Why Not Blame Obama?

ViRedd

New Member
Why Not Blame Obama?
The media favorite has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.

By Larry Kudlow


It’s rather amusing watching the liberal media launch a full-scale attack on George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, with General Tom Shales of the Washington Post leading the charge. ABC’s Stephanopoulos and Gibson had the audacity to ask Obama some tough questions during the Democratic debate Tuesday night.Challenge Obama with well-informed questions on tax policy and politics? Wound the media favorite? How dare they?

The fallout is fascinating. With members of the mainstream liberal media lunging at each others throats, it’s kind of like watching Hillary and Obama go at it.

But here’s the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.

First off, you don’t raise taxes during a recession. That’s a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut
the cap-gains tax rate. That’s what history shows.

The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.

Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.

In fact, in America’s largest cities, a firefighter married to a school teacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly. So not only will each spouse separately pay more for Social Security and health care under Obama’s plan, together they’ll also be slammed by Obama’s cap-gains tax increase.

This is more than just a failure to understand the Laffer curve. It’s another cultural misstep by Obama. I can’t help but wonder if the senator knows any cops or firemen. His appeal is to well-educated latte liberals. That remark about middle-income folks having turned to God, faith, and guns because of economic setbacks? Not only was it ill-advised, it illustrates the wide cultural chasm that exists between the candidate and the rest of America.

In effect, Obama’s economics are bad and his social circle is very limited. This is one of the many reasons why a quarter of the Hillary Democrats are telling pollsters they’ll likely move to John McCain in the general election.

Obama’s real agenda is far-liberal left. It’s an ideology that places income redistribution above economic growth. That’s his real message. And it’s the same one that sunk Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. Bill Clinton? He was a growth Democrat. So he won twice. But Obama is aligning himself with the Democratic losers. And that will make him a loser as well.

The Gallup poll taken after the Democratic debate reveals that Hillary’s pit-bull routine may have worked. We’ll learn more on that front come Tuesday when Pennsylvanians head to the voting booths. But that’s a different issue. What I’m saying is that liberals need to quit blaming Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for Obama’s shortcomings. Instead, they need to blame Obama for failing to grasp how tax penalties on upward mobility will hurt the very people he thinks he’s going to help.
Jack Kemp has effectively made the point that African American communities desperately need capital in order to create new businesses and jobs. Yet as Obama takes the capital out of capitalism, all those who are not rich will be hurt when the rich folks with capital have less of it — after tax — to invest in those new businesses and new jobs.

That’s exactly why wealth-redistribution plans always backfire. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a surefire economic loser. So is putting government in charge of the economy, which is what Mr. Obama is proselytizing.

This marks the third mistake for the Illinois senator. Not only does he not understand economics; not only is he set apart from middle-class values and beliefs; he apparently hasn’t read much history either.

Did someone say inexperience?
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Poor Vi, he's going to have to give up more in taxes once a Democrat is in office.... I for one will be there to poke him with a sharp stick when that happens.
 

natrone23

Well-Known Member
Poor Vi, he's going to have to give up more in taxes once a Democrat is in office.... I for one will be there to poke him with a sharp stick when that happens.
Taxes, who cares lets let the younger generation pay this huge war debt off right Vi?
 

natrone23

Well-Known Member
"I can’t help but wonder if the senator knows any cops or firemen. His appeal is to well-educated latte liberal"

Those evil people who are
educated:o ........................God forbid we have a Prez that is smarter than the average Joe. Oh my god he went to Harvard, he might be more intelligent than me, just call him Elitest right?
 

natrone23

Well-Known Member
"In fact, in America’s largest cities, a firefighter married to a school teacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly"...........................oh poor guy making 100 grand a year has to pay a little more in taxes....................American civilians might actually have to sacrafice some money out of their 100,000 salary to pay for this glorious war......... poor guy
 

VTXDave

Well-Known Member
I too have a real problem with paying more taxes. I'll be happy to answer as to why I have a problem if anyone wants to ask.
 

We TaRdED

Well-Known Member
I too have a real problem with paying more taxes. I'll be happy to answer as to why I have a problem if anyone wants to ask.
go ahead shoot dave... i also have problems paying necessary commodities never mind paying the gov more money to fight an unjust bullshit "terror" war...

we went from afgan, to iraq, next is iran..... when will this end, when we have military bases on every country that has natural resources?
 

VTXDave

Well-Known Member
go ahead shoot dave... i also have problems paying necessary commodities never mind paying the gov more money to fight an unjust bullshit "terror" war...

we went from afgan, to iraq, next is iran..... when will this end, when we have military bases on every country that has natural resources?
Well for starters, let's take S.4; the "Improving America's Security Act" of 2007. One of the items described in the bill is for further expansion and power of the Department of Homeland Security. Cost to each American? $40 over the next 4 years. Just think about it folks! You get to pay $10/year to expand the power of the Department of Homeland Security! You know...That Federal Department that has been given tacit approval to sureil US citizens without warrants! WOOHOO!

Yeah, I'm all for giving more power to the Department of Homeland Security...And what a deal too! For the record, Obama and Hillary both voted in favor of the bill, it was passed in Senate and signed by Bush.

And then there's HR3222. the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2008...
No record from the Senate (how convenient), but I'll say this, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul voted against it.

An even better deal is the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Act of 2007. This one is only going to cost the taxpayer $3 to ensure that Afghanistan has "Freedom and Security" American style! It's passed the House and has been sent to the Senate...Oh yeah, Kucinich and Paul voted against this one too. I'm sure the Senate will sit on this one until after November. ;)
 

medicineman

New Member
Well for starters, let's take S.4; the "Improving America's Security Act" of 2007. One of the items described in the bill is for further expansion and power of the Department of Homeland Security. Cost to each American? $40 over the next 4 years. Just think about it folks! You get to pay $10/year to expand the power of the Department of Homeland Security! You know...That Federal Department that has been given tacit approval to sureil US citizens without warrants! WOOHOO!

Yeah, I'm all for giving more power to the Department of Homeland Security...And what a deal too! For the record, Obama and Hillary both voted in favor of the bill, it was passed in Senate and signed by Bush.

And then there's HR3222. the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2008...
No record from the Senate (how convenient), but I'll say this, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul voted against it.

An even better deal is the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Act of 2007. This one is only going to cost the taxpayer $3 to ensure that Afghanistan has "Freedom and Security" American style! It's passed the House and has been sent to the Senate...Oh yeah, Kucinich and Paul voted against this one too. I'm sure the Senate will sit on this one until after November. ;)
Too bad neither Kucinich or Paul are on the ballots. My favorite candidate was Kucinich, But unlike you, I have come to the crossroads with a choice. Your vote for paul is a vote for McCain. My vote for either of the two Dems is a vote against that demon.
 

mockingbird131313

Well-Known Member
We have not had a president that understood economics since Ronald Reagan. The last guy before him was oh, let me think, can I say John Kennedy? Before him it was Harry T. And before him it was Mr. Hoover.

My point here is that the Prez seldom knows his ass from a hole in the ground and even less about economics. Congress creates tax policy and the Prez signs off on it; usually after a lot of bellering. Also, if you look, from the men I listed, there are still ways a liberal or a conservative can go about their personal agendas and still implement economics.

The simple fact is NOT how much taxes we collect. It is how LITTLE we spend. We must save down the deficit with out creating a runnaway recession. Because, even though Hoover understood economics he still choked the US economy into the depression.
 

VTXDave

Well-Known Member
My vote for either of the two Dems is a vote against that demon.
Oh...you mean those two Dems that voted to increase taxes for the expansion of Homeland Security? Gotcha MM. :lol:

McCain votes for expansion and he's a demon. Obama or Hillary votes the same and you give them a "Get out of Jail Free" card. ;) :lol:

Nothing to see here folks...Move along.
 

We TaRdED

Well-Known Member
Oh...you mean those two Dems that voted to increase taxes for the expansion of Homeland Security? Gotcha MM. :lol:

McCain votes for expansion and he's a demon. Obama or Hillary votes the same and you give them a "Get out of Jail Free" card. ;) :lol:

Nothing to see here folks...Move along.
LMAO!!! ahhh, you crack me up and i truly believe that you are a good person that knows and wants whats best for the country.

i just wonder how much bullshit the american people are going to take until we start to unite and overthrow the gov and implement our own system. im not against democracy and capitalism but i am against corruption and politicians/presidents going against the constitution for their own special interests.

i wouldnt mind a revolution myself, its just that not enough people would do anything because they are all too busy working 2 jobs to help put food on their table.

there are ways to harvest free energy. there are ways to run cars exclusivly off of water. there are machines that would generate electricity that could run in our homes- these are called over unity electric generators. there are so many tech advances that could help the environment and cost the people less money but the big wigs wont allow this because it would take $ out of their pockets. the same reason why we have to pay the IRS even though its unconstitutional...
 

ViRedd

New Member
We have not had a president that understood economics since Ronald Reagan. The last guy before him was oh, let me think, can I say John Kennedy? Before him it was Harry T. And before him it was Mr. Hoover.
The simple fact is NOT how much taxes we collect. It is how LITTLE we spend. We must save down the deficit with out creating a runnaway recession. Because, even though Hoover understood economics he still choked the US economy into the depression.


That's what I call hitting the nail on the proverbial head. :)

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
Pay up Vi, when Obama gets in, or Hillary, your taxes are going to hit the wall, I'll probably get a rebate. Oh the evils of progressive taxation,~LOL.
 

kronicsmurf

Well-Known Member
I gotta tell you Dave i'm not even sure if what the DHS actually does? are they the new cia? Rofl if they are supposed to keep America safe then why do i get the feeling they are a bigger threat to my security than terrorist? hell i'll take my chances with the terrorist. bigger government fighting to enslave us all yeah i feel real safe!!!!!!
 

john.roberts85

Well-Known Member
Why Not Blame Obama?
The media favorite has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.

By Larry Kudlow


It’s rather amusing watching the liberal media launch a full-scale attack on George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, with General Tom Shales of the Washington Post leading the charge. ABC’s Stephanopoulos and Gibson had the audacity to ask Obama some tough questions during the Democratic debate Tuesday night.Challenge Obama with well-informed questions on tax policy and politics? Wound the media favorite? How dare they?

The fallout is fascinating. With members of the mainstream liberal media lunging at each others throats, it’s kind of like watching Hillary and Obama go at it.

But here’s the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.

First off, you don’t raise taxes during a recession. That’s a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That’s what history shows.

The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.

Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.

In fact, in America’s largest cities, a firefighter married to a school teacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly. So not only will each spouse separately pay more for Social Security and health care under Obama’s plan, together they’ll also be slammed by Obama’s cap-gains tax increase.

This is more than just a failure to understand the Laffer curve. It’s another cultural misstep by Obama. I can’t help but wonder if the senator knows any cops or firemen. His appeal is to well-educated latte liberals. That remark about middle-income folks having turned to God, faith, and guns because of economic setbacks? Not only was it ill-advised, it illustrates the wide cultural chasm that exists between the candidate and the rest of America.

In effect, Obama’s economics are bad and his social circle is very limited. This is one of the many reasons why a quarter of the Hillary Democrats are telling pollsters they’ll likely move to John McCain in the general election.

Obama’s real agenda is far-liberal left. It’s an ideology that places income redistribution above economic growth. That’s his real message. And it’s the same one that sunk Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. Bill Clinton? He was a growth Democrat. So he won twice. But Obama is aligning himself with the Democratic losers. And that will make him a loser as well.

The Gallup poll taken after the Democratic debate reveals that Hillary’s pit-bull routine may have worked. We’ll learn more on that front come Tuesday when Pennsylvanians head to the voting booths. But that’s a different issue. What I’m saying is that liberals need to quit blaming Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for Obama’s shortcomings. Instead, they need to blame Obama for failing to grasp how tax penalties on upward mobility will hurt the very people he thinks he’s going to help.Jack Kemp has effectively made the point that African American communities desperately need capital in order to create new businesses and jobs. Yet as Obama takes the capital out of capitalism, all those who are not rich will be hurt when the rich folks with capital have less of it — after tax — to invest in those new businesses and new jobs.

That’s exactly why wealth-redistribution plans always backfire. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a surefire economic loser. So is putting government in charge of the economy, which is what Mr. Obama is proselytizing.

This marks the third mistake for the Illinois senator. Not only does he not understand economics; not only is he set apart from middle-class values and beliefs; he apparently hasn’t read much history either.

Did someone say inexperience?

Okay, let's begin with the fact that the median household income in our larger cities doesn't even come close to hitting the 200K mark. In 1999 (a bit dated but the data hasn't drastically changed in either direction), median household income in NYC and Chicago was around $38,000. New York (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau & Chicago (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau Los Angeles had a median household income around $36,000. Los Angeles (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau I will grant you that large urban areas such as these are more likely to have more households headed by undereducated, single women of color than most. If we're going to hold the term "middle-class" to mean those with incomes that are somewhere near the middle of the distribution, there are no large cities on Earth where median incomes are even near $100,000. Could you possibly find a firefighter or school teacher in either of those cities that earn $100,000? Yes, but they're the exception, not the norm. Somewhere around 3% to 4% of American households earn over $200,000. There's no logical way that you'd label those households as middle-class even if you use the term loosely. Also, the Laffer curve is entirely theoretical and static. And like most supply-side advocated models, it looks beautiful and perfect on paper, but doesn't muster much evidence in reality. Just compare Norway and Iceland. That said, Obama is a douche bag. :mrgreen:
 
Top