Dirty Politics

[Mink]

Oct 6, 2008 23:18:44 GMT -5 The Big Dog said:

The economy is not settled, obviously. The bailout didn't get it done, apparently. However, that does not necessarily mean that it still is the issue with the most primacy. Remember also that both men voted for it in the Senate.

Obama's socialism, the socialism in his "plan", his troubling socialist ties, and his dissembling pver them are going to be the issue for at least a day or two. Bear in mind that Obama has proposed nearly a trillion dollars in new social spending. Most of that money just went out the door in the bailout.

He is vulnerable on taxes, his agenda and his friends. Until he stops dissembling, they will remain the issue.

Indeed the economy is the topic. No doubt both Senators voted for the bailout and they better be explaining themselves and coming up with answers. There are enough people who are affected by what is happening in the markets and many are bitter. There was a 90 year old who shot herself in the chest due to her mortgage a week or two ago (she lived).

In the news today, a man in S. Ca. killed his family before shooting himself because he isn't working and he had an MBA in finance. I personally know of a couple of people who have lost thousands of their nest eggs if not all of it. I almost want to take a survey, but it is too sensitive for some right now.

Today, the market was the lowest in many years on top of this and you guys are talking about mud-slinging? That is all it is. Not only is it unbecoming, but the country does not need it. If anything, it makes mccain/palin appear like they have no new plans for the country. They have nothing to offer but mud. If they are smart, they will address the economy.

[jgaffney]

Oct 7, 2008 0:01:39 GMT -5 Mink said:

Indeed the economy is the topic. No doubt both Senators voted for the bailout and they better be explaining themselves and coming up with answers. There are enough people who are affected by what is happening in the markets and many are bitter. There was a 90 year old who shot herself in the chest due to her mortgage a week or two ago (she lived).

In the news today, a man in S. Ca. killed his family before shooting himself because he isn't working and he had an MBA in finance. I personally know of a couple of people who have lost thousands of their nest eggs if not all of it. I almost want to take a survey, but it is too sensitive for some right now.

Today, the market was the lowest in many years on top of this and you guys are talking about mud-slinging? That is all it is. Not only is it unbecoming, but the country does not need it. If anything, it makes (M)c(C)ain/(P)alin appear like they have no new plans for the country. They have nothing to offer but mud. If they are smart, they will address the economy.

It never ceases to amaze me that, when the economy turns south, the Democrats dance for joy. A faltering economy is always good for the out party, but the Democrats excel at trumpeting it as a reason for "change", usually defined as higher taxes.

Please tell me how, exactly, the economy will be revived by sucking more money out of it? You can't believe Obama's rhetoric when he says that 95% of the people will get a tax cut, do you? His proposed tax increase will not only put a crimp in the growth of the economy by directly affecting the creation of new jobs, but also won't generate anywhere near enough money to fund all of the new programs he has proposed.

You Dems are so gullible!

[The Big Dog]

Oct 7, 2008 0:01:39 GMT -5 Mink said:

If they are smart, they will address the economy.

Apparently you didn't read all the way to the end of my post....

He is vulnerable on taxes, his agenda and his friends. Until he stops dissembling, they will remain the issue.

And if they were smart, they would both throw themselves on the nearest campfire for thirty or forty seconds for being so stupid as to vote for the bailout.

[jgaffney]

Here's something for you to read about the future of our economy, Mink. Feel free to refute the points made by Jerome Coursi in Obama Nation:

On September 18, 2007, when Obama laid out his tax fairness plan for the middle class, he proposed adjusting the capital gains tax to "something closer to - but no greater than - the rates Ronald Reagan set in 1986." The reference to raising the capital gains rate to to the Ronald Reagan level was clever, suggesting that there was nothing Obama wanted to do that Ronald Reagan, a great hero of the Republican Party and the Wall Street community, hadn't already done. The problem is that the capital gains rate has dropped since the days of Donald Reagan. Stated less rhetorically, Obama was proposing to raise the long-term capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 28 percent, nearly doubling it.

Characteristically, Obama typified the capital gains tax as being one of the $1 trillion in "corporate loopholes and tax havens" he feels are somehow unfair and should be captured as tax revenue. His goal, he said, is to cause "a shift in our tax values that disproportionately benefits the wealthiest Americans." In introducing his plan to increase capital gains, Obama played the "tax the rich" themes that critics in the business world have associated for decades with the plans of Democratic Party politicians to redistribute wealth to their large client base of welfare-dependent poor.

<<snip>>

Ed Morrissey, posting on the Michelle Malkin blog, HotAir.com, took Obama to task for missing this point altogether in his presidential primary debate with Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008. During the debate, ABC News moderator Charles Gibson pointed out statistics from changes in the capital gains tax, including reductions in the capital gains tax put in place by President Clinton, showing that reductions in capital gains tax rates produce more tax revenue and that the opposite happens, tax revenues go down, when capital gains tax rates are increased.

As Morrissey pointed out, Obama shifted ground in giving his answer, arguing that "fairness" was the real reason he wanted to raise capital gains taxes. "Well, Charlie, " Obama began his answer, "what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year - $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That is not fair."

"The higher priority for Obama isn't to raise revenues; it's to ensure fairness," Morrissey properly pointed out. "In order to do that, he will have the government take a bigger share of the gains and redistribute them through social programs to others. The pretense of having more money acts as a veneer for good, old-fashioned redistributionism."

<<snip>>

"Obama's blindness on capital gains reveals a hard-Left minset," Morrissey wrote. "He sees investors always profiting and never losing, while the people who work at jobs created by successful investment as victims of this exchange rather than the beneficiaries of it." Yet the secretary in Obama's example earns an income because investors have risked capital to create her job. When investment is discouraged, the economy as a whole falters, creating fewer jobs for secretaris, as well as other workers. "The surest way to start an economic disaster is to increase penalties for investment," Morrissey correctly concludes.

Never let a pesky thing like facts and logic get in your way when you have the White House in sight, right, Mink? Especially when the pending economic disaster was caused by the Dems blocking any effort to extend more oversight over the mortgage market.