Page 1 of 6
Liberals voice concerns about Obama
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:34 pm
by Cappster
Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.
Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.
Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.
“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.
OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”
Even supporters make clear they’re on the lookout for backsliding. “There’s a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him,” said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America’s Future.
Obama insists he hasn’t abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the left’s bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.
Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won’t enact the tax.
Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now he’s struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he’ll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.
Obama’s post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.
Now Obama’s says that on his first day in office he will begin to “design a plan for a responsible drawdown,” as he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.
The central premise of the left’s criticism is direct – don’t bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.
“There don't seem to be any liberals in Obama's cabinet,” writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. “What does all of this mean for Obama's policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?”
“Actually, it reminds me a bit of the campaign, at least the beginning and the middle, when the Obama campaign didn't seem particularly interested in reaching out to progressives,” Aravosis continues. “Once they realized that in order to win they needed to marshal everyone on their side, the reaching out began. I hope we're not seeing a similar ‘we can do it alone’ approach in the transition team.”
This isn’t the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.
Now it’s Obama’s Cabinet moves that are drawing the most fire. It’s not just that he’s picked Clinton and Gates. It’s that liberal Democrats say they’re hard-pressed to find one of their own on Obama’s team so far – particularly on the economic side, where people like Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers are hardly viewed as pro-labor.
“At his announcement of an economic team there was no secretary of labor. If you don’t think the labor secretary is on the same level as treasury secretary, that gives me pause,” said Jonathan Tasini, who runs the website workinglife.org. “The president-elect wouldn't be president-elect without labor."
During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside companies. The “card check” bill would get rid of a secret-ballot method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of workers signed cards saying they want one. Obama still supports that legislation, aides say – but union leaders are worried that he no longer talks it up much as president-elect.
“It's complicated,” said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate in 2006. “On the one hand, the guy hasn't even taken office yet so it's a little hasty to be criticizing him. On the other hand, there is legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but there is some edginess about this.”
That’s a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders holding their fire. There are signs of a struggle within the left wing of the Democratic Party about whether it’s just too soon to criticize Obama -- and if there’s really anything to complain about just yet.
Case in point: One of the Campaign for America’s Future blogs commented on Obama’s decision not to tax oil companies’ windfall profits saying, “Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations - is bad for the economy.”
Yet Campaign for America’s Future will be join about 150 progressive organizations, economists and labor groups to release a statement Tuesday in support of a large economic stimulus package like the one Obama has proposed, said Hickey, a co-founder of the group.
“I’ve heard the most grousing about the windfall profits tax, but on the other hand, Obama has committed himself to a stimulus package that makes a down payment on energy efficiency and green jobs,” Hickey said. “The old argument was, here’s how we afford to make these investments – we tax the oil companies’ windfall profits. … The new argument is, in a bad economy that could get worse, we don’t.”
Obama is asking for patience – saying he’s only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.
Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have
dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts.
“My economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through legislation? Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they're not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?” Obama said on “Meet the Press.” “We don't yet know what the best approach is going to be.”
On Iraq, he says he’s just trying to make sure any U.S. pullout doesn’t ignite “any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our interests.”
Obama has told his supporters to look beyond his appointments, that the change he promised will come from him and that when his administration comes together they will be happy.
“I think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you'll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of way,” Obama recently said in response to questions about his appointments during a news conference on the economy.
The leaders of some liberal groups are willing to wait and see.
“He hasn’t had a first day in office,” said John Isaacs, the executive director for Council for Livable World. “To me it’s not as important as who’s there, than what kind of policies they carry out.”
“These aren’t out-and-out liberals on the national security team, but they may be successful implementers of what the Obama national security policy is,” Isaacs added. “We want to see what policies are carried forward, as opposed to appointments.”
Juan Cole, who runs a prominent anti-war blog called Informed Comment, said he worries Obama will get bad advice from Clinton on the Middle East, calling her too pro-Israel and “belligerent” toward Iran. “But overall, my estimation is that he has chosen competence over ideology, and I'm willing to cut him some slack,” Cole said.
Other voices of the left don’t like what they’re seeing so far and aren’t waiting for more before they speak up.
New York Times columnist Frank Rich warned that Obama’s economic team of Summers and Geithner reminded him of John F. Kennedy’s “best and the brightest” team, who blundered in Vietnam despite their blue-chip pedigrees.
David Corn, Washington bureau chief of the liberal magazine Mother Jones, wrote in Sunday’s Washington Post that he is “not yet reaching for a pitchfork.”
But the headline of his op-ed sums up his point about Obama’s Cabinet appointments so far: “This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Envisioned.”
Campaigning - Tell the majority of people what they want to hear to get elected. Once elected, show your true Washingtonian color and sleep with the evil powers as every president has done before.
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:25 pm
by Bob 0119
Is it that big a surprise really?
Didn't the current congress do just the same thing 2-years ago? They said they were going to "kick out the Republicans, end their stupid war, and stop that whack-job George Bush?" (I am of course paraphrasing)
I didn't really see any changes by the congress once the Democrats took control except that the economy got a lot worse.
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:43 pm
by Countertrey
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:11 pm
by PulpExposure
Seriously, is anyone really that surprised? The dude is a politician. EVERYONE who is a politician makes campaign promises, and does not live up to them. E.g., Bush promised increased funding for NIH, and funding levels have stayed flat the past 5 years (but overall government spending has way increased). It's the nature of the beast.
Some of the people who elected Obama are almost willfully ignorant of how things work in DC.
Bob 0119 wrote:I didn't really see any changes by the congress once the Democrats took control except that the economy got a lot worse.
Which you can't blame on Congress. It's a mess that's been awhile in the making, at least since Clinton and the Republican-dominated Congress repealed Glass-Steagall.
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:57 pm
by Fios
A poll on Daily Kos -- about as liberal of a site as I can think of -- found that 90% of the liberals there have no problem with the appointments Obama has made. This is the classic press tactic of a story from nothing. And the people who are complaining are idiots anyway, every movement has them.
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:10 am
by Cappster
I am not surprised at all that Obama is "repositioning" himself on key issues he ran on to get elected. I know its "politics," but that is the problem with our current system. I would rather a person get up on stage and say "this is what we are going to TRY and do" and stick to his or her word. If you say that you are going to roll back taxes for the rich then take an active role in rolling back taxes for the rich! Actively taking a role in removing tax cuts for the rich is what Obama should do instead of just letting them go back to pre-Bush tax cuts.
Would you really want to hire someone to do a job, but he or she lied to you just to get a job? This is what keeps happening with every presidential election and people keep falling for it! Now, not all is bad about Obama. I like that he is diversifying his cabinet instead of appointing all democrats. We need someone who will "go against the grain of his party," but we need a president that is straight forward and doesn't lie. Where have all of the honest men gone?
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:11 pm
by Redskin in Canada
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:21 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
Actually I was repeating Obama saying he's a Marxist. Wealth redistribution for it's own sake, national healthcare, national energy. All the liberals have passed on my question where exactly he doesn't support the definition of Marxism, the Communist Manifesto. Crazyhorse1 said he's not a Marxist because he agrees with him, that was impressive. What exactly is your evidence that he's not? Liberals are OK with his appointments? He hasn't followed up on his self professed Leninism before he even took office? I'm not seeing any actual evidence he's not what he said he was.
Of course I'm nuts for arguing the inherent truth of liberalism, that's a cross I'll have to bear. Liberals are so funny. With their hands down each other's pants they come out with all sorts of baseless irrational leaps that "proved" their earlier irrational declarations. Like how absurd listening to Obama saying he's a Marxist (with his views) has been proven insane before he even took office. Wow, I'm embarrassed.
Not.
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:58 pm
by SUFC Skins
KazooSkinsFan wrote:Liberals are so funny.
I would agree with this if they didn't contol both the US and UK governments and the vast majority of the mainstream media in both countries. That doesn't make me laugh at all. Especially as the first one of those points is the direct result of the second. God help us all.
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:27 pm
by Sir_Monk
SUFC Skins wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:Liberals are so funny.
I would agree with this if they didn't contol both the US and UK governments and the vast majority of the mainstream media in both countries. That doesn't make me laugh at all. Especially as the first one of those points is the direct result of the second. God help us all.
SUFC = the Blades?
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:01 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
SUFC Skins wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:Liberals are so funny.
I would agree with this if they didn't contol both the US and UK governments and the vast majority of the mainstream media in both countries. That doesn't make me laugh at all. Especially as the first one of those points is the direct result of the second. God help us all.
If you don't laugh you'll cry. Anyway, the Republicans are no help and who has done more to advance socialism then George W (the W is for Welfare for the elderly, corporations, pork barrel) Bush since FDR? Clearly no one, though Comrade Obama plans to pass him and may do it with the only obsticle 41 pathetic Republican Senators ability to filibuster.
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:37 am
by Redskin in Canada
KazooSkinsFan wrote: All the liberals have passed on my question where exactly he doesn't support the definition of Marxism, the Communist Manifesto.
Man, I would hope that Philosophy 101 would be taught to MBA wannabes.
You obviously do not even know the philosophical roots and true political and economic positions of true Communists. It is difficult to even argue with a post that shows such blatant ignorance and prejudice.
These posts remind me of Senator McCarthy and his tragic tactics.
Click on the image:
[url][/url]
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:13 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
Redskin in Canada wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote: All the liberals have passed on my question where exactly he doesn't support the definition of Marxism, the Communist Manifesto.
Man, I would hope that Philosophy 101 would be taught to MBA wannabes.
You obviously do not even know the philosophical roots and true political and economic positions of true Communists. It is difficult to even argue with a post that shows such blatant ignorance and prejudice.
These posts remind me of Senator McCarthy and his tragic tactics.
Click on the image:
[url][/url]
The inherent truth of liberalism. When liberals fall back on nothing but that and hate, even they know they're out of bullets. Thank you for conceding victory. I called Obama a Marxist, the only hate is in your post.
And man, you couldn't have better suppported my basic point that there is no point now in being serious because the liberals are complete hypocritical, rabid nut jobs.
Liberals: Our opponents are liars, torturers, owned by corporate America, hate filled, racists, sexists, homophobes, raping the earth, Nazis, fascists ...
RIC: Silence, more silence, more silence still
Kaz: Obama's a communist as demonstrated by his agreement with the Communist Manifesto
RIC: OH MY GOD!!!! You've LOST IT! You're so filled with hate, this is POLITICS and we need to move BEYOND THAT. THIS, THIS photo is what we get with INTOLERANT, lost people like YOU! We will never solve any problems in this world if you don't stop demogogging your opponents and debate these issues SERIOUSLY!!!!
You still don't get it, do you RIC?
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:33 pm
by welch
OK. I have read The Manifesto, and I can't see fundamental agreement between Marx and Obama.
Does anyone really want me to explain the Manifesto? Part by part? In Marxist terms, Obama is a typical bourgeois politician, believing in parliamentary democracy and capitalism. If this is worthwhile -- and I doubt it -- I'll get out my copy and start explicating.
Anybody want that? Let's have a show of hands.
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:04 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
welch wrote:Obama is a typical bourgeois politician, believing in parliamentary democracy and capitalism
In what possible way can you say that Obama believes in capitalism? Where has he EVER said that? What position has he ever said that the market needs to solve, not government control? Where has he advocated "parliamentary democracy?" If you're going to make up Obama views based on what you want to see instead of what he says, there's no point going to the manifesto.
The main points of the Communist Manifesto:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/keller5.html
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
- New London, my friend, and every liberal justice supporting the government can confiscate land from one private party and give it to another simply to increase tax revenue.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
- In spades, and Obama's specifically calling for MORE "progressive" income taxes
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
- The death tax, staple of the Left
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
- Again a main stream Left objective, preventing people from leaving the country with Money
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
- The Fed and centralization of banking control as the current "bailouts."
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
- Less of a focus currently, but not unconcerned, like the raising of the Unfairness Doctrine...
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
- Certainly factories and production, the auto bailout, nationalization of energy, medical care
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
- Another obvious one, employment provided and controlled by the State
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
- ENDLESS farm welfare, government paying to grow some crops and not others...
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
- Free education! Government indoctrination.
This is central to both Obama and the Democratic party. Why do they need the masses to rise in arms when they can rise at the ballot box as they did in November? The Manifesto is about the end, not the means. And in no way has Obama advocated "democracy." That doesn't mean he's opposed to it, but he wanted the masses to rise and subjegate themselves to him through ever massive Communist objectives, see above, and they did.
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:46 pm
by VetSkinsFan
KazooSkinsFan wrote:welch wrote:Obama is a typical bourgeois politician, believing in parliamentary democracy and capitalism
In what possible way can you say that Obama believes in capitalism? Where has he EVER said that? What position has he ever said that the market needs to solve, not government control? Where has he advocated "parliamentary democracy?" If you're going to make up Obama views based on what you want to see instead of what he says, there's no point going to the manifesto.
The main points of the Communist Manifesto:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/keller5.html 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
- New London, my friend, and every liberal justice supporting the government can confiscate land from one private party and give it to another simply to increase tax revenue. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
- In spades, and Obama's specifically calling for MORE "progressive" income taxes 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
- The death tax, staple of the Left 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
- Again a main stream Left objective, preventing people from leaving the country with Money 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
- The Fed and centralization of banking control as the current "bailouts." 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
- Less of a focus currently, but not unconcerned, like the raising of the Unfairness Doctrine... 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
- Certainly factories and production, the auto bailout, nationalization of energy, medical care 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
- Another obvious one, employment provided and controlled by the State 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
- ENDLESS farm welfare, government paying to grow some crops and not others... 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
- Free education! Government indoctrination.This is central to both Obama and the Democratic party. Why do they need the masses to rise in arms when they can rise at the ballot box as they did in November? The Manifesto is about the end, not the means. And in no way has Obama advocated "democracy." That doesn't mean he's opposed to it, but he wanted the masses to rise and subjegate themselves to him through ever massive Communist objectives, see above, and they did.
THE BLUE BURNS!!!
Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:44 am
by Redskin in Canada
Any resemblance between Kazoo and the late Senator McCarthy is purely coincidental.
Any resemblance between Kazoo and McCarthism is not.
These kind of allegations are so dumb, so 50's outdated that probably the only people who feel that they are funny or worthy of any discussion are Kazoo or his hero Rush Limbaugh.
Fearmongering is not funny. It is stupid.
Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:21 am
by KazooSkinsFan
Redskin in Canada wrote:Any resemblance between Kazoo and the late Senator McCarthy is purely coincidental.
Any resemblance between Kazoo and McCarthism is not.
These kind of allegations are so dumb, so 50's outdated that probably the only people who feel that they are funny or worthy of any discussion are Kazoo or his hero Rush Limbaugh.
Fearmongering is not funny. It is stupid.
The "every argument that supports a liberal argument is fact, no matter how untrue and every argument that opposes a liberal argument is a lie no matter how true" rule, eh? All the liberal arguments really do boil down to that or the "inherent truth of liberalism."
I like how you read the Manifesto and brush it off despite the clear application of it to Obama. And apply McCarthyism in order to bring in a term with lots of connotation. A staple of left arguments, high implication, dearth of content.
Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:43 pm
by welch
OK. There is the Manifesto itself, and then there is a summary by some right-winger of what he claims the Manifesto says.
The Communist Manifesto is public domain, freely available to be re-printed here.
So far, I haven't seen anyone ask for the actual text. As a history professor once put it, "What do the documents say?"
Asking once more...
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:17 am
by KazooSkinsFan
Redskin in Canada wrote:Any resemblance between Kazoo and the late Senator McCarthy is purely coincidental.
Any resemblance between Kazoo and McCarthism is not.
These kind of allegations are so dumb, so 50's outdated that probably the only people who feel that they are funny or worthy of any discussion are Kazoo or his hero Rush Limbaugh.
Fearmongering is not funny. It is stupid.
What's stupid is to say that to call someone a communist is in itself McCarthyism. Not much knowledge of American history, but hey, it's what passes for American history in Quebec. They hate America anyway, the conclusion of every story is America sucks. That would be the America who provide them an almost free defense and who's economy the Qubecits leach off of when they're not getting welfare from the rest of Canada.
The men in Quebec are all gay and the women are more masculine then they are. That might be related, not sure. Perspective is always interesting, in the US, if you have any black in you you're considered "black." In Africa if you have any white in you you're considered "white." Homosexuality is like that in the US and Quebec. We consider a guy who has sex with another guy "gay" no matter if they have sex with women. In Quebec the guys ALL have sex with each other, so if you're willing to with women you're straight. Then again, they're still pretty much gay.
When Americans went to Quebec after WWII a bunch of mothers jumped off cliffs because they were told by the Quebec government Americans eat babies. Hmm, or was the Japan... No, I'm pretty sure it was Quebec.
I can't figure out why the rest of Canada wants to keep paying welfare to the lazy French welfare mongers. A bunch of guys who cash government checks and spend the day having sex with each other instead of trying to find jobs. Which of course they don't want to try to do since the outcome would obviously be a job since their only competition would be a bunch of other lazy French welfare hounds who don't want to work either.
This is a system best described as gay socialism. Ironically socialists claim everyone does what they are programmed to do, achievers don't need to make more money, they are programmed to achieve. So by the same token I guess Quebec socialists would spend their days in avoiding work and pursuing money they didn't earn too. Darned logic, works both ways. That is if you're not a socialist.
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:21 am
by KazooSkinsFan
welch wrote:OK. There is the Manifesto itself, and then there is a summary by some right-winger of what he claims the Manifesto says.
The Communist Manifesto is public domain, freely available to be re-printed here.
So far, I haven't seen anyone ask for the actual text. As a history professor once put it, "What do the documents say?"
Asking once more...
Fascinating. So while RIC's telling me it's McCartyism to even call someone a communist even based on their own views, you're not only conceding he is but saying the Communist manifesto is being warped by the Right? OK, I'll bite, how do you figure THAT!
BTW, the Communist Manifesto being free to be reprinted was F-U-N-N-Y! Can you imagine if it was copywrited, a capitalist concept!

The Communist Manifesto? That would have been funny.
I'm also trying to figure out how it's McCarthyism to call a communist a communist, but that's a RIC question.

I need a lawyer insult here. As if calling someone a lawyer's not insulting enough...
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:52 am
by welch
I agree, Kaz, that analyzing the Manifesto is more fun than analyzing Snyder and Zorn.
I can't understand the reference to RiC, and we both know that if you want to understand a document you read it...rather than read one summary by a conservative.
Does anyone else want to read the Communist Manifesto and reflect on the Obama platform?
Both are on the web.
The Gutenberg version of the Manifesto is at:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61/61.txt
Obama on issues is at:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
"What do the documents say?"
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:00 am
by Redskin in Canada
Dear my good man Kaz,
At some point in time would it not be interesting to consider the ability or even interest to PERSUADE an interlocutor?
The origin of this thread comes precisely from the fact that several public observers consider that Obama is more pragmatic and center than they thought. Any accusations based on groundless exaggerations are actually COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to your political cause and credibility as a poster.
There are other right of center posters in this forum. Some of them are pretty smart. You have managed to alienate even the guys on your side of the spectrum. This approach may work for Rush Limbaugh but it certainly does not stand to serious scrutiny of any sort in political or philosophical terms.
Good luck and I hope that you manage to develop better debating skills and greater depth in your philosophical background in the future. It could be fun if you could raise your game a notch.
In the meantime ...

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:28 am
by Cappster
Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.
http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes/
He is full of crap. I wonder if fiscal responsibility involves billions of dollars in bailouts for private industries?

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:32 am
by Redskin in Canada
Cappster wrote:He is full of crap. I wonder if fiscal responsibility involves billions of dollars in bailouts for private industries?

You talking about Bush or Obama? Just asking because both are doing exactly the same thing. You see that is why is so strange to witness as a foreigner the passion with which Republicans and Democrats fight each other ....
... to do the SAME thing.
