Barack Obama's Expensive Domestic Agenda Will Cost America's Middle Class

The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion. ..Mr. Obama is very good at portraying his agenda as nothing more than center-left pragmatism. But pragmatists don't ignore the data. And the reality is that the only way to pay for Mr. Obama's ambitions is to reach ever deeper into the pockets of the American middle class. Full Story »

Posted by Walter Cox
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Walter Cox - Feb 26, 2009 - 10:16 AM PST
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Kaizar Campwala - Mar 1, 2009 - 3:14 PM PST
Kaizar Campwala
3.2
by Kaizar Campwala - Mar. 1, 2009

This piece gives us numbers, but is very one sided by failing to present the Administration's explanation of the discrepancy.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Peter L. Combs
3.8
by Peter L. Combs - Mar. 1, 2009

This is a WSJ editorial based on current IRS Tax rates and reported incomes in the USA. The article points out with deft clarity the folly of the current plans for Income Tax Revisions now being considered. Facts are stubborn things.

I hope Mr. Obama and the new administration find a better mathematician than they apparently have at this time. A 100% tax for those earning over $250K seems just a tad overburdensome.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Walter Cox
3.7
by Walter Cox - Feb. 26, 2009

A good reality-check piece. Obama's Tuesday evening speech was inspiring--if we believe his numbers. Even a cursory check of those numbers reveals some wide disparities that should cause every American pause.

I like Obama, and I voted for him. It is especially refreshing to listen to a President who does not mangle the English language at every turn. It may be up to us, however, to make sure that President Obama does not mangle reality.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Glenn LaBauve
1.7
by Glenn LaBauve - Feb. 27, 2009

When all else fails ignore the facts and make up new ones. The WSJ owner Murdoch (of Fox News fame) has shown that the right wing lockstep has beem completed.

While the WSJ has always been pro business to a fault, under prior owners, they did not play fast and loose with the truth and could be trusted

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Fred Gatlin
2.0
by Fred Gatlin - Feb. 27, 2009

It used to be that you could trust the Wall Street Journal, but that has clearly changed. Today they are one of many that write what their readers like and to hell with the truth.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Jack Dinkmeyer
1.0
by Jack Dinkmeyer - Feb. 26, 2009

Newstrust needs to seriously reevaluate its “Do You Trust This Publication” rating of WSJ. Since it was sold to Murdock–who swore no changes would be made–it’s now out-FOXing FOX. Obviously this article is an opinion–and a radically conservative one at that–complete with the standard neocon “pulled-out-of-thin-air” facts and “ignore-our-logic” distortions. If you’re a FOX fan, you’re gonna love WSJ.

Those tired hackneyed neocon mantras are wearing thin. You remember: mantras which gave us the largest deficit in history? Mantras which mired us into America’s longest war? Mantras which got us into this mess, in the first place? Suggestion: why don’t we do what neocons are suggesting–give special interest tax cuts, ignore everything else and see where America ends up?

See Full Review » (19 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

2.5

Average
from 7 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
2.5
Facts
1.0
Fairness
1.0
Information
2.7
Insight
2.6
Style
2.6
Accuracy
1.0
Balance
1.0
Context
2.3
Depth
1.0
Enterprise
2.3
Expertise
1.7
Originality
2.0
Relevance
3.2
Transparency
1.0
Responsibility
1.0
Popularity
2.7
Recommendation
2.3
Credibility
3.3
# Reviews
3.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help