Friday, October 24, 2008
Some political "promises"
Okay, here is a little research that has come my way on Obama. Does anyone have a rebuttal?
About #1, I have actually heard him quote more or less,"income of $250,000 or below won't get a penny more of new taxes." However, that still means if he taxes Joe the plumber for increasing his business, Joe will just have to charge YOU an extra hundred bucks to fix that broken pipe spewing water in between your walls. Like they say, "crap rolls down hill". Just FYI, business that make 250,000 or less are very very small businesses. So let us say "sianara sucka'" to the little business entrepreneurs.
Obama Lie No. 1 — I will tax just the rich.
There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich. Taxes on wealthy people affect everyone.
Remember, Obama defines anyone making over $90,000 a year as "rich."
Joe the plumber discovered that Obama thinks Joe's rich too. Under Obama, he won't be able to hire new employees and grow his business.
Joe's not alone. Obama says he'll strip away the FICA cap at $90,000 for every worker. That means every dollar you earn over that amount, you'll pay 7 percent!
Obama Lie No. 2 — I want to give a tax cut to the middle class.
Obama says he will let the Bush tax cuts expire. That's an automatic 5 percent (maximum) tax increase on almost all taxpayers.
Plus middle class folks pay capital gains taxes. Obama has said he wants to almost double them from a low of 15 percent to almost 30 percent.
He wants to hike the dividend tax, and he also has promised taxes on gas and energy.
Obama also wants to dramatically increase the estate tax, which had almost disappeared. There goes your idea of sharing your wealth with your kids in the future.
Obama Lie No. 3 — I want to make America more secure.
Another outright lie.
In an age when crazies like Iran 's Ahmadinejad are building ballistic missiles and promise to "destroy" the United States and Israel , Obama has promised to gut the missile defense program created by President Reagan.
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems," Obama said.
He has promised to cut "tens of billions" of dollars from the Defense Department. In an effort to make us more "secure," Obama plans to disarm us.
So, anyone want to also comment on the recent revelation of Obama's plan, which he so kindly uncovered for us in lay-man's terms? Who thinks socalism is a good thing? Don't we have enough "spreading of the wealth" already by those money grubbing polititians currently in office? I don't know about you, but here in the greatest nation on earth with it's capitolistic ideology, I want to keep what I earn. Who wants to go to school for 30 years and then get robbed of more than half his/her earnings? I think 50% is quite enough.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I don't really disagree with you, Richard, but I thought I might play the role of devil's advocate here.
Who made the following comment:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor...The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess...It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
Sounds like something a "liberal" might say, right? Actually, this is a quote from Adam Smith's book, Wealth of Nations. For those that are unfamiliar with who Smith is, he is considered to be the "father" of capitalism. Smith and Wealth of Nations is to capitalism what Karl Marx and The Communist Manifesto is to Communism.
Conservatives love to make the claim that they are Smith "purists." If that is so, why don't they embrace this component of "Smithian" Capitalism?
Also, isn't it funny that conservatives are labeling Obama as a socialist, etc. when W. Bush has created more big government, big spending, etc. than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!!! In addition, if history can add clarity to this, how can the Republicans continue to make the assertion that they are the party of small government and fiscal responsibility when over the past 40 years IT IS THE REPUBLICANS that have created more big government and big spending than the Dems?
Very well. Good quote by Adam smith. I actually agree with his ideology. How I view that quote is the rich mentally, physically, and therefore fiscally have a responsibility to those less fortunate.
For example, there are some legitimate people out there who are mentally or physically disabled or incapable. I've seen many of them. I believe that there is a responsibility for their brothers (if you will) to look after these less fortunate.
Then there are those that fake it for a free lunch. And I see WAY more of those than the legitimate. Unfortunately it lends for much scrutiny of those whom are legitimate.
You’re comment mixed the terms conservative and republican. I personally have not heard of one conservative who was happy with how the current administration has dealt with spending. Especially the way they handled the recent mishaps in our current market. Don’t get me started there though because that catastrophic bailout didn’t stem from a republican president in office. Although I’m not happy with how they managed using a bailout (very socialistic in nature), the problem started before Bush swore into office. The dem’s made it so banks HAD to offer low income families homes (it was their right). There were lawsuits against banks who refused to accept this imposition.
And yes, war (whether for or against it) is expensive. Especially when the dollar is worth so much less than in the past. And yes, $800,000,000,000.00 plus for an economic bailout add to an expensive presidency. Though I’m not making excuses for them, it takes a working and willing congress to make proposed tax cuts permanent. Our current congress is neither of the two. We can all thank Nancy Pelosi and crew for their knee jerk “no” response to EVERYTHING put before them by a republican president.
In my overall view though, the Republican party and the Democratic have all shifted Left. They should be re-termed Demacrato-republicans and the Liberal-Socialists respectively. Now all we need is a strong new Reganomic party to step in.
As for my last thought, there is not one person in the U.S. that is “Poor”. That is another discussion. But, until someone has walked the streets of a third world country, you won’t know what the term “poor” really means.
Richard, on every one of your points, I couldn't have said it better (especially as having a child of legitimate need and the fact that we are currently in a war, which people seem to have forgotten...how quickly they forget).
Richard writes:
"In my overall view though, the Republican party and the Democratic have all shifted Left. They should be re-termed Demacrato-republicans and the Liberal-Socialists respectively. Now all we need is a strong new Reganomic party to step in.
While I agree that Reagan was a good president, I think we often forget that he actually spent more and created more big government than L. Johnson, J. Carter, and Clinton COMBINED! Reaganomics are essentially the big government spending that conservatives claim they despise.
As for the war spending, let us not forget what Bin Laden's strategy was from the very start...and this is a direct quote:
"You don't defeat the United States in battle, you make them bleed to death financially from a self-inflicted spending spree."
Also, I cannot accept that the Republicans had no role in all of this mess. I think it is pretty clear that EVERYONE is at fault here...including (as Palin likes to call them) Joe Six-pack. We have all been irresponsible on this one...repubs, dems, independents, rich, poor, etc.
In closing, Thomas Jefferson said it best when he wrote:
"All republics, great and small, eventually consume themselves into oblivion."
And John Adams:
"There never was a democracy that didn't commit suicide."
One final point on Reagan:
While I firly believe that Reagan was a good president (probably a "top 12" if you are in to ranking presidents) I think it is a mistake for conservatives/republicans to embrace Reagan as a model for fiscal conservatism. After all, Reagan was far from a fiscal conservative. In spending he is second only to W. Bush, in growing government he is also second.
So, instead of creating a rallying cry for Reagan, I think conservatives should look to Dwight D. Eisenhower as their example. It was Eisenhower that reduced government spending, cut meaningless projects, and reduced the national debt (he is the last republican to do so). Eisenhower also was effective at keeping the wackos of the religious right at bay, something few republicans can get away with today.
And just for fun (since I mentioned it above) here are my rankings for U.S. presidents:
1.) George Washington
2.) Abraham Lincoln
3.) Franklin D. Roosevelt
4.) Thomas Jefferson
5.) Dwight D. Eisenhower
6.) Theodore Roosevelt
7.) Andrew Jackson
8.) James Monroe
9.) Woodrow Wilson
10.) Harry Truman
11.) Ronald Reagan
12.) John F. Kennedy
13.) James K. Polk
14.) William McKinley
15.) John Adams
16.) Grover Cleveland
17.) John Quincy Adams
18.) Ulysses S. Grant
19.) George H. W. Bush (Sr.)
20.) Bill Clinton
21.) William Howard Taft
22.) Calvin Coolidge
23.) Lyndon Johnson
24.) Rutherford B. Hayes
25.) John Tyler
26.) Benjamin Harrison
27.) Chester Arthur
28.) Gerald Ford
29.) Martin Van Buren
30.) George W. Bush
31.) Jimmy Carter
32.) Millard Fillmore
33.) Herbert Hoover
34.) Richard Nixon
35.) Franklin Pierce
36.) Andrew Johnson
37.) Warren G. Harding
38.) James Buchanan
***Presidents William H. Harrison, Zachary Taylor and James Garfield are not ranked, due to their untimely deaths while in office. As a result, it would be unfair to rank any of them.***
Ok...let the debating begin!
Oh, Eisenhower. Sounds like he had some policies after my own heart. Maybe the party I now create will be Eisenhowerican.
In defense of "Reagan-omics" and republican spending… When you allow a kid to play in his room for four to eight hours straight, then there will be quite the mess to clean up. Seems like there has been a mess between each republican president.
For example, how many chances did Bill Clinton have at taking down Bin Laden? It was at least 3 or 4. There were a couple where he could have been seized, and a couple where the sniper only had to pull the trigger but never got the “green light” from the authorities a/k/a Clinton. Now, with a lot of misinformation a guy trying to do the right thing for America becomes ever so unpopular for cleaning up the mess of a previous sloppy president.
Okay, so another point (of the fingers). How come republican presidents give tax breaks, the economy booms and they still end up spending more than democrats? Why do democrats supposedly spend less yet, pull out the stops on increasing taxes?
Richard states:
"How come republican presidents give tax breaks, the economy booms and they still end up spending more than democrats? Why do democrats supposedly spend less yet, pull out the stops on increasing taxes?"
That's the biggest problem (in my mind) that the Repub. Party has had since the Eisenhower days. They need to QUIT SPENDING SO MUCH!!! Eventually the label of "fiscal responsibility" is going to fall on the Dems (as hard as that may be to believe) if they are not careful.
QUIT SPENDING!!!!!!
Oh yeah, did you get my quote on the fall of republics, I think I posted it on the beat up girl instead of this one. Oops.
Post a Comment