Barack Obama 2001 interview...

[Soxbadger]

I understand the semantics argument, there just is no clear cut answer either way to prove Obama is or is not going to let the Bush tax cut lapse on those under 250k combined for families.

 

I dont get into speculation, I just argue based on the facts that I have at my disposal. I dont think Obama is a savior and I certainly would never call him a messiah, I just tell it like I feel it is. At the end of the day I dont care if my taxes are 100% as long as it means that social conservatism is kept out of power. Im a social liberal and in that regard there is absolutely no choice for me in this election. If the Republican party ever decides to get back to keeping govt out of both business and morals, I would probably vote against Democrats.

 

But the Republican model is basically just the same as the Democrats with slightly different tax decreases. Both are going to deficit spend out of this problem.

 

[Rex Kickass]

But the Republican model is basically just the same as the Democrats with slightly different tax decreases. Both are going to deficit spend out of this problem.

 

Except the issues facing us now have become systemic based on long term deficit spending. So I would argue that we will not purely deficit spend out of this problem. Because it will only create more problems.

[bmags]

Clinton went left during elections then governed central? Right. That's the exact opposite of what he was accused of doing during his reign. This is all bunk. You are creating what you want to hear, that Obama is so pro taxes he's going to tax even more than tax itself! If the upper middle class sees an income tax increase when they were told they wouldn't, then his chances at a second term are over. And if you are accusing him to just be a politician who wants power, he wouldn't be dumb enough to seal his fate.

[kapkomet]

I understand the semantics argument, there just is no clear cut answer either way to prove Obama is or is not going to let the Bush tax cut lapse on those under 250k combined for families.

 

I dont get into speculation, I just argue based on the facts that I have at my disposal. I dont think Obama is a savior and I certainly would never call him a messiah, I just tell it like I feel it is. At the end of the day I dont care if my taxes are 100% as long as it means that social conservatism is kept out of power. Im a social liberal and in that regard there is absolutely no choice for me in this election. If the Republican party ever decides to get back to keeping govt out of both business and morals, I would probably vote against Democrats.

But the Republican model is basically just the same as the Democrats with slightly different tax decreases. Both are going to deficit spend out of this problem.

How many times do I have to see this? You, me, everyone, practically, says this, yet the GOP keeps trotting out the same old pile of s***, cycle after cycle. That's "conservatism", IMO, is to let people be who they are without government intervention.

 

I think there's a lot of people like this - dare I say it, the majority of Americans. Yet, somehow, the majority of Americans seem to never get real representation.

 

[Texsox]

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.

 

I understand that role, but the emergencies now seem to be more based on approval ratings and election cycles. And actually we can't deficit spend in the good times, we need that surplus to pay off the last rounds of loans.

 

As I have summarized before, I'll live with tax and spend or don't tax and don't spend, we can survive either of those, but the don't tax and spend will leave us in the same shape the Soviet Union found themselves a couple decades back.

[kapkomet]

Clinton went left during elections then governed central? Right. That's the exact opposite of what he was accused of doing during his reign. This is all bunk. You are creating what you want to hear, that Obama is so pro taxes he's going to tax even more than tax itself! If the upper middle class sees an income tax increase when they were told they wouldn't, then his chances at a second term are over. And if you are accusing him to just be a politician who wants power, he wouldn't be dumb enough to seal his fate.

A realist knows that Clinton would have never survived after 4 years. He learned something by HillaryCare getting hammered. Obama's more arrogant then that.

 

[bmags]

A realist knows that Clinton would have never survived after 4 years. He learned something by HillaryCare getting hammered. Obama's more arrogant then that.

 

So he started running trying to push all these liberal things, then gets defeated re election runs as centrist. Obama's more arrogant than that...right. So arrogant that he's going to win that he has staff in Omaha nebraska just to try and pry away that one electoral vote.

[kapkomet]

So he started running trying to push all these liberal things, then gets defeated re election runs as centrist. Obama's more arrogant than that...right. So arrogant that he's going to win that he has staff in Omaha nebraska just to try and pry away that one electoral vote.

Um, no, he has more money then God and wants to wipe the map so he can claim (add REVERB - VICTORRRRYYYYYY) EVERYWHERE! And a "TRUE MANDATE OF CHANGE"... unlike the doofus ass we have for a president now said 4 years ago.

 

[Texsox]

Um, no, he has more money then God and wants to wipe the map so he can claim (add REVERB - VICTORRRRYYYYYY) EVERYWHERE! And a "TRUE MANDATE OF CHANGE"... unlike the doofus ass we have for a president now said 4 years ago.

 

He will even offer a colorful county by county map to prove a 1% victory was actually a landslide

 

You gotta love 'em. It's a crappy process and pretty damn sleazy.

[bmags]

Um, no, he has more money then God and wants to wipe the map so he can claim (add REVERB - VICTORRRRYYYYYY) EVERYWHERE! And a "TRUE MANDATE OF CHANGE"... unlike the doofus ass we have for a president now said 4 years ago.

 

Right, but nebraska wouldn't turn red with him getting that district. He'd get 1 electoral vote. He wouldn't be able to claim victory there. So if he wants to win so badly that he has contingency plans to even get 1 electoral vote in NE, what does that say about how he'll play to get re-elected in your frame of Obama. Arrogance would be putting a ton of resources in Arizona and risking OH and FLA, not this.

[kapkomet]

Right, but nebraska wouldn't turn red with him getting that district. He'd get 1 electoral vote. He wouldn't be able to claim victory there. So if he wants to win so badly that he has contingency plans to even get 1 electoral vote in NE, what does that say about how he'll play to get re-elected in your frame of Obama. Arrogance would be putting a ton of resources in Arizona and risking OH and FLA, not this.

So why is he putting all those resources there, then? And frankly, who cares?

 

It's because he can. No other reason, really.

 

[bmags]

So why is he putting all those resources there, then? And frankly, who cares?

 

It's because he can. No other reason, really.

 

I could say who cares to everything you say, it doesn't prove any point. What's your argument that he's so arrogant he'll tax increase every bracket without fear of re-election? That he eats arugula?

[kapkomet]

I could say who cares to everything you say, it doesn't prove any point. What's your argument that he's so arrogant he'll tax increase every bracket without fear of re-election? That he eats arugula?

Ahhh, but HE won't... it will just be the EVIL BUSHIES tax cuts will expire... gotta love semantics.

 

It's going to change 700 times between now and then anyway.

 

But, here's the deal. He CAN increase every tax bracket down to the current 15% and give it away to the rest of the people and it's STILL the majority of Americans who get the "breaks".

 

[bmags]

As much as you think it would be possible for a semantics argument to be made about the tax increases being attributed to Bush, it wouldn't. Nobody would believe that the tax raises on every bracket two years could be attributed to Bush by the democrats. For one, you are giving them far too much credit, and for two these are WILD extrapolations. You have absolutely no evidence as to this claim that Obama will simply let all of the Bush tax cuts to expire and then blame it on Bush 2 years later, when nobody will care. He is claiming that no one under 250 Gs will see their taxes raised, if in 4 years they are, income tax wise, he would be screwed. You say he is just that arrogant that he wouldn't care, and that doesn't make any sense.

[mr_genius]

Bill Clinton promised to lower middle class taxes, but raised middle class taxes. The idea is that people will be ok with campaign lies, as long as the economy is strong. He basically got totally away with it, I'm sure Obama knows this as he is an astute study of US political history

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all

 

As candidate, Mr. Clinton promised to offer tax relief to families with incomes of less than $80,000 a year. He said he would raise taxes on only "the wealthiest 2 percent," those with incomes above $200,000 a year, and impose a surtax of 10 percent on those with annual incomes of more than $1 million.

 

He said that over four years he would squeeze an additional $45 billion out of foreign corporations doing business in the United States. He dismissed as an outrageous falsehood the Republican assertions that his spending programs would mean additional taxes on families making as little as $30,000 a year.

 

Now, Mr. Clinton proposes to increase income taxes to 36 percent from 31 percent on couples who have taxable income of more than $140,00 a year and on unmarried individuals with taxable income of more than $115,000.

 

sound familiar? sounds a lot like what Obama is pitching. In the end Bill Clinton raised almost everyone's taxes, not just people making his new 'ultra wealthy' $115,000 single earner or a married couple making $70,000 each. It's a gamble, and Obama is taking the gamble like Clinton did. If the economy doesn't get better and he raises everyones taxes he's one and done for sure.

 

If he lets the Bush tax cuts expire and the economy is strong, Obama could be in excellent position to get re-elected.

Edited October 29, 2008 by mr_genius

[Texsox]

Have we forgotten about spending? We just give them a pass on doing anything about spending. We don't care how much you spend as long as it doesn't come out of our pockets. Borrow some money somewhere and give it to us.

[StrangeSox]

Now some conservatives are attacking Obama for using the phrase "negative liberties." I think they think Obama means "bad liberties" but they just don't really know what negative means. It's a concept they must have missed in grade school civics.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/neg...nd_obama_n.html

[bmags]

Now some conservatives are attacking Obama for using the phrase "negative liberties." I think they think Obama means "bad liberties" but they just don't really know what negative means. It's a concept they must have missed in grade school civics.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/neg...nd_obama_n.html

 

maybe the dumbest article I've ever seen.

[StrangeSox]

maybe the dumbest article I've ever seen.

 

Comparing things you don't like to "Orwellian"/ 1984 references are gaining on ground on Nazis/ Hitler.

Edited October 29, 2008 by StrangeSox