanks for engaging, Andrew.

I believe that you were misleading by leaving out the "families" sentence and selectively introducing "households," which had a different number. You would not have been misleading if you had quoted the entire paragraph, clarifying that the 95% figure referred to families. The way you quoted it was misleading because there *is* a basis for the 95%.

I'm not even sure why Factcheck chose to bring in the "household" factor except to confuse readers. "Households" don't pay income taxes. A household can be two unrelated people, who would each be subject to separate filing, right? At least "families" file on the same return, jointly with the children as deductions. But households is completely irrelevant to the discussion, with all due respect.

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

jrmlang — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:49:28 GMT

John McCain sounded like a broken record he kept on repeating himself as though he did not have any thing else to say. I don't call that debating. how many times did he say you dont understand? as though he was lecturing Obama ?

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

irishjoe — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 16:21:33 GMT

Andrew, you are helping you numbers when you say that you believe that John won the debate. People will respond and you will have good e-mail numbers. The problem is that like the Paulsons Plan, the response will be a ground swell of objection. The people want significant change and are paying attention for the first time in a long while.

John spoke about change while extoling the virtue of past failures. His insistance that the surge worked is ingenuos at best. No one wants to say that it certainly worked. So did the surge/escalation work in Viet Nam. The tactic of overwhelming an enemy can't fail. The crime rate went down in New York because of the increase of troops. We can't pull the police off the steets or the crime rate will rise. Iraq is an occupation and you can't win an occupation. The Iraq war is a mistake and will continue to be a mistake. I believe that reference was made by John to the failure of all Colonial powers has failed in the area. Tis true and it is true of every Colonial power, everywhere. People will not accept an occuping Army even if it's for such a noble cause as bringing them democracy that they don't want or the accompanying oil profits that our "Beloved Leader" wants.

John used facts that he placed out of context to promote his point of veiw. I really expected better from John. I refer to his reference to taxing people who make $42,000. He said look it up. He should have remembered that we have these fact check machines now. I did and found that he did not lie, he simply omitted saying that this vote was not what Obama is proposing in his plan. We have some reference ability still in place for awhile. Corporate take over of he inter-net hasn't happened as fast as the Republicans have wanted. It will though, because we swallow everthing they feed us about supporting corporate America.

John did himself an injustice ,when from out of nowhere he brought up his running mate and refered to her as another Maverick. I like John and respect his experiences. Sara is not in the same league. I shudder to think that she could be the leader of the free world. I feel sorry for her and see how her ego got her to where she is today. Unfortunatley ego is not a substitute for world experience. " You cannot aquire expeience through experiments, you cannot create experience, you must undergo it." (Albert Camu) Sara did not lie. She introduced herself as a Hockey Mom. Why anyone would take that as a plus for President of the U.S. must be attributed to George W. Bush demonstrating that the requirements are as low as they can get. I'm getting off point and entering into an area that would require voumes.

I saw an Obama that was not taking the cheap shot and maintaining dignity. Even when he said that John voted with Bush 95% of the time, he allowed John to rebut by saying that he has opposed Bush on certain issues, without mentioning that the 95% remark came directly from Johns own advertisement where he bragged about being a good Bushie.

When John said that he would have a spending freeze across the board. Barak responded by saying that using a hachet when a scapel was needed. As a veteran and an out of work construction worker who has lost his home , health insurance, retirement plan, I would personally appreciate it if you wouldn't start hacking on the board that I am standing on with your hachett.

I got the impression that John thinks this finacial crisis just happened. The crisis has been happening to the lower class for the last eight yers while he was voting for our demise. Now that he sees that you can't destroy the largest segment of your consumer base(25% world wide) without cutting your own throat as capitalist. Now when we can't afford to but anything new Wall Street is being forced to resell us the same paper we already bought. Beware, capitalist democracy because WE THE PEOPLE, have nothing to lose. If you can socialize Wall St. debt, then you can socialize anything and everything. We could end up like France, Canada, Austrilia, and most other western industrialized countries, with health care, higher education , retirement, social security. When we elimenate Wall street and all the insurance companies that do nothing but drive up cost, all things become possible.

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

TomTraubert — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 16:57:12 GMT

Okay, Andrew. Now I find that both you AND Factcheck are wrong.

In the transcript provided by CNN, Obama says:

"Now, $18 billion is important; $300 billion is really important.

And in his tax plan, you would have CEOs of Fortune 500 companies getting an average of $700,000 in reduced taxes, while leaving 100 million Americans out.

So my attitude is, we've got to grow the economy from the bottom up. What I've called for is a tax cut for 95 percent of working families, 95 percent.

And that means that the ordinary American out there who's collecting a paycheck every day, they've got a little extra money to be able to buy a computer for their kid, to fill up on this gas that is killing them."

Families, Andrew. He said "working families." I hope you will correct your post, and correct Factcheck, as well.

Transcript of presidential debate - CNN.com <http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/>

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

Peter Timber — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:55:58 GMT

DEAR ANDREW ROMANO HOW COME YOUR "MODERATOR" NEVER OPOSTED MY COMMENTS AND, IN FACT, WITHIN A HALF HOUR OF MY 9:45am POSTING YOU PULLED YOUR ENTIRE PUBLIC COMMENTARY OFF THE SCREEN AND OFF THE MSN NEWS WEBSITE, HOW COME mR. ROMANO???? I DARESAY YOUR SKEWED COMMENTARY BROUGHT AN ONSLAUGHT OF CRITICISM ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID AND WHAT WASN'T SAID ABOUT PAIN MCCAIN..... Come out from under your rock Mr Romano and re-post your commentary for the public who does not key in the www.neweek.com website where you are currently hiding....Peter

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

caraprado — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:51:55 GMT

From:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/anger-entitlement-and-contempt.html

Saturday, September 27, 2008

What A Debate Reveals: Anger, Entitlement and Contempt

What I found shocking reflecting on last night's debate was how angry and entitled McCain was, in a very open way.

McCain's manner was one of that who believed he should not even be on the same stage with this person. This indicates a person of extreme rights and extreme wrongs, not a statesmanlike persona, but an angry and impulsive one.

McCain carries strong ideas of what a liberal is, ideas that very little from his cherished ideas of who betrayed the nation during the Vietnam war. A stock character, driven and created by his own rage, carried, as it has been since the '70s, with a virtual ideological blindness--blinded by a contemptuous rage--that there are others who cannot understand the world the way he can. This is not judgment, but angry certainty. This is not readiness, but a just-contained rage that he should be confronted by such ideas.

You can see it in his constricted "can you believe it" rage at one who disagrees with him. This kind of contemptuous, angry dismissal of others ideas leads easily into the impulsive decisions of the last few months--generated with barely contained contemptuous rejection of those who would reject his ideas--only the most recent forms of those essential constructs--a contemptible media, easily fed with false notions and panaceas, as he believes they were earlier in his life; intellectuals, whose reason and deliberation is contrasted with the sharp, impulsive action that for his life has constituted a certain knowledge, and an angry, certain need to sweep away those who would stand in the path of righteous certainty.

What is beautifully ironic is how McCain maintains this contempt even as he switches from one position to another in the opportunistic second--this is when the look of contempt and entitlement turns, for a moment, to anxiety and panic.

Soon, however, the gaze is back. No matter what the new position is--impulsively determined, desperately grasped--if only "they" knew better. If only "they" knew the truth.

This kind of ideological rigidity and certainty (note how Obama could not contain himself from smiling when McCain attempted to compare him to Bush in that regard) combined with impulsive decision making, from the "gut" of sure knowledge, is what has created the outcomes of the past 8 years.

It was--in a setting where one would not expect it to be, where one would expect McCain to contain it--glaring apparent last night.

This is an amplification of the last 8 years rather than a change.

We do not need to experience this type of decision making again.

Cite:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/anger-entitlement-and-contempt.html

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

Andrew Romano — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:34:53 GMT

Just to set the record straight: the quote TomTraubert posted below is correct. But Obama also said this:

"Here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase."

Factcheck.org was factchecking that statement, not the one below.

Here's the full transcript: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

TomTraubert — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:19:30 GMT

FactCheck is misrepresenting what Obama said. Factcheck said this:

"Obama said 95 percent of "the American people" would see a tax cut under his proposal. The actual figure is 81 percent of households."

He did not say "95 percent of 'the American people" at all. He referred to the 95 percent figure twice during the debates:

"What I've called for is a tax cut for 95 percent of working families, 95 percent.""

and

"My definition -- here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase."

So FactCheck misrepresents what Obama says and calls it a distortion.

Do you want to know where they get that "95 percent"? They sat around a table to design a tax cut plan for ordinary Americans. So they get out the IRS tables, and they pick the annual salary that represents the 95 percentile of annual income from the table of Married Filing Jointly, okay? And they round up and design the tax plan around that annual salary. You know, they didn't just pull a number out of their butt and it happened to turn out that 95% of families fell into the category, IT WAS IN THE DESIGN OF THE PLAN.

So I don't know why FactCheck pulls this silly "Household" red herring out of that. Who cares? They just pulled that out of their butt in order to make it appear there is some deception there, when it is FactCheck that is guilty of false equivalency, at best, and deception of their own.

Andrew, do you see how you journos, by perpetuating this kind of false equivalence, are actually making things worse? What's the advantage in being truthful if you and your colleagues are going to gin up some deceptive false equivalencies with selective and distorted misquoting?

You are making it more profitable to lie than to tell the truth. Say one side makes 20 false statements. Say the other side quotes 1 figure that is outdated. So you find some statement from the truthful side and do some deceptive misrepresentation, and you ding the truthful side for 2 misstatements. Then you take 2 of the false statements from the other side to keep it even. Okay? So the big liar gets away with 18 false statements, and the truthful side gets dinged for one bad statement and for the statement that you misrepresent.

You see what you and your colleagues are doing here? You are making sure that the advantage goes to the biggest liar. So a campaign should make sure to lie more than the other guy, and they get the advantage.

Think about that.

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

TomTraubert — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:39:33 GMT

FactCheck.org misrepresents what Obama said about McCain's health care "plan."

FactCheck says:

"Obama mischaracterized an aspect of McCain's health care plan, saying ""employers" would be taxed on the value of health benefits provided to workers. Employers wouldn't, but the workers would. McCain also would grant workers up to a $5,000 tax credit per family to cover health insurance. "

FactCheck continues:

As we said before, McCain’s plan doesn’t call for taxing employers on health care benefits; it would instead tax employees. As the law stands now, employees don’t pay taxes on the dollar value of their health insurance benefits. Under McCain’s plan, they would."

Obama actually said:

" Just one last point I want to make, since Senator McCain talked about providing a $5,000 health credit. Now, what he doesn't tell you is that he intends to, for the first time in history, tax health benefits.

So you may end up getting a $5,000 tax credit. Here's the only problem: Your employer now has to pay taxes on the health care that you're getting from your employer. And if you end up losing your health care from your employer, you've got to go out on the open market and try to buy it.

It is not a good deal for the American people. But it's an example of this notion that the market can always solve everything and that the less regulation we have, the better off we're going to be."

Fact: Employers who pay a portion of an employee's health coverage get a tax break on the amount they contribute. Okay? Now, McCain's plan is going to eliminate that tax break for the employer, and tax the employee on the benefit, as earned income< if the employer chooses to contribute. Then McCain's plan calls for the $5,000 (maximum) tax credit. Whether it is a refundable tax credit is unclear, in other words, if your tax bill doesn't add up to $5,000, would you be refunded the balance, or not? That's unclear.

But it is true that the employer would lose the tax writeoff for any contribution they make to an employees health care coverage. So how is Obama's statement wrong?

Another case of false equivalency, deceptive misquoting and not actually knowing what they are talking about, on FactCheck's part. And on Romano's part, copying and pasting inaccurate stuff without regard to the truth and veracity of the claim.

Sorry, Mr. Romano, but your readers deserve to hold you responsible for posting inaccurate stuff.

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

kljohnston — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:57:17 GMT

To: Tomtraubert

There's a difference between "paying taxes" and "losing a tax break." Employers wouldn't be paying taxes on our healthcare. They would be paying business taxes and would lose the tax break they get from contributing to their employees benefits. If you're going to be so hard on everyone for fact checking and misrepresenting, maybe you should makesure you're not doing it either. just a thought.

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

stephen50 — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:14:03 GMT

Why a tax cut fo 95%? Because voters think short term and self serving. Its a great sound bite! Who wouldn't vote for this ? Combine with: Universal Health Care, Double the spending on education, Subsidising mortgage payments to prevent foreclosures (who wouldn't vote for these?), and combine with all the recently added government expenditures to save the economy... Hello? Where does this money come from? Do we just print it and devalue the dollar and cause run away inflation? Do we eliminate the armed forces? Do we tax the rich and big business to the point where they have to cut jobs to pay taxes let alone where it no longer makes sense for them to remain in the US? Increasing government programs requires devaluing the dollar or increasing taxes. With Obama: choose your poison.

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

TomTraubert — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:36:50 GMT

kl johnson.

I'll go over it slowly.

Obama said about McCain's "plan":

"Your employer now has to pay taxes on the health care that you're getting from your employer."

That is a true statement. Why? Because if someone loses their tax writeoff, they are subject to paying taxes, aren't they? Which is what Obama said. Your employer now has to pay taxes BECAUSE HE'S LOST HIS TAX WRITEOFF. Get it?

FactCheck misquotes Obama and mischaracterizes what Obama is saying:

""Obama mischaracterized an aspect of McCain's health care plan, saying ""employers" would be taxed on the value of health benefits"

Obama didn't SAY they would be taxed on the value of health benefits. The employee would be taxed. The employer would LOSE HIS TAX WRITEOFF, therefore being subject to taxes if he chose to contribute to the employees plan. Get it?

Jeez. It isn't rocket science. It's high school reading level. You are being intentionally obtuse, I think.

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

Steve Kass — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:04:09 GMT

kljohnson:

Under McCain's plan, employers would pay taxes on the health care benefits they provide to employers, exactly as Obama claimed. They would be "paying taxes" clear and simple. There is no need to play word games.

Employers pay FICA, a 7%+ tax on their workers' salaries. The FICA tax on employers also applies to taxable fringe benefits they give their workers. Currently, health care benefits are not taxable, so employers pay no tax on them. McCain wants to make health care benefits taxable, so employers would pay tax on them.

Under McCain's plan, employers will pay tax on employer-provided health care benefits. McCain wants employers to pay taxes on the health care benefits they provide. What Obama said was correct. I can't explain why Factcheck said otherwise, but they got it wrong. Many news outlets, Newsweek included, failed to catch Factcheck's error, but regardless of what everyone seems to think, Obama was correct.

Steve

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

QuillMoreTeKKsans — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:38:04 GMT

I really like the discussion between TomTraubert and Andrew Romano on the issue of Obamas statement about "95% won't see higher taxes".

AR says Obama is wrong, that it's not 95% but 81%, and TomTraubert has called him on that, since Obama didn't say 95% of ALL Americans but 95% of families.

AR states, a bit facetiously. that "Factcheck.org was factchecking 'that' statement not the one BELOW." With 'that' statement he meant (Obama: "Here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut.)

AR is wrong right there, it's not BELOW it is ABOVE. Since Obama STARTED by saying 95% of FAMILIES, and LATER shortened that to "95% of you'. This is less accurate, but since Obama began by qualifying the 95% as 95% of FAMILIES, he's allowed to do that.

In conclusion, TomTraubert has a far bigger point, since it's rather superficial of Factcheck.org to factcheck just one statement and not the other. It's really sloppy, and an organisation whose sole reason for existence is being precise and meticulous, can't afford being sloppy.

They are wrong two times in this:

1. On the basic issue, that Obama said "95% of all Americans" and not 95% of FAMILIES.

2. And AR is wrong in his defence of his error, when he said that Obama FIRST mentioned "95% of all Americans". Obama mentioned that SECOND, and he did that probably for ease of speech.

As others have stated Factcheck.org is apperantly looking for balance. They are wrong about that, since if the fact is that there is no balance, they should ... check that?! ;)

Furthermore, they are flipflopping on the tally-thing. They have stated that they won't do a tally, yet, 4 days later, what did we see? A tally!!

Factcheck.org is mistaken in their believe that it is better to have balance than to be factually right. It's not.

re: Factcheck.org: The Muddle in Mississippi

QuillMoreTeKKsans — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:52:26 GMT

And about families vs. households: it seems to be that families living together who file tax-returns together are the kind of families that were meant. People living together, filing separately, are not families nor households in any tax-legal sense. Factcheck.org is muddling the waters here, indeed.