ZerObama is finally getting it. He knows his promise to cut the taxes of 95% of Americans is a lie, and economically unsound. At least he is politically savvy enough to know when to flop.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA?SITE=OHTOL&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
TAHL
Comments ... #
Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.
"Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority."
What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?
"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."
I'm not drawing the same conclusion. Obama differentiates between not extending the tax cuts and raising taxes. If you get free bagels every morning because your friend works at the deli and then she quits and you have to pay full price, does that mean the deli raised the price of bagels? No, it means the gravy train is over.
I think that what he is saying is that he is going to let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire and make permanent the tax cuts for the middle class, which I agree with. But I also suspect that his definition of who is rich is a little more realistic than McCain's, who doesn't think you are rich until you make $5M a year.
Evidently Obama understands that letting the tax cuts expire (which is tantamount to raising taxes) would not be in the best interests of the economy now. However, two years down the road it will be great for the economy. Great logic there! If lower tax rates are good for the economy now, then they'll be good for the economy in two years.
I think he is finally understanding that you can't focus tax cuts soley on one demographic or socioeconomic group in the country. The fortunes of the poor and rich are intimately intertwined, and taxing the rich will secondarily pull money from the poor. Of course, even if it didn't pull money from the poor there's no excuse to take rich peoples' money just because you can. Always remember that 100% of income tax revenues are owned by, and belong to, an American citizen.
I wouldn't call a tax cut a "gravy train".
You can't compare a scenario of free bagels to something like taxes!
How about this scenario instead - Unlimited free water vs. paying for every drop (like now). Back in the day your water was free if you could dig your own well, or use the community well if not. Now you have to pay to have it cleaned and brought to your house. If you want to dig a well, you better pay a big fee to do it. Who get's a piece of that? Ding ding ding ding! Yep, the government!
I hate this fugging government we've allowed to metastasize. Ted Nugent used a cool name for it - "FEDZILLA". I love that.
posted by SillyWabbit on Sep 08, 2008 at 03:27:59 pm #
But I also suspect that his definition of who is rich is a little more realistic than McCain's, who doesn't think you are rich until you make $5M a year.
There's no way to define the income level at which someone becomes "rich." I think we would all agree Bill Gates/George Soros/Buffet are in a completely different league compared to someone making $5 million. Yet they are taxed the same for their income. The way it stands now Obama is defining "rich" as families making $250,000 a year. I've got news for you...that's not rich. You can't honestly lump a family making $250,000 a year in with people making 10 times that. These families are made of small business owners, lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, engineers, inventors, and mid-level executives. Almost without exception these people have taken enormous risks, expended hours of hard work and dedication, work insane hours, employ other hard-working people, and are one of the foundations of our modern economy. The thanks Obama gives them is a tax increase that serves as a negative motivation to work harder, innovate, grow, and improve their business. I'll pass on Obama's gratitude for these people.
Hey, Ace Face, have you read McCains ENTIRE quote about the rich=5 million? Another example of the dems taking things out of context. In reality, McCains next 2 words were, "but seriously". He was joking.
McCains next 2 words were, "but seriously". He was joking.
Well that's no surprise, because he's a joke. Face it, Obama's tax cuts will be larger than McCain's for a far larger portion of Americans. Essentially the the same tax rates as during the Clinton era.
Pink your hatred for McCain is showing.
posted by Linecrosser on Sep 08, 2008 at 10:45:55 pm #
Pink, your slipping --
"Essentially the same tax rates as during the Clinton era"
Bill Clinton passed the largest tax raises in HISTORY. And by doing so killed the storming economy he inherited. The only reason the economy survived Katrina, 9/11, Enron, rolling blackouts, etc. is because of the Bush admin. tax cuts.
Pink how can you believe Zer0bama is a leopard who is going to change his spots? Because his adds and some websites say so? Your not that naive. If you believe in his politics, his position, his ideology at least stand up and say so.
"I believe in bigger government to help the needy. I believe war is wrong. I believe the upper class should pay for the lower class."
If you believe these things, fine, we can agree to disagree and debate the merits. But you can't honestly believe the first thing Obama is going to change is his philosophy, his record, and his liberal socialist BELIEFS.
TAHL
posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 09, 2008 at 07:49:34 am #
Obviously, whether $250,000 a year makes you rich or middle class depends on where you live. In Bryan, Ohio = loaded. In New York City = middle class. But John McCain used to oppose the Bush tax cuts because they disproportionately favor the wealthy. Now he wants to make them permanent. Like a lot of his other beliefs from 2000, he seems to have gotten over that now and toes the party line.
Bill Clinton passed the largest tax raises in HISTORY
Wrong again TAHL. Ronald Reagan's tax increase was larger than Bill Clinton's.
http://www.factcheck.org/treasury_tax_expert_to_bush_clintons_increase.html
The only reason the economy survived Katrina, 9/11, Enron, rolling blackouts, etc. is because of the Bush admin. tax cuts.
The Bush tax cuts that McCain wants to continue are the number ONE reason for the biggest DEBT the world has ever seen, and we are much worse off (as are our grandchildren).
"I believe in bigger government to help the wealthy. I believe war is justified whatever the cost. I believe the lower class should pay for the upper class."
If you believe these things, fine, we can agree to disagree and debate the merits. But you can't honestly believe the first thing McCain is going to change is his philosophy, his record, and his corporate socialist BELIEFS.
Obama's tax cuts will be larger than McCain's for a far larger portion of Americans.
But John McCain used to oppose the Bush tax cuts because they disproportionately favor the wealthy.
That wasn't his reasoning. He wanted to see budget cuts to offset any tax cuts in the short term. He has said that repeatedly at the time and now.
That wasn't his reasoning.
Tell that to the John McCain of 2001:
"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief."
The people who continue to support Nobama are just making it harder on themselves. Trying to stop a cyclone with a fart, IMO.
posted by CharlieA-Z on Sep 09, 2008 at 05:46:01 pm #
The people who continue to support Nobama are just making it harder on themselves.
The number of people who support him are dropping like a rock. Let freedom reign.
I believe in the smallest government possible, empowered by the Constitution for very limited purposes.
I believe war is a brutal and unfortunate part of the human condition, and at time the necessary outcome of tyranny.
I believe everyone should pay for themselves, keep the majority of their earnings, and make the personal decision to help those in need.
McCain is not spouting off about supporting and instituting polices that defy his RECORD, his core philosophy and his party history (although he has been more moderate than most republicans). Zer0bama is promising things that go against all three.
TAHL
posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 10, 2008 at 12:19:58 pm #
If you believe in small government why are you voting for a party that grew the size of the federal government by 50% in terms of budget size in the past 7 years while they had control of congress, senate and white house? That doesn?t seem like a smaller government to me.
You state you think this war is necessary. Why is that? Do you believe we should be over there helping these people? Yet, you go on to say that it should be a personal decision to help those in need. Not a governmental decision. How can you have it both ways? Oh that?s right, those people we are ?helping? in Iraq are sitting on a butt load of oil.
I agree the Bush administration made major errors in the size and spending of government. That is why I won't vote for Bush in November 4th. However, the Democratic ticket will move us farther down the road to socialism, economic ruin, and the culture of envy. There is no doubt Obama will increase the size of government - increase taxes - and destroy the economy. Why do France, Russia and Venezuela support Obama's election? Culture envy and they know Democrats will move us closer to their version of freedom.
War is necessary because certain people in control of countries, resources, and armies are not amenable to cooperation on a global scale and insist on tyranny. Conflict and combat have been part of the human condition for all time, and will remain so.
Oil and energy are national security concerns and a valid reason to be present in the middle east. "No blood for oil" is a nice chant for a rally but is naive.
Singular or coordinated control of the middle east by a leader(s) opposed to America would cripple our country. Forget $10 a gallon - imagine ZERO oil from the Middle east, Russia and Venezuela. We would be at the mercy of any power dedicated to our destruction. No planes, no cars, no trucks, no ships - no power.
As a superpower do we have a moral obligation to "help" the oppressed? Not sure. On a global scale we cannot satisfy that obligation. However, as the first gulf war showed, once we assert influence in a region, we cannot and should not abandon the citizens when it becomes politically distasteful to stay.
TAHL
posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 11, 2008 at 08:30:52 am #
...the Bush administration made major errors in the size and spending of government...However, the Democratic ticket will move us farther down the road...
This is the "two wrongs make a right" argument I've never understood from the left. When you point out the fact that liberal policy is inherently about big government, someone will inevitably stand up and say "Oh yea, well Bush increased government more than anybody!".
Ok, so A) that was wrong of Bush and, B) is this supposed to mean its Ok for liberals then?
Singular or coordinated control of the middle east by a leader(s) opposed to America would cripple our country.
This is a serious issue and it is one of effectively three fronts threatening America (and thus liberty in the world) right now: 1. Middle Eastern energy, 2. a resurgence of communism (China, North Korea and Russia) and 3. socialism in the form of liberals in the US and abroad.
I see liberalism like America's cancer or HIV that saps its economy, morality and self-confidence, leaving its immune system weak and vulnerable for the ultimate killers which are the tyranny of communism and islamo fascism.
I never said it meant it was now okay for liberals to grow the government because Bush did it. On the contrary, I was stating the fact that Pubs want small small small yet grew it huge and I don't think Dems will. At least not to that extreme.
This is the "two wrongs make a right" argument I've never understood from the left. When you point out the fact that liberal policy is inherently about big government, someone will inevitably stand up and say "Oh yea, well Bush increased government more than anybody!".
Ok, so A) that was wrong of Bush and, B) is this supposed to mean its Ok for liberals then?
No, what it means is that the old saw about Democrats being "tax and spend" while conservatives reduce government and cut taxes is nothing more than a myth perpetuated by Republicans.
I see liberalism like America's cancer or HIV that saps its economy, morality and self-confidence, leaving its immune system weak and vulnerable for the ultimate killers which are the tyranny of communism and islamo fascism.
Really? I see conservatism as a selfish philosophy that uses fear, rage and intolerance to return us to a mythical "before" America that never existed in the first place.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
- Sinclair Lewis
...the old saw about Democrats being "tax and spend" while conservatives reduce government and cut taxes is nothing more than a myth perpetuated by Republicans...
The political philosophy that underlies the Democrat party is unquestionably tax and spend and has a 0% chance of being anything different when actually applied.
The political philosophy that underlies the Republican party is unquestionably reduced government and lower taxes. However, politics being the way they are and having the income tax and class warfare genie all ready out of the bottle, there is probably about an 80% chance of Republican policy being different when applied.
This is why the major liberal policies that were put in place during the 20th century because of the American left's illicit love affair with communism has turned out to be a dangerous infection that we need to find a cure for because it leaves us weak to defend liberty from threats on the outside.
Really? I see conservatism as a selfish philosophy...
That's because the cult of collectivism has effectively replaced your fellow man with government in your mind. To you, removing "compassion" from government means that compassion cannot exist and therefore removing it is selfish. This is because you don't recognize individuals as being capable of providing compassion themselves.
When tyrants are effective at making this change in people's minds, then the people will cheer their attempts to gain central control because they feel it is for "compassion" and that is now the only way their can be compassion.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."The rise of social conservatism was a natural and predictable reaction to the rise of liberalism.
Who threw the first punch? The Human Life Ammendment or Roe v. Wade? The Marriage Protection Amendment or gay marriage?
On the economic front, which came first, corporate lobbyists or the New Deal?
Dude, you are getting what you asked for. The only rational complaint you can have is that Americans are not willingly bending over for you. Personally, I thank God for that.
Conservatism is always a hopeless cause, in that it's core belief is to protect the status quo. This doesn't jive in a world that is (and must be) always progressing. Conservatism is just masturbation.
Conservatism is always a hopeless cause, in that it's core belief is to protect the status quo.
I'm with you 100% there, pink. Among my bigger influences is Hayek's essay Why I Am Not a Conservative.
From the first paragrah:
At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty, those who cherish freedom are likely to expend their energies in opposition. In this they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the position I have tried to define is also often described as "conservative," it is very different from that to which this name has been traditionally attached. There is danger in the confused condition which brings the defenders of liberty and the true conservatives together in common opposition to developments which threaten their ideals equally. It is therefore important to distinguish clearly the position taken here [babbleman: classical liberalism] from that which has long been known - perhaps more appropriately - as conservatism.
© 2003-2008 Toledo Talk
current date: 02-Dec-2008 1:31 P.M.
Now there's that pesky Champ Biden choice as VP
posted by justareviewer on Sep 08, 2008 at 01:25:27 pm #