How many times did McCain say ‘My Friends’ last night?
October 8th, 2008 | by Dusty |Twenty-four according to this from the LA Times. That includes the singular use of the word. From the LAT writeup:
It is the most pronounced verbal tic in modern American politics — John McCain’s incessant use of the phrase “my friends.”
For months, it has provided blog fodder. During the Republican National Convention, it spawned a truly inspired Slate offering from Paul Collins, who traced the phrase’s use through the ages (one of his conclusions — “as a crowd bludgeon in modern political speechmaking, ‘my friends’ can be laid at the feet of one man: William Jennings Bryan).
Occasionally, it’s been reported that aides have advised McCain to curb his use of the line. But clearly, that’s a losing battle — in Tuesday’s 90-minute town hall encounter with Barack Obama, the Republican uttered “my friends” or “my friend” (directed at a specific questioner) 24 times.
It’s a damn shame that the Republican running for President condescends to pretty much everyone. His use of the word can many times be taken as condescending…add that to his temper…and you have a man unfit to lead.
Oh, and btw…I am voting for “That One” in November. 
32 Responses to “How many times did McCain say ‘My Friends’ last night?”
By Lisa on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
How many times did Obama say “Middle Class” like that means anything.
By Jet Netwal on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
It means more that McCain never even said it once. They don’t register to him, and trust me, they got that 5 by 5.
By Lisa on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
So tax increases on businesses is good for the middle class? I’m confused.
By Windspike on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Lisa? What? When McSame says “My friends,” we know he’s blowing sunshine up our skirts trying to sell us snake oil. When Obama says “middle class” I feel like he knows us and understands our plight. The icky feeling I get every time McSame tries this tactic and it doesn’t work makes my skin crawl. But there’s hope at the other end of the spectrum and it comes from Obama. You’ve been sucking so long and hard on the GOP crack pipe and fearmongering that you forgot what hope feels like. It must be a foreign concept for you.
By Lisa on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
WS he used to use the term “The Poor”. I think his advisors told him “Middle Class” sounds much better.
I didn’t say I like the “My friends” thing either. It sounds condescending and yes I wish he’d stop saying that but you know the saying Old dog,new tricks.
I still haven’t heard anyhting about hte”Middle Class” except his vague tax cut. Do you even know what that tax cut it WS?
Exactly?
By Windspike on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Well, if you can’t teach an old dog new tricks why do you buy the line that McSame represents change?
By Alex on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Lisa, apparently your Google finger is broken:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
By Dusty on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Woot!! Apparently it is Alex, thanks for doing it for her.
By manapp99 on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
The thing that strikes me is that Obama has adopted a preaching style to his speechifying. If you have spent any time in church you recognize the style. It is clear he learned public speaking from his time spent listening to his pastor. It is not his words but his delivery.
For a bunch of lefties that hate the church, you sure don’t seem to mind being preached to.
By manapp99 on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
And Lisa is correct. If you go to the chart Alex linked you still cannot tell what kind of and how much your taxes will be cut. Will it be the marginal tax rate on income? Will it be the payroll tax? If your a family of 4 with an income of 124,000…how much will your actual tax burden be decreased by? How do you figure the increased cost of goods and services due to the increase in tax he proposes to levy on those that produce goods and services? When the tax increases get passed on to the rest as a result of the higher cost of doing business, is this not an indirect tax increase on everyone? The tax cut for 95% of Americans shtick is a platitude. The real measure is what happens to your level of disposable income after expenses.
It is like his new add about health care coverage. He says he does not embrace the status quo, does not embrace government run universal health care but will let you keep your current insurance and “work with the insurance companies to lower cost”? Work with them how? Is he going to send federal agents into insurance companies to modernize them? How will his working with them bring down premiums and copays? What exactly does that mean? Sounds like he is saying that basically he is going to do little to nothing about health care.
Of course, he has to get whatever he plans to do through congress and when nothing happens he can always blame to the evil GOP minority on his lack of sucess.
Those 39 GOP senators are just obstuctionist I tell you. We just won’t be able to get anything done for Americans until we get to 100.
By manapp99 on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
As far as Obama’s view on taxes…look at this exchange with him and Charlie Gibson on the Capitol Gains Tax.
“GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”
So it will be more “fair” to those that he plans to govern to raise the rate even though it is likely to produce less revenue. So you’ll have less money but by God, you’ll feel better about it.
By Chris Radulich on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
Yet the national debt is the largest ever. Perhaps if we had been willing to pay for our military we would not be in this position. But , no we were to cowardly to actually pay for the things we said we wanted. Remember SS and medicare have been in the black for decades( reagan doubled the taxes and provided a built in tax increase every year). Also rember that the “laughter” curve looks like a bell shape and federal revenues also grew from 1950 to 1970.
By manapp99 on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
Unless you are arguing Gibsons statement that everytime the capital gains is lowered revenue increases and everytime it is raised it decreases then the obvious answer is to lower or even eliminate the capital gains tax to get more money to reduce the debt and pay our needed services.
You are right, we should pay for our military. How many Humvees do you think could have been uparmored if we would have just stop funding PBS and NPR? If it had of saved just one life wouldn’t it have been worth it?
Big bird for your kid’s enjoyment or more armor to save a life? What say you?
By Chris Radulich on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
Payroll taxes, which fund Social Security tax, Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI), unemployment compensation, and various smaller retirement programs, accounted for 35 percent of federal revenues in 2006, roughly $840 billion.
# The payroll tax share of federal revenues has grown from about one-sixth in 1960 to more than one-third today, in large part because of Medicare’s advent in 1965 and a sharp increase in Social Security taxes in 1983.
Source: Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
So maybe tax cuts were not the reason for more revenue. Higher taxes were.
By Chris Radulich on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
I’m sorry you live in a democracy ( republic). You get to fund things you don’t like just like I get to fund things I don’t like. How many humvees do you think we could upgrade if we did away with faith based initives or stopped supporting dictators, or did away with farm subsidies, and other welfare for business?
By Chris Radulich on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
Payroll taxes, which fund Social Security tax, Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI), unemployment compensation, and various smaller retirement programs, accounted for 35 percent of federal revenues in 2006, roughly $840 billion.
The payroll tax share of federal revenues has grown from about one-sixth in 1960 to more than one-third today, in large part because of Medicare’s advent in 1965 and a sharp increase in Social Security taxes in 1983.
Source: Historical Amount of Revenue by
So perhaps a large part of the increase of federal revenue was from a tax increase. A particuly high one and one aimed directly at business.
By Dusty on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
If capital gains means they made money, then you bet your ass they should be taxed on it. Jesus, it’s not rocket science.
And if letting the rich keep most of their money is supposed to fucking create jobs…where in the blue hell are the jobs since BushCo has allowed the top one percent AND corporations to keep their loot with very few if any taxes on it.
And you actually think not funding NPR or PBS would do what for christs sake manapp? They get a whopping 400 million which ain’t shit alongside the bailout money or the corporations that didn’t pay shit for taxes last year.
By Dusty on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
How to earn 3.5 TRILLION and pay zero taxes:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0419/p16s03-cogn.html
And this is an old writeup. Its criminal what the corporations get away with.
By Dusty on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
The U.S. raises less revenue from corporations than Japan, the United Kingdom, and even Ireland.
Yet the avg american worker is making less than he/she did four years ago.
By manapp99 on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
Both of you are ignoring the argument made by Charlie Gibson that lowering the capitol gains rate increases the revenue and vice versa.
If this is true, why would anyone want to raise the rate to get less money? That would be just plain old stupid wouldn’t it.
Dusty is appears that yo dislike rich people so you want them to pay higher taxes, but if that means less money isn’t that cutting your nose off to spite your face?
This is the same with corporate tax rates. You can raise them all you like but if corporations find ways around paying them like setting up HQ in countries with a lower rate, what purpose have you served?
When a company avoids paying US tax in favor of the lower tax in Ireland, the US loses. If we keep the rates high, we get 0% of the revenue from corporate taxes. If we lower it to be competitive then we can attract our own companies back and foreign companies that would HQ here for the lower rate. If we were to get say 10% of the tax revenue that would be 10% better than the 0% we currently get.
Every business knows that sometimes lowering prices gets more revenue. It is not about the price tag it is about the bottom line.
By Dusty on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
Fuck Charlie Gibson..since when is he a professor of economics manapp?
I hate when corporations do not pay any taxes dude…it’s that simple really. The tax base is American Workers.
We aren’t getting ANY REVENUE NOW manapp. Jesus H Christ are you being deliberately obtuse or just fucking stupid?
By Dusty on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
From an Econ Prof:
We used to have a 50 percent tax rate in the 50’s and 60’s when the economy had its most prosperous period, so I think you’re pretty hard-pressed to make the case that taxes are smothering the economy […] [T]he idea that somehow the tax rate, which is lower now than its been in years past, is strangling corporations, it doesn’t make any sense.
By Chris Radulich on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
I tried posting this twice with embedded links but they went out into the ether.
Payroll taxes, which fund Social Security tax, Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI), unemployment compensation, and various smaller retirement programs, accounted for 35 percent of federal revenues in 2006, roughly $840 billion.
The payroll tax share of federal revenues has grown from about one-sixth in 1960 to more than one-third today, in large part because of Medicare’s advent in 1965 and a sharp increase in Social Security taxes in 1983.
Source: Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Payroll-Taxes.cfm
So it would seem that a large part of the gain in federal revenue is due to — wait for it
wait for it
wait for it
The magic of TAX INCREASES.
Not just tax increase but ( according to the republicans) the worst type - payroll taxes.
By Chris Radulich on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
I personally think all income should be taxed the same and yes I own stock and get dividends. Lately no appreciation though.
By manapp99 on Oct 10, 2008 | Reply
So Chris or Dusty…you are not willing to address the facts on capital gains tax are you?
You still think it is a good idea to raise the capital gains tax even though historically this means less revenue because those evil rich people should pay more by Gawd!
If the revenue goes down when the rate goes up…guess who is paying less.
Either of you two ever run a business?
By Dusty on Oct 10, 2008 | Reply
Yes manapp, I owned a business for three years, and sold it at a profit…so give it a rest and start your own blog ok? This thread was hijacked by your ass and we responded. Gibson isn’t a fucking economist now is he? His parroting something told to him by someone else, doesn’t make it a fact, its a pov.
Get over it.
No one is going to be making money any time soon, based on the DOW losing over 20% of its value.
By manapp99 on Oct 10, 2008 | Reply
“Gibson isn’t a fucking economist now is he? His parroting something told to him by someone else, doesn’t make it a fact, its a pov.”
Are you disputing his assertions on researchable facts? Tax revenues vs. rates is not a POV it is a fact.
Gibson knows more about the economy than he does about the Bush Doctrine. Now that is a POV. At least with the capital tax he got one right.
By Dusty on Oct 10, 2008 | Reply
One more time in case you missed it earlier:
We used to have a 50 percent tax rate in the 50’s and 60’s when the economy had its most prosperous period, so I think you’re pretty hard-pressed to make the case that taxes are smothering the economy […] [T]he idea that somehow the tax rate, which is lower now than its been in years past, is strangling corporations, it doesn’t make any sense.
By manapp99 on Oct 10, 2008 | Reply
The tax rate I am refering to is specific. The capital tax gains rate. Charley was specific about this tax and Obama was specific to this tax. His response to the the FACT that the revenue from THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX going down as the rate went up was STUPID.
If you want a stable look at revenue vs rates historically….Tax rates have varied widely however overall tax revenue as a percent of GDP has been about 19% regardless of the rate.
However….the point that was being made was about a specific tax. Capital gains. Not income or employment tax.
By manapp99 on Oct 10, 2008 | Reply
Google Hausers Law Dusty. You will find this:
“The chart nearby, updating the evidence to 2007, confirms Hauser’s Law. The federal tax “yield” (revenues divided by GDP) has remained close to 19.5%, even as the top tax bracket was brought down from 91% to the present 35%. This is what scientists call an “independence theorem,” and it cuts the Gordian Knot of tax policy debate.”
By Dusty on Oct 10, 2008 | Reply
At last night’s Democratic debate, ABC’s co-anchor Charlie Gibson was intent on arguing with the Senators Clinton and Obama that a capital gains tax cut raises revenue. As others have pointed out, the evidence that a capital gains tax cut raises revenue is rather dubious, since most of the apparent increase is likely due to timing: investors delay selling stock when they know a tax cut is imminent. After the cut takes effect, they then declare their gains and pay taxes at the lower rate.
But this is only part of the story. As President Reagan noted when he signed the 1986 tax reform, taxing capital gains at a lower rate than other income gives people enormous incentive to game the tax code. If the tax rate on ordinary income for high-income taxpayers is 35 percent, and the tax rate on capital gains is 15 percent, then these folks can get a 20 percent return if they can make wage, interest, rent or dividend income appear as capital gains income. This can fuel a lot of creative tax shelters. This gap will also lead to an increase in capital gains tax collection – at the expense of ordinary income tax collections.
Or, if you don’t understand that point..here is another..
Sorry, Charlie: You’re Wrong on the Cap Gains Tax
Charlie Gibson really hammered the candidates–both candidates–over their proposals to raise the capital gains tax. Why woudl they do that, he asked, when lowering the cap gains tax during the 1990s raised revenue?
My recollection was that Gibson’s premise was wrong, but I couldn’t remember the details of why. Fortunately, I know a few economists. Here’s one of them–Jason Furman of the Brookings Institute–with the story:
Joint Committee on Taxation and Treasury both score raising capital gains taxes as raising revenues. There is some behavioral response but much of that is timing and doesn’t affect the medium-to-long term revenue loss.
Note that the experience after the 1997 cut and the 2003 cut is not a meaningful way to assess the impact of capital gains tax cuts on revenues because so many things were happening simultaneously. The JCT score of the capital gains cut in 1997 was a few billion dollars annually. The 2003 cut was something like $5 billion annually. But capital gains revenues can go up or down by tens of billions annually. So it is hard to look at the noisy data and infer ex post the revenue impact of these changes.
Or, to put it more simply, Gibson’s logic was flawed.
Have a nice day manapp, you neocon-loving fool.
By manapp99 on Oct 10, 2008 | Reply
Through all of that the fact still remains that when the rate was cut the revenue went up. The economist are positing theories as to why the cut is not the reason for the gain in revenue however they do not deny that the revenue did indeed go up as the rate went down.
One is fact. The rate went down and the revenue went up.
The other is theory. That the rate cut is not the REASON the revenue went up. That the revenue increase was due to other factors.
You take the theory and I’ll take the fact.
You liberal, American hating fool.