Nicolle Wallace: John McCain Is A Corporation’s ‘Worst Nightmare’
Nicolle Wallace: John McCain Is A Corporation’s ‘Worst Nightmare’
This morning on MSNBC, Nicolle Wallace, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) senior campaign adviser, falsely claimed that McCain “isn’t for giving tax cuts to corporations,” adding that “John McCain is their worst nightmare.”
Far from being a corporate nightmare, the cornerstone of McCain’s economic plan — cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent — makes him quite the corporate darling. In fact, McCain himself has regularly touted this aspect of his plan:
MCCAIN: I’m not sure how many Americans are aware that American corporations pay the second highest taxes of any nation in the world. [...] We need to cut the corporate tax rate in America. It’s not a very sexy kind of a thing you know, but it’s real.
Watch a compilation:
Not only is Wallace wrong in claiming that McCain does not favor cutting corporations’ taxes but she’s also way off the mark in saying he’s their “worst nightmare.” In fact, the richest 200 American corporations stand to benefit handsomely ($45 billion) from a McCain administration.
McCain’s plan would dole out $4 billion a year to Big Oil (despite the numerous campaign claims to the contrary), $2 billion to health insurance companies and $1.44 billion to the parent companies of mainstream media outlets. Eight companies — Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Bank of America Corp., AT&T, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Microsoft Corp. — would each receive over $1 billion a year.
But if McCain is a corporation’s “worst nightmare,” then his campaign sure has everyone fooled, including the richest CEOs, who have given approximately 10 times as much to McCain as they have to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Just when I think the spin from the McCain camp can’t get any more bizarre, they come out with something like this.
Do they REALLY think the American public collectively has sh!t for brains? Wait…of course they do. They think all of us are as dumb as their base.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:03 pmAnother attempt at the “white Obama” strategy:
We are both for middle class tax cuts, its a coin flip – vote McCain!
October 8th, 2008 at 6:05 pm“richest 200 American corporations”
That’s extremely misleading – corporations aren’t “rich”.
A corporation can have a lot of money and own many things, but they’re never “rich” – “large” corporation or “large turnover” “large profit” corporation – OK, but not “rich”.
People are rich, not corporations.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:05 pmI think closing loop-holes and off shore accounts would be their worst nightmare, most corporations pay NO TAXES AT ALL but using their un-American way of cheating, or should I say their CONSERVATIVE way of cheating.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:07 pmMore like a corporations wet dream. McCain has two more rounds of corporafornication.
One is his health care plans which enable employers to jettison that pesky insurance benefit.
The other are his tax cuts. Between the two, CEO incentive pay should get ample shots in the arm.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:07 pmOnly if a Corporation’s worst nightmare is raking in money by the barrel full, having no rules governing their actions, and spending $500,000 in taxpayer money on a spa weekend.
Woo! Scary…
October 8th, 2008 at 6:08 pmHey Sven, a closer look maybe?
Richest CEO’s, those are employees of corporations. Whether they be large or large turnover or large profit, OK, but employees of corporations nonetheless.
His tax plan would offer 700K to the top 400 CEO’s in American corporations.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:08 pmPalin, Wallace, Pfluffernutter are a nightmare for women.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:10 pmMcCain would be a corporation’s “worst nightmare” if he was its CEO.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:13 pmNot only is Wallace wrong in claiming that McCain does not favor cutting corporations’ taxes but she’s also way off the mark in saying he’s their “worst nightmare.”
She’s right, in that corporations like their politicians to STAY bought, and McCain has just announced that their former backing buys bupkis with him.
Actually this stuff is mean for the backwater base in Double-wideland.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:15 pmHe’s their worst nightmare because he can so thoroughly destroy the economy that even the corporations would feel a little heat.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:16 pmShe might not be too far off the mark. A Flippy McSpin Administration might trigger the final collapse of our economy. No one’s going to be spending on consumer goods and services when a loaf of bread costs $30,000.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:25 pmWhy do corporations hate corporate tax cuts?
October 8th, 2008 at 6:26 pmNEWSFLASH!
You geniuses apparently flunked economics class (if you ever took it) because corporations actually DON’T pay taxes anyway!
Guess who pays corporate taxes… You. The taxes businesses pay are factored into the cost of running the enterprise so excessive taxation of businesses is actually detrimental to the economy and investors alike.
Those of you who would argue this point are entitled to your opinion, but not your own set of facts. In the case of economics, there are immutable laws not unlike those of physics. I’m sure none of you would argue that the laws of physics can be broken with impunity, right?
Here’s a law of economics for you. See if you can digest it: Capital flows to where it is treated best. Think about it. There are countrys vying with us right now that place NO BURDEN on capital at all, no taxes.
If you were in charge of running a corporation, what country would you want to be headquartered in, hmmm?
Here’s what corporations are in business to do: make a profit. That profit is used to pay investors, which is right and good.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:29 pmSorry stupid troll. You seem to have missed the point that ol’ Flippy McSpin is LYING to those who he wants to support him. Of course, that’s nothing new. He has talked one way and voted another since his first days in the Senate.
And before you gloat with a “Obama lies too” I suggest you take a look at how many “firmly held positions” the GOP candidate has reversed in an effort to court the worst elements of his beloved party.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:36 pmPlus, successful corporations invest their profits in their workforce and other areas. The American economy wouldn’t be in such dire straits if greedy morons hadn’t been skimming every last bit of cash. Alas, it seems that they are going to have to be forced to act in a reasonable manner.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:41 pmCrap. If that wingnut bimbo was telling the truth – she’d have to substitute the words “wet dream” for “biggest nightmare.”
October 8th, 2008 at 6:48 pmMy friends, the old man, doesn’t quite understand that trickle down has trickled down and if he thinks we may have problems, I have news for him, we do have problems. What trickled down was the cost of his deregulation from the past twenty six years. Someone now has to pay for the hand outs to the haves and the most wealthy thugs who are cronies of the GOP.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:53 pmCan the McCain camp pick a message and stick to it? It changes on a daily basis at this point.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:54 pmSorry for the OT folks, but is anyone watching Race for the White House right now? Am I the only one who’s expecting Mika to wink and blow kisses? JFC she is so far up McCain and Palin’s six it’s discusting.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:58 pmHi Tim Vaculik,
October 8th, 2008 at 6:59 pmHow ya doing? Do you always speak to people that way? It’s boorish don’t ya think?
Shouldn’t liars like Wallace be accountable for their lies? These liars are the ones who got us into this mess in the first place. We should spread their stupid, lying remarks like anti-banners on every site that matters. Doesn’t anyone have the guts to call these lying creeps on their lies? (i.e. not misspeaks, not misleading, they are– LIES)
The only “worst nightmare” to describe McCain is– “Every honest, intelligent American’s….” etc.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:02 pmYou spin girl,you spin,and spin. It,s over Nicolle Wallace, spin that.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:13 pmThe current 35% tax rate on corporations is on paper only. With all the loopholes and write-offs, they pay FAR less. Some pay nothing.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:17 pmHe’s our nation’s worst nightmare if he wins.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:18 pmTim: I have heard bullshit before, but you take the cake. First, our country has the lowest effective tax rate of any industrialized country in the world. Everyone looks to marginal tax rates as opposed to effective tax rates that take into account loopholes, credits, incentives and other techniques that lower actual taxation. It is true that a significant number of corporations pay no income tax at all, despite making significant profits.
Tim: Many American corporations off shore their income to tax havens. Yes, these are little nations that have nothing more than a post office box and titular ownership of technical data rights and patents. The other nations that have no tax like China really do well for their people in terms of preventing pollution and encouraging democracy and human rights.
Tim: The cost of government remains the same whether the taxes are paid by corporations or individuals. You see, you can tax corporate profits and have a portion passed on as part of the price of a product or you can just go back and increase individual taxes. Now Tim, you will take issue with that and point at the admirable record of the Republicans in lowering taxes for corporations and individuals. However, that is just charging expenses on a credit card with the $10 trillion in debt that we now have. The butcher’s bill for that little spending spree in now coming due.
Tim: I am sure that you are going to tell me that we have to benefit businesses and wealthy persons to increase job creation in the US. However, we both know that that is not true. Retained corporate earnings hit new highs during the Bush tax cut extravaganza. Investment in the US by these corporations just an illusion while investment went to out source US jobs to foreign countries.
Tim: You will tell me how these corporations have to participate in globalization and must maximize shareholder value by screwing over the American people. However, I have been part of corporate America with a large aerospace manufacturer. I will tell you what happens. We outsource the jobs, the plant engineering, the engineering and within a generation, we see foreign manufacturers in command of the technology. This is what happened with Japan and the United States with robotics and automotive.
Tim: You keep ahead by investing in your own technology and developing new products that create a premium price. The US used to be good at that. However, we have outsourced too many of those new technologies.
Lastly Tim, corporations receive many benefits from this government. The current bailouts just happen to be one of them. I guess it would just be too much to want them to pay taxes.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:18 pmI’ll add “de-regulation to the homework for a lot of you.
We didn’t get into this mess because of de-regulation. It was government regulation and social engineering experiments that got us into the sub-prime mess to begin with.
It started back in the Carter administration with the community re-investment act and progressed from there.
Now who was it again that stood in front of the Democrat-lead banking committee calling for oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
That’s right, it was Republican administration officials all the way back to the first President Bush. The last opportunity that the Democrats blocked was in 2005.
It was the Democrats who played a big role in allowing the excesses of these GSE’s, my ignorant friends.
Get a clue!
October 8th, 2008 at 7:25 pmThe stupid is strong in this one…Tim Vaculik.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:31 pmJMOHR,
Well, some of what you say contains grains of truth, but if businesses always act in their own self-interest, that is, making profits, then it follows that we ought to be doing everything we can to help them maximize profits by staying here, not moving their HQ’s to more capital-friendly countries, like Dubai. I would hardly call that country little more than a “… post office box”.
Dubai is just one example of countries that get it. Dubai wants to become the New York of the Middle East, an economic and banking powerhouse. Despite what you say, taxation of business and capital formation in this country is higher than it ought (or needs) to be.
I guess I just get steamed when I see people vilifying companies and making them into villians when they are not the true problem.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:34 pmMay the utopian race-to-the-bottom of neo-liberal economic theory DIE.
The mystical magical market…harummphh.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:45 pmThe McCain campaign speaks in tongues–forked tongues.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:53 pmTim Vaculik says: It started back in the Carter administration with the community re-investment act and progressed from there.
Is that why the President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco said, in the Opening Remarks to the 2008 National Interagency Community Reinvestment Conference:
“There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.”
Almost half of the subprime mortgages were issued by institutions not covered by CRA; another 25-30 percent by those only partially covered by CRA.
In testimony before the United States House Committee on Financial Services, Law Professor Michael Barr testifies:
“Critics of CRA assert that it leads to unprofitable lending. But the weight of evidence suggests otherwise. In a Federal Reserve Board survey of CRA-covered institutions, most responded that CRA lending was profitable or marginally profitable, and not overly risky.9 Pushing further into low-income markets under CRA has not weakened banks’ profitability and soundness. In the small “special programs” that serve as banks’ CRA laboratories, employing new and innovative strategies, most institutions reported low delinquency and charge-off rates. In fact, most institutions surveyed reported a net charge-off rate of zero for these programs.”
He also states that in his own judgment, “the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight”.
So, there are those that can hardly be termed “ignorant”, who heartily disagree with your interpretation of the CRA’s effect on the current crisis.
Unless I am supposed to believe that a professor of law who:
1) Teaches classes on Financial Institutions, International Finance, Jurisdiction and Choice of Law, and Transnational Law.
2) Earned his B.A., summa cum laude, from Yale University, an M. Phil in International Relations from Magdalen College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar, and his J.D. from Yale Law School.
3) Served as a judicial clerk for Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court of the United States, and for Judge Pierre N. Leval of the Southern District of New York.
4) Was a special adviser and counselor on the Policy Planning Staff of the U.S. State Department, 1994 to 1995.
5) Was Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin’s special assistant, 1995 to 1997.
6) Was deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for community development policy, 1997 to 2001.
… is somehow more ignorant on this particular subject than Tim Vaculik, famous internet poster… I’m going to lean toward believing his evaluation of the matter.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:56 pmIt seems that all of these McCain surrogates have taken advanced courses in manufacturing unintelligible babble. Their ability to tell bald-faced lies, over and over again, is astounding. Are they going for the Guiness record book?
October 8th, 2008 at 8:00 pmOh MrSquirrel:
October 8th, 2008 at 8:15 pmI reckon you think those Northeast elitist what with their fancy degrees and experience and all know more stuff about their fields of expertise than us regular folk…
Don’t cry, corporations, you’re not alone. We find him pretty scary too.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:55 pmWell, I stated that it began with the CRA, which it undeniably did, but I don’t say that this was the only factor.
There is no question that the policies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were at the center of this debacle as well. Their policies mirrored the wishes of their benefactors in the House and Senate and they returned the favor in the form of huge campaign contributions. Again, there is no question of the complicity of the Democrats in perpetuating the unsound practices of these two institutions. The political goal of increasing home ownership in “underserved” communities was a success.
Now it’s true that sub prime lending wasn’t totally to blame, but there is no question that political interference in the free-market system helped sustain the Ponzi scheme and fuel the housing price bubble which had to burst at some point.
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac bought tons of what would eventually become extremely devalued “assets” as a result of government policy. Lenders were more than happy to unload high-risk loans on them because they could.
Another contributor to the eventual devaluation was the lack of equity. Since you could get loans with zero down, it increased vunerability to any downturn in home prices.
The problem I see is that the mainstream media, mainly CNN, MSNBC and others who are in the tank for Obama keep repeating the lie that it is all the fault of de-regulation and the current administration!
October 8th, 2008 at 9:44 pmSo how is “in the tank” for McCain and why?
October 8th, 2008 at 9:50 pmHere’s more on the causes of the sub prime debacle from google 2001 search:
ACORN bragging about getting
Fannie Mae involved with the sub-prime loans and using Fannies AAA rating to attract investors in the mortgages
Another national agreement between ACORN and Fannie Mae broke through the last major barrier to expanding home ownership opportunities to low-income families. Even when banks had agreed to ACORN’s innovative underwriting standards, they were limited by the secondary mortgage market’s refusal to buy the loans. After a series of negotiations, Fannie Mae launched a $55 million pilot program in 11 cities to purchase mortgages from banks which have reinvestment agreements with ACORN. In the two weeks following announcement of the program, ACORN offices received 4,360 calls from community residents seeking information about it.
The latest agreement between Fannie Mae and ACORN opened the secondary market for below market interest rate loans. Fannie Mae will bundle ACORN-counseled loans and securitize them. With Fannie Mae’s AAA credit rating, the resultant ACORN Mortgage Backed Securities become attractive to socially motivated investors. The first one for $10 million of loans originated by NationsBank was purchased by Allstate Insurance.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010428122414/www.acorn.org/25-anniversary/community-reinvestment.html
An who is hip-deep in his involvement with ACORN? Barack Obama.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:43 pmhow ought to be who…
October 8th, 2008 at 10:44 pm.
WHAT IS A SHILL?
.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:29 amWell, I stated that it began with the CRA, which it undeniably did, but I don’t say that this was the only factor.
I gave an example of two people far more qualified than yourself, who do deny that it did. Your response? That it undeniably did. A flat statement from The Troll, with no expertise cited to back it up. Come on, it’s okay if you need to quote Rush Limbaugh or something… just don’t leave us hanging on your personal expertise, for which we have zero credibility to attach it to.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:04 amMcSquirrel,
You need to re-read the article you posted. Also, as far as what came before what, the CRA DID precede other contributing factors. It’s a matter of historical record. I can’t help it if you can’t or won’t do the research.
Some of what the guy in the article says is true, but it is also true that it was the policies and abuses of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, brought about by the Democrats that, coupled with the CRA forced loans eventually led to catastrophic consequences when the real estate bubble burst.
Econ 101 – apparently a lot of people didn’t take it in college or simply doodled in their books during class. Hell, it doesn’t even take a college class to learn the basics about all this. Of course, it’s difficult to unravel all the complexities of cause and effect, but the essential causes are there for anyone to see.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:37 pm