Barack Obama 2001 interview...

[BigSqwert]

So you dont care about injustices unless they affect you? A lot can be interpreted from your comment. Apparently you dont care because for the time being the increase wont affect you, but with Obamas proposed spending increases it will catch up with everyone and maybe than you will care.

 

Making rich people pay 4% more in income tax is not much of an injustice. But that's strictly my opinion.

[southsider2k5]

So how long can we go borrowing money? What happens when no one will lend us any more money?

 

You didn't answer the question. You just asked more questions.

[Texsox]

You didn't answer the question. You just asked more questions.

 

which question? I am trying to learn here, Economics isn't my field, it is yours. I'm just trying to understand.

[DrunkBomber]

Making rich people pay 4% more in income tax is not much of an injustice. But that's strictly my opinion.

Why isnt it? Theyre paying the same percent of taxes as everyone and now all of a sudden they have to pay more, how is that not an injustice? Just because they have more money doesnt mean they HAVE to be forced to pay even more of the load than they already do. They earned the money, they should be taxed the same as everyone else. It is punishing them for being successful. I know some people hate that choice of words but taking money from people is the most basic way of punishing them and thats whats going on here. It doesnt matter how bad they need it or what theyre going to spend it on, its theirs. What if someone told you that since you pay all your bills and still have a little left that theyre going to take the extra and use it how they see fit. Now, just because its on a smaller scale doesnt change anything, its taking more money from people that earned it because they "dont need" it because theyre "rich"

[Steff]

I hadn't seen the report from yesterday about it. I do know that the final draft hasn't been publicly issued yet.

 

I also know that problems with the gusset plates were also discovered as early as 2003.

 

 

The NTSB is not difinitive about the cause. They won't say anything more than the plates may have contributed. There is also strong evidence that the potassium acetate, used to keep the bridge of black ice, played a role. Also, in 2001 cracks in the cross girders were discovered. It's obvious that 1 thing alone didn't cause it. It was 40 years old.

[mr_genius]

Making rich people pay 4% more in income tax is not much of an injustice. But that's strictly my opinion.

 

The issue is that there are large gaps in Obama's spending and taxation plans. The Obama definition of ultra wealth has already dropped form $250,000 to $150,000. I would expect people making $60,000 to become part of the ultra wealthy tax bracket once Obama has been in office for a while.

 

His tax cuts are a farce, I was using the 'tax cut' calculator on his website and his 'tax cut' is a $500 check giveaway to everyone. Example: a single person paying 70k gets a $500 'tax cut'. A married couple paying 70k in taxes gets a 'tax cut' of 1000 even if the wife makes $70,000 and the husband makes $0. So the same amount taxable income gets different amounts of a 'tax cut'. Basically the husband gets a $500 'tax cut' on his annual salary of $0. It's not a taxation decrease, it's almost the same as the free check giveaway that Bush has done, except someone that pays no income taxes gets a 'tax cut' of $500 under the Obama plan.

Edited October 28, 2008 by mr_genius

[StrangeSox]

The issue is that there are large gaps in Obama's spending and taxation plans. The Obama definition of ultra wealth has already dropped form $250,000 to $150,000.

 

Link/ source?

[mr_genius]

Link/ source?

 

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...28/1600845.aspx

 

Biden said tax relief should only go to 'middle class people -- people making under 150,000 dollars a year.

 

There is no way that the taxation plan Obama has promised is what the actual rates will be. Even the Obama campaign is inconsistent and can't get it completely straight.

Edited October 29, 2008 by mr_genius

[Texsox]

SS, I was thinking about your points and tell me if this makes sense.

 

Currently there is a 500B deficit. I understand that cutting the spending now to cover that deficit would be bad, and raising taxes would also have a negative effect. So we have to hope the economy recovers before we go bankrupt.

 

So when we do experience better times, we start cutting or holding spending the same to where when we go through the next rough patch, we drop back to a balanced budget. It seems we can actually live within our means. So down the road when revenues are projected at X we can spend X and not X+Y. It seems that the government needs to continue to spend at their levels, not that they need to run a deficit.

[kapkomet]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/sen...tax_increa.html

 

Pretty damn clear to me what Obama's up to.

 

October 27, 2008

Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k

By Ned Barnett

I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.

 

 

However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.

 

 

I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.

 

 

The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.

 

 

See the difference?

 

 

Neither do I.

 

 

When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.

 

 

Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.

 

 

No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.

 

 

For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.

 

 

Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.

 

 

Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.

 

 

The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.

 

 

By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax increase.

 

 

However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website.

 

 

This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.

 

 

(updated) Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is. However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.

Under "President" Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain -- perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.

 

 

 

No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.

 

 

Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 -- and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes -- they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.

 

 

No question: this is Tax Lie #4.

 

 

There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes" proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his re-election bid.

 

 

This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that's the truth.

 

 

Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $50,000/year Taxable Income

 

 

2000 Tax Tables

2003 Tax Tables

2004 Tax Tables

2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)

Increase with Obama Tax Increase*

 

Taxable Income

$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

 

Tax: Single

$10,581

$9,304

$9,231

$10,581

$1,350

 

Tax: Married - Filing Joint

$8,293

$6,796

$6,781

$8,293

$1,512

 

Tax: Married - Filing Separate

$11,143

$9,304

$9,231

$11,143

$1,912

 

Tax: Head of Household

$9,424

$8,189

$8,094

$9,424

$1,330

 

 

 

Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $75,000/year Taxable Income

 

 

2000 Tax Tables

2003 Tax Tables

2004 Tax Tables

2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)

Increase with Obama Tax Increase*

 

Taxable Income

$75,000

$75,000

$75,000

$75,000

$75,000

 

Tax: Single

$17,923

$15,739

$15,620

$17,923

$2,303

 

Tax: Married - Filing Joint

$15,293

$12,364

$12,219

$15,293

$3,074

 

Tax: Married - Filing Separate

$18,803

$16,083

$15,972

$18,803

$2,831

 

Tax: Head of Household

$16,424

$14,439

$14,344

$16,424

$2,080

 

 

 

 

Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $100,000/year Taxable Income

 

 

2000 Tax Tables

2003 Tax Tables

2004 Tax Tables

2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)

Increase with Obama Tax Increase*

 

Taxable Income

$100,000

$100,000

$100,000

$100,000

$100,000

 

Tax: Single

$25,673

$22,739

$22,620

$25,673

$3,053

 

Tax: Married - Filing Joint

$22,293

$18,614

$18,469

$22,293

$3,824

 

Tax: Married - Filing Separate

$27,515

$23,715

$23,504

$27,515

$4,011

 

Tax: Head of Household

$23,699

$20,741

$20,594

$23,699

$3,015

 

 

 

* When "President" Obama allows President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, this will amount to a de facto tax increase -

 

 

[StrangeSox]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...28/1600845.aspx

 

 

 

Read that article, it's actually hilarious. This tax plan is such a fraud, there is no way that the taxation plan Obama has promised is what the actual rates will be. Even the Obama campaign is inconsistent and can't get it completely straight. Even with MSNBC's best spin it still comes off as total bs.

 

I don't think that's inconsistent. There's always been a group getting a tax cut (or tax 'relief'), a group in the middle with no net change (which I seem to remember being in the mid-100's through $250k), and a group at the top (250k+) getting a tax raise.

[kapkomet]

I don't think that's inconsistent. There's always been a group getting a tax cut (or tax 'relief'), a group in the middle with no net change (which I seem to remember being in the mid-100's through $250k), and a group at the top (250k+) getting a tax raise.

But that's not going to happen. They conveniently forget to tell you that.

 

[StrangeSox]

But that's not going to happen. They conveniently forget to tell you that.

 

I guess that's another issue, but what Biden said really isn't inconsistent (as far as I remember) with what Barack has said, regardless of whether their plan is legitimate.

 

I didn't realize Obama didn't count the Bush tax cuts expiring as tax increases. That is disingenuous. However, the net tax effect is still a reduction in taxes for all but the top quintile according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center's analysis.

 

http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item...-taxes-full.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060900950.html

Edited October 29, 2008 by StrangeSox

[mr_genius]

I guess that's another issue, but what Biden said really isn't inconsistent (as far as I remember) with what Barack has said, regardless of whether their plan is legitimate.

 

I didn't realize Obama didn't count the Bush tax cuts expiring as tax increases. That is disingenuous. However, the net tax effect is still a reduction in taxes for all but the top quintile according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center's analysis.

 

http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item...-taxes-full.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060900950.html

 

but thats 2009 tax rates. the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, i believe.

 

the tax situation would look a lot different in 2010 if Obama lets all the Bush tax cuts expire.

[StrangeSox]

but thats 2009 tax rates. the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, i believe.

 

the tax situation would look a lot different in 2010 if Obama lets all the Bush tax cuts expire.

 

Ah, good catch. My mistake.

 

 

Edited October 29, 2008 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

See, all these places that are "non-biased" forget to tell you the "facts" - or only those you want to be true so the medicine all tastes better going down.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

See, all these places that are "non-biased" forget to tell you the "facts" - or only those you want to be true so the medicine all tastes better going down.

 

Obama has voted for extended some of the Bush tax cuts in the past while letting others expire. Has he explicitly stated that he will let them all expire? I can't find any direct quotes through the googles, just a bunch of right-wing blogs and Hannity's website.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...enate-tax_n.htm

[kapkomet]

Obama has voted for extended some of the Bush tax cuts in the past while letting others expire. Has he explicitly stated that he will let them all expire? I can't find any direct quotes through the googles, just a bunch of right-wing blogs and Hannity's website.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...enate-tax_n.htm

Well, seeing as how it's been policy for 5+ years to NOT extend the cuts, why would all of a sudden they reverse course when they get power and make them permanent? And STILL pay for all the crap he wants to take over?

 

It's not going to happen.

[StrangeSox]

Well, seeing as how it's been policy for 5+ years to NOT extend the cuts, why would all of a sudden they reverse course when they get power and make them permanent? And STILL pay for all the crap he wants to take over?

 

It's not going to happen.

 

Well, he frequently talks about "tax cuts for the wealthy." Why is it hard to believe that, given his rhetoric and his previous vote, that he would allow the ones on the upper end to expire while keeping the lower ones?

[Soxbadger]

Hes never commented on the Bush tax cuts from what I can recollect.

t

This is entirely speculation about what is going to happen 2 years in the future, so in my opinion it is entirely irrelevant as its not based on fact.

 

But from what I can find he only has said that he will reverse the Bush tax cuts on:

 

Obama also said he would repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/oba...plan/index.html

 

Q: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.

 

OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.

 

CLINTON: That's right.

 

OBAMA: I'm not bashful about it.

 

CLINTON: Absolutely

 

OBAMA: I suspect a lot of this crowd--it looks like a pretty well-dressed crowd--potentially will pay a little bit more. I will pay a little bit more. But that investment will pay huge dividends over the long term, and the place where it will pay the biggest dividends is in Medicare and Medicaid. Because if we can get a healthier population, that is the only way over the long term that we can actually control that spending that is going to break the federal budget.

 

CLINTON: It's just really important to underscore here that we will go back to the tax rates we had before George Bush became president. And my memory is, people did really well during that time period. And they will keep doing really well.

 

http://www.issues2000.org/economic/barack_..._tax_reform.htm

 

The problem is that no one does research anymore, they just believe what they hear. The internet is a great gift and it is also a great curse on debate because people just source the same things and its some times impossible to get to the root of the situations.

 

The problem here is the phrase "Bush tax cuts" is being interpreted 2 different ways. I believe that when Obama uses it he is referring to the cuts for the rich people only and when he says get rid of them he means that he will raise taxes on those people who are above the 250k threshold. Others are interpreting it to mean that he will let all of the tax cuts lapse, therefore effectively raising the taxes for everyone in 2 years.

 

The only clear indication to my side Ive found is a year old article that says:

 

The issue is hard to avoid, because a tax debate looms during the first term of the next president. The Bush tax cuts are due to expire at the end of 2010, among them his reductions on marginal tax rates, and on estate, dividend income and capital gains taxes. Without action by Congress, rates would return to higher, pre-Bush levels.

 

All of the leading Republican candidates favor extending the Bush tax cuts, at a cost of about $2 trillion over 10 years. Leading Democratic candidates favor extending the cuts for middle-class families but want to end upper-income tax breaks.

 

Clinton and Obama have said they would let tax cuts lapse for families earning more than $250,000. Edwards goes further, saying he would repeal the tax cuts – not just wait for them to expire – for households earning more than $200,000.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/27/nation/na-taxes27

 

Once again this is a matter of interpretation, I have never seen Obama say that he will let all of the Bush tax cuts lapse.

 

{Edit}

 

What policy has been to let the tax cuts lapse for 5 years?

 

Thats a year old article where both Hillary and Obama say that they are are only going to let it lapse for families earning over 250k.

 

It seems entirely consistent with the message Obama is still giving.

 

Ive yet to see any quote from Obama saying that he will restore the tax level to pre-Bush era on anyone making less than 250k (or 160k if thats individual level).

Edited October 29, 2008 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

SS, I was thinking about your points and tell me if this makes sense.

 

Currently there is a 500B deficit. I understand that cutting the spending now to cover that deficit would be bad, and raising taxes would also have a negative effect. So we have to hope the economy recovers before we go bankrupt.

 

So when we do experience better times, we start cutting or holding spending the same to where when we go through the next rough patch, we drop back to a balanced budget. It seems we can actually live within our means. So down the road when revenues are projected at X we can spend X and not X+Y. It seems that the government needs to continue to spend at their levels, not that they need to run a deficit.

 

I think that we are close to the same page now. To be clear I do not like to see deficit spending in times of good economic conditions. I believe we have seen that they contribute to bubbles. Prudently drawing down spending levels to tax revenue levels is what I would like to see. But during times of recession, war, or other national problems, the governments role after the New Deal has been to be the spender of last resort, for lack of a better expression. Taking that role away would lead to larger and more frequent recessions/depressions.

[kapkomet]

Hes never commented on the Bush tax cuts from what I can recollect.

t

This is entirely speculation about what is going to happen 2 years in the future, so in my opinion it is entirely irrelevant as its not based on fact.

 

But from what I can find he only has said that he will reverse the Bush tax cuts on:

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/oba...plan/index.html

 

 

 

http://www.issues2000.org/economic/barack_..._tax_reform.htm

 

The problem is that no one does research anymore, they just believe what they hear. The internet is a great gift and it is also a great curse on debate because people just source the same things and its some times impossible to get to the root of the situations.

 

The problem here is the phrase "Bush tax cuts" is being interpreted 2 different ways. I believe that when Obama uses it he is referring to the cuts for the rich people only and when he says get rid of them he means that he will raise taxes on those people who are above the 250k threshold. Others are interpreting it to mean that he will let all of the tax cuts lapse, therefore effectively raising the taxes for everyone in 2 years.

 

The only clear indication to my side Ive found is a year old article that says:

 

 

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/27/nation/na-taxes27

 

Once again this is a matter of interpretation, I have never seen Obama say that he will let all of the Bush tax cuts lapse.

 

{Edit}

 

What policy has been to let the tax cuts lapse for 5 years?

 

Thats a year old article where both Hillary and Obama say that they are are only going to let it lapse for families earning over 250k.

 

It seems entirely consistent with the message Obama is still giving.

 

Ive yet to see any quote from Obama saying that he will restore the tax level to pre-Bush era on anyone making less than 250k (or 160k if thats individual level).

 

I've yet to see any quote from Obama saying he will NOT restore the tax level to pre-Bush era on anyone making anything.

 

If the party line has been to not make permanent this set of cuts, why would they go back to all of a sudden reverting back on something they never wanted to begin with?

 

This isn't HIS tax increase, it's only restoring what was there in the first place, right? It's semantics. All important semantics that everyone assumes Obama's a nice guy and will take care of everyone, which is bunk. The guy wants power, and his way of getting it is not like Bill Clinton (veer left to get elected and then be moderate), his way is his way or the highway, and you can shove that change right up your ass. His record proves it. But I forgot... the Messiah will save us all and "work together with everyone", INCLUDING our enemies, but whatever. It makes me sick to see the backbone of America just take it right up the ass purely because they hate George W. Bush so much.

[Rex Kickass]

You know how you know a change is coming?

 

People on one side are building massive expectations and will be having them shattered in the next six months.

 

People who previously had shattered expectations on the other side are sewing the seeds for years and years of manufactured outrage based on what isn't said. And these people will be all angry and all "I Told You So."

 

Some things, even change, never change.

[kapkomet]

You know how you know a change is coming?

 

People on one side are building massive expectations and will be having them shattered in the next six months.

 

People who previously had shattered expectations on the other side are sewing the seeds for years and years of manufactured outrage based on what isn't said. And these people will be all angry and all "I Told You So."

 

Some things, even change, never change.

You're partially right. The problem is, Rex, words should mean something. Obviously, they're "just words" and don't mean a damn thing anymore. And that's for either candidate who wins.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Clearly, you aren't a student of politics.

 

Words do matter! But only when it helps your side. If its damaging to your side from your side, that's just idle chit-chat, or out of context meanings. If its positive from the other side, its empty promises and being all hat with no cattle.

 

I'm reasonably confident that Obama will represent a return to some degree of normalcy that our government operated on under Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton pre 1997. How sad is it that we've gotten so polarized as a country that I long for the day where disagreements in D.C. can just be civil again?