Making wingnut emails work for you: A Primer

[Kelvin Mace]

As the campaign season begins in earnest, you will find yourself daily bombarded with lies, zombie lies, smears, half-truths, distortions, remarks taken out of context, and text-book libels from your wingnut co-workers and family members. Usually such emails are met with simple deletion, sizzling invective, and/or obscene gestures at your monitor.

This is not the most effective way to deal with this problem.

No, rather than ignore them, or explain to the sender why he/she has the intellectual capacity of mentally-retarded plant life, you need to treat these emails as "teaching opportunities". Be polite and informative, not rude and snarky.

Always answer these lies with the clinical, unvarnished truth. Try to avoid sarcasm (which doesn't translate well to most people via email) or condescension. Simply dissect the lie and correct it. Meticulously document your answer with links to neutral sources (Youtube videos are good for placing remarks in context, as are transcripts of actual exchanges).

To see a great example of how to do this, check out this piece

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/saywhat.asp

on Obama at Snopes.com

Snopes.com is your friend.

More importantly, note the tone of the response. Tone is critical in a response to email lies:

Right: The belief that Al Gore claimed to have "invented the internet" is a pervasive one in some circles. Fortunately, the claim is untrue, and easily disproved, the product of a misreading of what Gore actually said.

The response then links to things like this

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

and this

http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html

and especially this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7746308/.

Wrong: Jane, you ignorant slut.

It is also VERY important to format your response so that the rebuttal appears under the claim, and not just at the top of the email as is the common (and very annoying) practice. Putting it at the top requires a person to re-read the lies in order to follow your rebutal, thus the last thing they read is the original lie. Format as I have described and the last thing they read is the truth.

Finally, and this is the most important part, when answering such an email, ALWAYS hit "Reply All".

Why?

Because the message was almost always sent to a number of people, people who are now equally as misinformed as the sender. By replying to all, your truth goes out to everyone misinformed. Yes, some people may then send you a rude message, disputing your facts, but that's OK, since they are still ENGAGED in a discussion.

If a lies goes out to 20 people and you rebut it with the truth to those same 20 people, you might get two of them to change their views. Two people with the truth means two less people believing a lie, something that may be remembered in the voting booth (and as we learned in 2000, EVERY vote counts).

Even if you don't change any minds, you have taught them a lesson in being active, rather than passive, consumers of information, and exposure to truth is cumulative.

To recap:

1) ALWAYS respond to lies with the truth.
2) ALWAYS be polite and informative.
3) ALWAYS answer rudeness with textbook politeness.
4) ALWAYS use solid sources for the truth. YouTube and Snopes are your friend.
5) ALWAYS hit "Reply All"
6) ALWAYS follow up.
7) ALWAYS admit truthful claims detrimental to your side. Don't fudge, spin or tell lies of your own.

It is also a good idea to save your responses, since they can be re-used if the same email surfaces again.

And be careful out there. Constant exposure to wingnuttery can be hazardous to your view of your fellow human.

[Lasher]

1. Nah.

Think I'll just track them down and kick their asses.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. Emotionally satisfying, yes, but

then we have to bail you out. And, you could wind up in jail with a drunk Republican congressman.

[Lasher]

31. Eeeee, never thought about that cruel and inhuman stuff.

Guess I'll just continue to cyber-smack them down as I've been doing. Here's a thread where we pitched in to help with just such a reaction:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3282274

[Gman]

2. Reply All is your friend

I now get back numerous messages saying email from me has been blocked. They don't want to hear the truth.

[Kelvin Mace]

7. True,

but occasionally you get through. That makes it worth it.

[OmahaBlueDog]

12. I find that, once you respond with the truth, e-mail forwards suddenly stop coming.

[Kelvin Mace]

14. Yeah, that happens

but at least you gave them something to chew on. Besides, there is always someone else who will send you something new.

[Gman]

25. Very true, especially if it's the first or second one they're sending to me

...was it something I said??

[Lasher]

32. More than that, they don't want the truth to be told.

For a long time I just replied to the sender, giving them an opportunity to correct what they had done by forwarding to other recipients. Over the course of about 3 years involving at least a hundred of these liemails, there was only once that this ever happened. In every other case the sender was content to let the lies go uncorrected. Now I always reply to all.

[But....]

3. Bookmarked...

and thank you.

[Kelvin Mace]

8. My pleasure!

[NewJeffCT]

4. great post, and some great points

I always try to respond to these sorts of emails - and, being polite is a good way to get your point across.

I remember one making the rounds right after 9/11... it was that Oliver North testified to Congress that the terrorist trying to kill his family was Osama bin Laden. Of course, everybody believed it at the time because it was so easy to believe. However, I knew it was wrong and responded back that it was incorrect because North testified that it was Abu Nidal, not Osama bin Laden.

[Kelvin Mace]

9. And Ollie has an inflated opinion of himself

Besides, what terrorist would waste a bullet on such a staunch ally as Ollie?

[Lasher]

35. Yup. Yet some wingnuts worship this convicted felon.

I've always been disgusted to see him on TV, being treated like he's a hero instead of the Iran/Contra traitor he is. BTW, here's the debunking in question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3282274

[Indiana_Dem]

5. Thanks, I just received this one in my emails lastnight:

further comment from me after the copy & pasted email...
<snip>

Just stirring the political pot. Some I don't reach the same conclusions but heed the word in red about the Congress.
Too many people put all their hopes into the office of the presidency. The greater troublemakers are in Congress.
I hope you will consider dumping ALL incumbents, state and federal, this fall.




This email comes in three parts:
Part 1
In just one year . Remember the election in 2006?
Thought you might like to read the following:
A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.



Part 2:

Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.
www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates

It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.

PART 3:

You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?
Read this:
Boy am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it
is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.

I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again
until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I
have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.



1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens
each year by state governments. Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs
such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school
education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the

American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &
social services by the American taxpayers. Verify at:
http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused
by the illegal aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate
that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,
their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt..01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens
that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens
from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin
and mariju ana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.

Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total
cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average
cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'
Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances
back to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million
Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.'
Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml



The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.

Are we THAT stupid?

If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the other
hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you
forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in
Washington, D.C. - five times a week for as long as it takes to restore
some semblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof.
<snip>

I did hit 'reply all' but I do think I made the mistake of sounding a little snarky and condescending. It was 1am and it made me so livid I almost couldn't sleep! I'm so sick of these emails that I will not sit idly by and delete them and say nothing. Either they'll quit sending them to me or I will keep hitting "reply all" with remarks!!!! GRRRrrrr!

[Kelvin Mace]

11. This is a prime example

of the BS going round. It is has it all: Lies, bald-faced lies, misinformation, etc.

Taking the time to tale it apart piece by piece is tedious, but it puts these idiots in the position of having to actually think. Always good for our side.

[OmahaBlueDog]

26. Almost all of these are "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure" e-mails

The tax rates, for example, imply that you'll pay twice as much tax. Neither the Clinton nor Bush rates account for deductions. Families with kids will pay nowhere near those rates under either plan.

Some of the anti-immigration figures are, essentially, counted twice -- and the whole e-mail is predicated on the absurd proposition that the Iraq war is a great idea, and if those libs would just deport all the Mexicans and build the wall, we could easily afford it.

The "since 2006" e-mail cites one-thing-has-nothing-to-do-with-another events, and makes them appear causal. I could just as easily say "Since 2006, when the Democrats took control of congress, teerrorist attacks fell to nothing -- from the period that Bush took over to November 2006, almost 4,000 Americans died in terrorist attacks right here on our soil UNDER THE SLEEPING WATCH OF A CONGRESS THAT FAILED ITS 'CONTRACT WITH AMERICA!'

[Lasher]

36. That one's making the rounds.

It was discussed in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3282274

It's debunked here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/votedforchange.asp

The Clinton/Bush tax comparison has come up before and is more specifically refuted here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/clinton-bush.asp

[lonestarnot]

10. Not wasting my time with that shit.

[Kelvin Mace]

13. Then you have ZERO

chance of reaching anyone.

Now that's cool, since not everyone has the time or the patience for this type of work.. But the only way we can win is by making people think and by not allowing lies to go unchallenged.

[lonestarnot]

16. I do other things. I get too pissed at the senders, I'll leave this work to others. My tolerance

for ignorance is just fucking gone. Sorry.

[Kelvin Mace]

22. Oh, I completely sympathize

It takes a LOT of self-control to deal with idiots. Some times I'm not up to it.

[lonestarnot]

28. OK so I lied, well not really, I just had a piece of apple pie and went back in with truth here is

my second response to his second round.

him: Please show me anytime in the last twenty or more years when a Democratic administration did not raise taxes.

me: Dude what has the war been if not a back door disaster of a tax, cutting every program for everyone but the top 1%. It is time to take back from the Blackwaters, the Halliburtons and the oil men. Tax the living fuck out of them and they may have to give up golf. My heart just damn bleeds for that crisis! 70% of Americans have no, and I do mean NO net worth. The tax threat is just another blowhard bushitler scare tactic and it is laughable. The top 5% of this country own 75% of this nation's wealth. In 1999 that was 55%. Not bad 8 years and 20% of the country's wealth stolen from those who need it most. Now watch this drive!

Please respond with your addition to mine. Thank you in advance.

[lonestarnot]

18. Here is an example from the last response I sent LOL

email re tax comparisons and how Obama would tax us to death. My response.
"What bullshit!... _____________, I thought you were a smart man." End

[OmahaBlueDog]

17. Much of the time you don't need to

Many of these e-mails ave already been debunked on sites like this one or on Snopes.

Two easy, lazy persons way to accomplish the OPs goals.

1) Copy the e-mail, post it here on GD with "I need help with a wingnut e-mail." Often, someone will point you to the facts.

2) Check www.snopes.com

[lonestarnot]

19. Thanks OBD.

[Th1onein]

21. You are very lucky to be getting the "shit" in the first place.

I remember a time when political discourse was considered boring and no one listened to you, if you engaged in it. Now, we have the internet, and EVERYONE is engaging in political discourse. Thank God for that; it will save democracy as nothing else can.

I LOVE these types of lying emails. Especially when I know that they are going out to an audience of (mostly) rightwing nuts. It's easy to preach to the choir, but if we're going to make a difference, we have to talk to those who don't believe the same way that we do. These emails are an opportunity to do that.

I don't agree with the OP that we should put our rebuttal AFTER the original email info. Most people don't look that far into the email. It's important, I think, to put your rebuttal up front.

[lonestarnot]

30. Your rebuttal for this please

Our choices...
*_Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:_*


*_CAPITAL GAINS TAX_*

*MCCAIN*
*15% (no change)*

*OBAMA*
*28%*

*CLINTON*
*24%*

*How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit under Obamer,
you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement
and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement
community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes.
This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the
income from their homes as part of their retirement income.*



*_DIVIDEND TAX_*

*MCCAIN*
*15% (no change)*

*OBAMA*
*39.6%*

*CLINTON*
*39.6%*

*How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock
market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement
accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be
paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama or Clinton
lead us (the CHANGE he talks to). Experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on
dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do
absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.'*



*_INCOME TAX_*

*MCCAIN*
*(no changes)*
*Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250*

*OBAMA*
*(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)*
*Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 *

*CLINTON*
*(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)*
*Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 *

*No explanation needed. This is pretty straight forward.*



*_INHERITANCE TAX_*

*MCCAIN*
*0%*
*(No change, Bush repealed this tax)*

*OBAMA*
*keep the inheritance tax*

*CLINTON*
*keep the inheritance tax
*
*How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms and
ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations
because they could not afford the inheritance tax. *
*Those willing their assets to loved ones will not only lose them to
these taxes.*




*NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY BOTH CLINTON AND OBAMA
*
** New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square
feet
*
** New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)
*
** New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water,
electricity)
*
** New taxes on retirement accounts
*
*and last but not least....*
** New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same
level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!*


*Can you afford Clinton or Obama? *
*In case you want more information on Obama's tax and spend agenda:*

_If Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) Could Enact All Of His Campaign Proposals,
Taxpayers Would Be Faced With Financing $87,435 Billion In New Spending
Over One White House Term: _
Updated February 14, 2008: Obama's National Infrastructure Reinvestment
Bank Will Cost $60 Billion Over Ten Years;Equal To $6 Billion A Year And
$24 Billion Over Four Years. Obama: 'I'm proposing a National
Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten
years.' (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Economic Policy, Janesville , WI,
2/13/08)

Obama's Health Care Plan Will Cost Up To $65 Billion A Year; Equal To
$260 Billion Over Four Years. ' campaign officials estimated that
the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion
to $65 billion a year, when fully phased in, and said the revenues from
rolling back the tax cuts were enough to cover it.' (Robin Toner and
Patrick Healy, 'Obama Calls For Wider And Less Costly Health Care
Coverage,' /The New York Times/, 5/30/07)

Obama's Energy Plan Will Cost $150 Billion Over 10 Years, Equal To $15
Billion Annually And $60 Billion Over Four Years. 'Obama will invest
$150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels
and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in
hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy,
invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new
digital electricity grid.' (Obama For America, 'The Blueprint For
Change,' www.barackobama.com , Accessed
1/14/08, p. 25)

Obama's Tax Plan Will Cost Approximately $85 Billion A Year; Equal To
$340 Billion Over Four Years. ' proposed tax cuts and credits,
aimed at workers earning $50,000 or less per year, would cost the
Treasury an estimated $85 billion annually.' (Margaret Talev, 'Obama
Proposes Tax Code Overhaul To Help The Poor,' /McClatchy Newspapers/,
9/19/07)

Obama's Plan Would Raise Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends, And On
Carried Interest. Obama's tax plan includes: 'ncreasing the highest
bracket for capital gains and dividends and closing the carried interest
loophole.' (Obama For America, 'Barack Obama: Tax Fairness For The
Middle Class,' Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com
, Accessed 1/8/08)
Obama's Economic Stimulus Package Will Cost $75 Billion. 'Barack Obama's
economic plan will inject $75 billion of stimulus into the economy by
getting money in the form of tax cuts and direct spending directly to
the people who need it most.' (Obama For America, 'Barack Obama's Plan
To Stimulate The Economy,' Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com
, 1/13/08)

Obama's Earl y Education And K-12 Package Will Cost $18 Billion A Year;
Equal To $72 Billion Over Four Years. 'Barack Obama's early education
and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year.' (Obama For
America, 'Barack Obama's Plan For Lifetime Success Through Education,'
Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com
, 11/20/07, p. 15)
Obama's National Service Plan Will Cost $3.5 Billion A Year; Equal To
$14 Billion Over Four Years. 'Barack Obama's national service plan will
cost about $3.5 billion per year when it is fully implemented.' (Obama
For America, 'Helping All Americans Serve Their Country: Barack Obama's
Plan For Universal Voluntary Citizen Service,' Fact Sheet, w
ww.barackobama.com
, 12/5/07)

Obama Will Increase Our Foreign Assistance Funding By $25 Billion.
'Obama will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme
poverty around the world in half by 2015, and he will double our foreign
assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal.' (Obama For America,
'The Blueprint For Change,' www.barackobama.com
,
Accessed 1/14/08, p. 53)
Obama Will Provide $2 Billion To Aid Iraqi Refugees. 'He will provide at
least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring
countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a
safe-haven.' (Obama For America, 'The Blueprint For Change,'
www.barackobama.com
, Accessed
1/14/08, p. 51)

Obama Will Provide $1.5 Billion To Help States Adopt Paid-Leave Systems.
'As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states
to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to
assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs
for employees and employers.' (Obama For America, 'The Blueprint For
Change,' www.barackobama.com
, Accessed
1/14/08, p. 15)

Obama Will Provide $1 Billion Over 5 Years For Transitional Jobs And
Career Pathway Programs, Equal To $200 Million A Year And $800 Million
Over Four Years. 'Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in
transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven
methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce.'
(Obama For America, 'The Blueprint For Change,' www.barackobama.com
,
Accessed 1/14/08, p. 42)

Obama Will Provide $50 Million To Jump-Start The Creation Of An
IAEA-Controlled Nuclear Fuel Bank. Obama: 'We must also stop the spread
of nuclear weapons technology and ensure that countries cannot build --
or come to the brink of building -- a weapons program under the auspices
of developing peaceful nuclear power. That is why my administration will
immediately provide $50 million to jump-start the creation of an
International Atomic Energy Agency-controlled nuclear fuel bank and work
to update the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.' (Sen. Barack Obama,
'Renewing American Leadership,'* /Foreign Affairs/,7-8
*

[Lasher]

37. How about this?

Basically, your article consists of inaccuracies that were copied in part from an old liemail, comparing taxes under Clinton with taxes under Junior. And here it is:

IRS agent's observations

After watching the democratic debate the other day in Vegas, I literally wanted to puke. For the most part, all of them bashed Bush over and over again on how he is out for his millionaire friends and the big oil companies and he has totally forgotten or disregarded the little guy. So being an ex-IRS employee, I decided to look back on the tax tables to see if there is any truth to what they said and the media keeps stating as fact, "Bush is only out for the rich in this country.

Based on using the actual tax tables (see link below), here are some examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for both singles and married couples. so let's see if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,7 50
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K - tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If any democrat is elected, ALL of them say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman, you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even k now what happened. Now this is effective (maybe not honest) marketing or maybe a better word is brain washing.

Our ‘IRS agent’ needs to learn something about taxes. The provided link takes us to marginal tax rates, not tax tables. However, these rates can be used to determine an individual’s Federal Income taxes. But you have to be slightly smarter than a rock to do it. Let us refer to the rates provided by our ‘IRS agent’:

In 1999 the marginal tax rate for single taxpayers was 15.0% for income up to $25,750 and 28.0% for income ranging from $25,750 to $62,450. $30,000 puts you in the 28% bracket so our ‘IRS agent’ took 28% of $30,000 (30,000 X .28 = $8,400). Ha ha ha, what a dumbass!

Income up to $25,750 was taxed at the 15% rate, and income above that (the remaining $4,250 in this example) was taxed at the 28% rate (0.15 x $25,750 = $3,862.50) + (0.28 x $4,250 = $1,190) = $5,052.50, which is the correct amount of taxes in this case.

Likewise, in 2008, the tax for single taxpayers earning $30,000 would have been $4,099 (0.10 x $8,025 = $802.50) + (0.15 x $21,975 = $3,296.25) = $4,098.75

Numbers from our ‘IRS agent’:
1999 (Clinton) Single making 30K - tax $8,400
2008 (Bush) Single making 30K - tax $4,500
claimed difference: $3,900

Actual numbers:
1999 (Clinton) Single making 30K - tax $5,052
2008 (Bush) Single making 30K - tax $4,099
Actual difference: $953

In this case, 76% of the claimed Bush "tax cut" evaporates as soon as you actually do the math. None of this accounts for inflation, taxpayers who do not take the standard deduction, the Alternative Minimum Tax, or households with dependents.

Your article uses the same old lists of the same old wrong numbers. But this is academic. Neither Obama nor Clinton has advocated repealing tax cuts for people in the tax brackets that our ‘IRS agent’ lists. They both speak of eliminating cuts for taxpayers earning in excess of $250,000 per year. In fact, both candidates speak of expanding tax cuts and/or tax credits for the middle class. Taxes that mainly impact the rich and which Democrats would like to see restored to former levels, or at least higher than current levels, are the capital gains, dividend, and inheritance taxes.

And your article advises that our IRAs would be subject to higher taxes on dividends if either Democratic candidate ends up being president. IRAs are not subject to capital gain or dividend taxation.

There are other obfuscations but I think I’ve identified enough to properly categorize this article’s level of credibility.

[lonestarnot]

39. Thanks lasher.

I certainly don't claim to be a tax wizard. And I need more coffee. Back later.

[KG]

15. fortunately, nobody so stupid as to believe RW crap has my e-mail address.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. Not just for emails

I go to an entertainment message board, where, from time to time, politics crops up. If I am polite and cite sources, as you suggest, I find that the conservatives at the board (and there are many) will listen. Proud to give the 5th R for this, btw.

[Kelvin Mace]

23. Excellent point

and thanks!

I remember getting a fellow on a mailing list to drop his support for capitol punishment after a prolonged discussion of the topic.

Made my year.

[NuttyFluffers]

24. y'know, form letter rebuttals might be a good idea for this.

might be a good project for those interested. just pick up a common chain letter, have it rebutted in a neutral form letter format with citations and all. and then whenever someone gets one of these, copy, paste, add flavor text, reply all.

it'd save time for a lot of us. i too do not have the time to bother. but it really is an opportunity to counter lies at roughly their same speed.

make it a DU truth project or something. keep cited and polite form letters for various chain letters in some searchable area.

[caraher]

27. This would work much better if people were rational...

My amateur opinion on why the wingnuts persist in certain false beliefs in the face of all evidence is that a set of shared beliefs gives them the feeling of being part of something larger than themselves. They bond over "who killed Vince Foster" and Swift Boat B.S. And paradoxically, the more ridiculous the lie, the effective it might be in the social role of creating a group of "us" facing "them."

I do agree that sticking to the facts is the only way to reach those who will listen. But it's also helpful to one's sanity to recognize that myths play a role in binding communities together that does not depend on their being true! That's especially true of a community based on political identity (and this happens on the left as well as the right!).

My take on the results of some recent research on the persistence of myths (research paper here) is that an effective debunking might need to acknowledge the myth as little as possible. This suggests that, in a case like "Al Gore claims to have invented the Internet," it might be better simply to describe the role he did play promoting its development. Say as little as possible about the claim your are confronting. The two secrets to the ascendancy of right-wing talking points are simplicity and repetition; let's try not to avoid doing their work by gratuitous repetition of falsehoods, even in the course of debunking them.

While John Kerry did this to some degree, I think his response to the Swift Boat campaign should have been more vigorous, and should have focused attention on the well-documented facts of his service. What people needed to know was that he had a distinguished service record and the admiration of the vast majority of the people who actually were in combat with him. Just repeat the truth; doing so does not require giving any more publicity to lies.

I also think getting deeply into the details of myths - at least at this level - is really a trap. When someone wants to explore an issue with an open mind, that's the time to share the mountains of facts. Pick the most salient points for your response. Ideally, you're opening someone to dialog rather than exchanges of partisan slogans. You probably wouldn't expect to hear someone's entire life story on the first date - nor would you want to! Ultimately, having the facts on your side is only one element of nurturing change. The politeness you call for is another, and I think time has to enter in as well.

Your post is a good reminder of the difference between persuasion and venting... thanks!

[Bigmack]

29. I sent this out just today....

To a friend who passed it to me for comment. I didn't just hit Reply All... I moved all the email addresses into the CC area. Sometimes the damned thing has been forwarded so many times that Reply All would just hit the last group that received it.

I always try to use the word LIE, since this shit is made up and already disproved.
- - - - -
Jim... where do you get this crap? If somebody sends you LIES, they certainly can't be friends.

The piece with the petition about Social Security benefits going to illegals is not just incorrect... it is a LIE!

First of all, the vote on this measure wasn't last week.. it was in May of 2006. It wasn't about Illegal aliens getting benefits, it was an amendment to a bill that would give SS benefits to a tiny group of formerly illegal workers who had become legal under the law. Since they had already paid in, this seemed fair. THE AMENDMENT WAS VOTED DOWN!!! IT DID NOT PASS!

IT IS TRUE ... AND ALWAYS WAS TRUE... THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS, WHILE THEY PAY INTO SOC SEC, CANNOT GET SocSec BENEFITS!! (SocSec contributions by illegals make up 10% of the SocSec surplus.... about $300 Billion in the last 20 years.)

The person who sent this out originally was either brain dead or knew they were sending out a lie. And anybody who sends this shit on without fact checking is guilty of passing on a lie. It took me about 20 seconds to find this stuff out on snopes.com

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/socialsecurity.asp

Another site that explains the situation.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050410/news%5Fmz1e10ruben.html

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[Hekate]

34. Well done! Bookmarked and Rec'd!

:toast:


Hekate

[ColbertWatcher]

38. Don't forget to post it on DU...

...so everyone else can read what the GOP are saying!

Thank you for posting this, it is very informative.

[Kelvin Mace]

40. Excellent suggestion

Maybe we should create a new forum just for that purpose.

[ColbertWatcher]

42. How do we go about starting a new forum?

Because it would at least be an easy way to keep track of the thousands of emails that get sent out over and over.

I'd start a page on the wiki, but it's not very satirical and would be hard to make it so without losing its purpose.

[Kelvin Mace]

43. Well, I'll ask the powers that be

They haven't been punched yet, so they may still be coherent. :)

[ColbertWatcher]

44. Thank you.

Please keep me informed, either via proclamation by thread or PM.

[Blue_Tires]

41. k+r