Republicus

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty (P.S. Please be so kind as to enter through the proper channels and in an orderly fashion)

Name:
Location: Arlington, Virginia, United States

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Obama & Taxes

A President Obama is going to raise taxes on everyone (except, of course, his bedrock base of indigents who will get welfare checks I mean "tax credits" and his super-rich elitist enablers who know all the tricks to avoid paying them).

First of all, he's going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and not count that as a tax-hike. He'll say stuff like "We're just putting them back to where they were when Clinton was in office."

In other words, he's going to restore the massive 1993 tax-hike that Clinton enacted first thing when he got into office (with the help of Democrats controlling both houses of congress, and which slowed down an economy that was already recovering and primed for expansion).

That would be like adding insult to insult of the injury of Bush 41 losing his bid for a second term to Clinton-- in great part because he broke his own "Read My Lips" pledge of not raising taxes.

So Bush 41 had lost his credibility because he raised taxes when he pledged he wouldn't, while the unknown Clinton had yet to lose any and so could contrast himself by credibly saying that he wouldn't, but enacted an historically huge tax hike first-thing, anyway (which began the erosion of his own credibility).

Eight years later, Bush 43 reversed those hikes (a reversal which, btw, had nothing to do with the meltdown underway and a lot to do with the excellent expansion we've enjoyed), so we went back to pre-Clinton tax-rates.

And so, by letting the Bush 43 tax-cuts expire, a President Obama will restore what originally was Clinton's broken campaign promise not to hike taxes on the middle class and argue that it doesn't count as a "tax-hike."

Further exploiting the well-established short-term memory of the American people (if not their stupidity after having their minds sandblasted by liberal academia, popular culture, and the liberal infiltration and makeovers of the Ideological State Apparatus, as Comrade Gramsci prescribed for a stealth coup d-etat of Western culture)--and this is a prediction, mark it--a President Obama, by the 1993 role model or direct, present day counsel of Bill Clinton, will raise even more taxes than would be raised by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts by explaining:

"It's worse than I thought when I was campaigning, and we're going to need an 'Emergency Economic Stimulus.'"

That's exactly how Clinton played it (and what he called it, which is simply Democrat-speak for tax-hikes, despite the recovery already underway, as Bush 41 tried to assure), and the mythology of some paradisical, economic Eden being created by the succesful passage of the 1993 "emergency stimulus" (i.e. the historically huge tax hike on everyone who paid taxes despite campaign promises to the contrary) will be referenced by a President Obama to justify his own tax-hike on top of Clinton's kicking back in when the Bush cuts are allowed to expire.

That's audacity, alright, and he could very well get away with it.

For a long time now, Clinton was ridiculously crediting his 1993 tax hike for the economic expansion that boomed at the end of the decade.

It was a quiet boast, at the time (before his post-Katrina rehabilitation), and roundly ridiculed and dismissed--by almost everyone-- as just another pathetic attempt by the impeached president to scrape up some credit for the only positive thing about his disgraced presidency that he could hang his hat on (if only by his fortuitous presence), an expanding economy, and so the boast, buried among countless others and made vaporous by Clinton's well-earned reputation for saying things that mean nothing, was forgotten.

Indeed, to say that his "Emergency Economic Stimulus Bill" was the Prime Mover of an expansion that (1) began a year before he took office, (2) was stalled with hiccupping interest rates after the tax-hikes were passed in his first year, (3) trudged anemically along while Hillary tried--and failed--to socialize 1/7 of the macroeconomy (the health service field), (4) but then began to trot after the Republicans and their "Contract With America" consequentially took over both houses of congress in the '94 midterm elections (forcing Clinton to cut taxes, balance the budget, and reform welfare), (5) all in tandem with the accelerating Tech Revolution (a revolution on par with the preceding Industrial and Agricultural Revolution in being a milestone for human civilization, and driven by a Bill named Gates) that (6) began to balloon faster and bigger than Clinton's own big, FAT, HEAD (because of a climate that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan described as being driven by "irrational exuberance" during the dot.com craze), and (7) had more inflated numbers behind it due to the book-cooking of megacorporations like Enron and Worldcom by mega-accountants like Arthur Anderson (both 6 & 7 paying the piper in Bush 43's first year in office), to say that Clinton's 1993 "emergency economic stimulus bill" (i.e. the historically huge tax-hike) provided the wings for that economic flight--as he himself did say--is worthy of derision and became eminently forgettable.

But I remember, and after eight years of all the above falling away into the past like a sunken ship falling through the depths-- while being mythologized by landlubbing yarn-spinners-- it is that vicissitudinal history which has been forgotten, and that one quiet, self-aggrandizing and rightfully ridiculed assessment from long ago that will float to the surface: "It was the 1993 Emergency Economic Stimulus bill that was responsible for the unprecedented (whatever) prosperity of the Clinton Era (the late 1990's, anyway)."

He got away with saying that because of a media that was a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

And a President Obama will get away with saying that, too, easily, because the media has now become two arms and two legs for the Democratic Party.

41 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The media has been biased
in McCain's favor.

They only show a fraction of the ugliness at his (Palin's) rallies.

Plus, the go easy on his health problems because they figure he is gonna lose anyway.

Meanwhile, Biden goes on TV shows in poorly educated areas of the country and "reporters"
ask him questions so absurd and loaded that Sean Hannity would find them unfair.

Has the kooky element of the media asked about McCain's birth certificate? Plus all the other weirdo conspiracy stuff that occupies the far right.

Obama will do away with Reaganomics and all the other nonsense from Phil Gramm etc that brought about this financial crisis.

But Obamanomics is still slightly to the right of Ford or Bush 41 (before his political shift)

In fact, on problem with Obama's health care plan is that it is too conservative and relies too much on inefficient private insurers.

I'll probably still vote for McCain out of old loyalty.

7:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just a casual example of bias is how the media
ignores nonsense from McCain.

McCain has repeatedly claimed to favor an across
the board spending freeze.

This is the kind of "horsesense" heartland
economic suggestion that
people like Dole or Grassley rely on.

But economists of right and left both regard such economics as silly and counter productive.

But people in the media ignore McCain's pledge because they think he is just saying something that sounds old fashioned and appeals to heartland Republicans.

Recently, Palin has suggested she favors
increased spending for special needs kids (but not regular needs ones). So even Palin has broken
with McCain on the spending freeze.

Has the media attacked McCain? No?

If Obama was half as slack as McCain they would have attacked him because they expect more from him.

Our current financial criss was predict by Warren Buffet in 2002 and Soros in 2004.

Indeed - in June of this year the WSJ reported that Soros had warned the White House that the credit bubble was about to pop.

Had the White House listened and acted early, Mac would be winning now.

As it happened, they did not heed the warnings and now both Buffet and Soros are backing Obama.

When the worlds two top capitalists back a candidate like Obama, only the kooky elements of the right wing will fall for the old socialist scare tactic.

7:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

McCain has actually been poorly served by media bias in his favor.

As someone who has always liked and admireed McCain, I still recognized the absurdity of the St. John of the Maverick brand the MSM
gave McCain.

While some of this has faded - It still remains.

Think about the third debate - OBama won so decisively. But people
in the MSM media like John King and David Gregory
pretended otherwise.. But
McCain's loss was huge - as
every poll showed.

McCain's media fans pretended McCain's non-sense line "I'm not George Bush" made sense. But most viewers had no idea
what McCain meant - It was not a clever "zinger."

So he became like an overvalued stock.

Besides - If you want a real Maverick Republican you have to pick someone who bucks popular (but dangerous) trends in his own party.

Example of a real GOP maverick:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_bruck?currentPage=all

Instead McCain's media fan club praises McCain for his ill considered campaign finance bill.

7:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me amend - or correct myself a bit.

While the media did pretend McCain did better
in the debates than he
id, they also pretended
Obama was equal to McCain
at Saddlback forum
and Al Smith dinner.

Did you see the Al Smith dinner?

Granted - it was no officially a debate and there was no "score" and it was supposed to be
fun. But .... McCain won.

McCain's comic/roasting skills are just superior to Obama's - While Obama is a better debator.

McCain also won the Saddleback Forum. But he
may have been tipped off
on the questions. He
was just too good that day answering questions about
things he usually
flubs.

The Al Smith dinner is a pretty conservative affair - It is filled with
lots of nominal Dems, but that does not capture the
cultural conservatism of
all the rich Irish Americans. Lots of Bill O'Reillys.

Saddleback is converse - It is conservative Megachurch, but comparatively liberal in
the evangelical context.

So the right score is Obama (3) vs. McCain (1) - of you count Saddleback and Al Smith as 1/2 debates.

8:19 AM  
Blogger FJ said...

I love the recent emergence of a 2001 Talk Show recording with Obama lamenting that the SCOTUS never took up the radical "redistribution of wealth" theme and listening to him directly attack foundering fathers and the US Constitution.

Obama's "sheepskin" is slipping, and people are getting a glimpse of the wolf beneath...
That ought to open a few eyes.

11:58 AM  
Blogger John said...

And now a Miami Dolphins owner might sell so he won't have to pay capital gains under an Obama administration. That ought to sway a few more votes in Florida.

1:28 PM  
Blogger John said...

Whoa, fj. That IS a bombshell. Thank you for my next post.

1:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That Obama interview shows Obama being conservative - He explicitly says remedies should come from the political sphere, rather than the legistlature.

Anyone with verbal sat scores high enough to get into junior college can read the transcript.

When Reagan sold the earned income tax credit he was quite clear that this was his approach too.

If you look at redistributive remedies of all past Republicans, you will see they all do what Obama said in the interview.

But the Republicans want to commit hari kari this year - Witness their witless use of Joe the Unlicensed flash in the pan - That stunt cost McCain about 2 points in the polls.

Yesterday, one of Bush's top diplomats (Nick Burns) ridiculed McCain for being afraid to negotiate with our enemies without preconditions.

McCain keeps digging.

George Soros is going to go on cnbc today or tomorrow to reassure Obama's bona fides with the business community.

Poor Mac the Maverick.

4:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mine eyes have seen the glory - Peaceful job action. Courage in the
call center cubicles:

http://www.memeorandum.com/081027/p169#a081027p169

4:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poor Joe the Plumber. He
should sue McCain for
dragging him in (down)
to this campaign:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/10/the_plumber_protects_the_health_of_the_nation.php


After the election - in two years. McCain will
apologize to Joe - Just
like he apologized for
his racist gambits
in South Carolina in
2000.

4:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re Reparations

Obama got asked about that so often during the Democratic primary that it bordered on race baiting.

When he opposed reparation, the right wing
fanatics started
foaming about something
else.

When Bill O'Reilly asked
Obama about reperations, it was gratuitous. O'Reilly could have just told his huge audience that Obama was against them, but he wanted to
be matador-like and agitate
his audience by playing
on their fears of blacks.

4:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fj - I suggest you watch the Obama interview once more.

He does not lament what you say he laments.

On the contrary, he laments
the civil rights movement became *too* court focused.

Exactly the opposite of what you think (wished) he said.

Obama's position is the same as Reagan's.

If Reagan were alive, he just might be an Obamacon.

5:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also - I understand people hear what they want to hear. But you do McCain no favors by point to this interview.

Obama *opposed* court-focused remedies

He praised the founding fathers (some were better than others)

He praised the constitution.

That interview was an Obamacon display.

If Obama was white, the republicans would not try this stuff.

Think about how far to the right is Obama compared to FDR or Truman.

Watch what Soros says either today or tomorrow.

(note: McCain frets about Soros because Soros paid for the education of all of McCain's pals in Tbilisi. Soros did
more than any single
individual to win the
cold war. So it is ironic
to see hatred of Soros
on the far right. But
most hate him for who
he is. Prejudice.)

5:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re Obamacons - In a previous post you had a list of all the Obamacons like Chris Buckley, Doug Kmic, Powell, etc.
There is a new one - Andrew Sulliven (sort of a right wing Hitchens) of The Atlantic magazine.

He posted 10 conservative reasons for Obama - I think he right on 6 out of 10. YMMV.


10. A body blow to racial identity politics. An end to the era of Jesse Jackson in black America.

9. Less debt. Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those earning over a quarter of a million. And he will spend on healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan and the environment. But so will McCain. He plans more spending on health, the environment and won't touch defense of entitlements. And his refusal to touch taxes means an extra $4 trillion in debt over the massive increase presided over by Bush. And the CBO estimates that McCain's plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama's. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice.

8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. Obama has consistently cited the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush as his inspiration. McCain's knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict, his commitment to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and his brinksmanship over Iran's nuclear ambitions make him a far riskier choice for conservatives. The choice between Obama and McCain is like the choice between George H.W. Bush's first term and George W.'s.

7. An ability to understand the difference between listening to generals and delegating foreign policy to them.

6. Temperament. Obama has the coolest, calmest demeanor of any president since Eisenhower. Conservatism values that kind of constancy, especially compared with the hot-headed, irrational impulsiveness of McCain.

5. Faith. Obama's fusion of Christianity and reason, his non-fundamentalist faith, is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism.

4. A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive.

3. Two words: President Palin.

2. Conservative reform. Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant faux conservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. The survival of conservatism requires a temporary eclipse of today's Republicanism. Losing would be the best thing to happen to conservatism since 1964. Back then, conservatives lost in a landslide for the right reasons. Now, Republicans are losing in a landslide for the wrong reasons.

1. The War Against Islamist terror. The strategy deployed by Bush and Cheney has failed. It has failed to destroy al Qaeda, except in a country, Iraq, where their presence was minimal before the US invasion. It has failed to bring any of the terrorists to justice, instead creating the excrescence of Gitmo, torture, secret sites, and the collapse of America's reputation abroad. It has empowered Iran, allowed al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan, made the next vast generation of Muslims loathe America, and imperiled our alliances. We need smarter leadership of the war: balancing force with diplomacy, hard power with better p.r., deploying strategy rather than mere tactics, and self-confidence rather than a bunker mentality.

5:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Arguably Obama is more capitalist friendly than McCain. That's the irony. McCain used to ridicule
Romney for his brilliant
business career.

There was so much to ridicule about Romney, but his business success was the one thing he should
be praised for.

Consider the types of businessmen who support McCain versus those who support Obama.

McCain is supported by Tom Lutz - the hapless number two at General Motors (a failing enterprise stuffed with gov subsidies). Not only is Lutz a walking embodiment of industrial decline - he also is a global warming denier. McCain used to be brutal in his mockery of the global warming deniers.
(also - McCain HPs failed
CEO Carly Fiorina - she
had just been fired at HP
for failure and McCain
hires her.LOL)

By contrast

Obama is supported by nearly all the top management at Google, Apple, and Microsoft.
Not to mention Buffett,
Soros, and Paul Krugman.

Guess who will carry the
future?

5:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

News update - General Motors is now requesting socialistic assistance
from the Treasury!

GM execs are supporting Obama.

Obama's pals at Google are not asking for any handouts.

IMO - If GM gets and money
from Treasury, the condition should be they fire their global warming denying executives.

It would be a waste to
throw tax payer money
at people who lack basic
scientific understanding.

The irony is that if Gore
won in 2000, GM et al
would have been forced
by regualtion to make
cars that have higher milage and less pollution - So they would be profitable now like Toyota
and Honda.

11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you hear that Michelle Obama ranted about "whitey?"

It was a popular rumor
with racists a while back.

Here it is:
http://gawker.com/5069935/america-no-longer-afraid-of-michelle-obama?autoplay=true

11:32 AM  
Blogger FJ said...

I suggest YOU watch the video again. Anyone who complains about the negative liberties enshrined in the US Constitution (aka the Bill of Rights) and enforced by the Court is a totalitarian fool.

If Ronald Reagan were, he'd wring Obama's commie little neck!

4:33 PM  
Blogger FJ said...

Positive Liberty represents the road to Hell, paved with "good intentions". Unfortunately, the "intentions" are all to the government's benefit, to the government's definition of "the good", and NOT the to the individuals benefit at all.

You want "good Samaritan" laws? You want the government to assign you "duties" in addition to your rights, and punish you for not performing them? You want the government to assign you your occupation and lot in life?

Read Isaiah Berlin's Four Essay's on Liberty. Plato's "Magnesia" represents a society built upon the notion of positive liberties. It is necessarily a "closed" society run by a secretative midnight council.

Just so you know where you're headed with this, troll.

4:57 PM  
Anonymous dion said...

As a working class guy, I want to continue to pay more taxes so wealthy people can pay less.

Hating gays is much more important to me than putting food on my family.

10:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fj -
Reagan might have been
an Obamacon. So many
Reagan aides are supporting
Obama.

It's hard to say. But
your violent little
fantasy is way off the mark.

re - Obama & Courts & Conservative redistrbutive remedies
---

Watch the interview more carefully and read the transcript.

Anyone with verbal SAT scores [not Palin scores] high enough for
a c-level college will
tell you what he actually
meant.

You have to read Obama
carefully - Read the clauses seperately and
you have to learn to read
something without coloring
it with your own (I assume
well meaning) bias.

Intelligent conservatives
all know this - Some pretend otherwise so Palin
can stir the crowd with
demagoguery.

Once the election is over and tempers cool, we can re-visit this.

4:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re FJs little comment

Reagan himself would be appalled by that kind of language. Regarding Reagan and Obama, you could
argue the case either way.

This is not dispositive, but Reagan's son and namesake Ron Reagan Jr. is a big Obama supporter.

Son of Buckley, like Son of Reagan.

re Joe the plumber - McCain must regret him by now. Oy

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/28/joe29.html?sid=101

6:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re Reagan -

Also Reagan was pretty smart - He was not the dummy many liberals and some right wingers thought.

Even if he opposed Obama, he would know Obama is trained boxer and an excellent athlete.

Reagan would never start a fight he couldn't win.

Ironically, one of McCain's charms is his rogue tendency to get in over his head.

6:17 AM  
Anonymous alois said...

Any shallow, little puddle is over his head.

And, yes Reagan was as stupid as we think he was.

You don't buy into the Magic Market if you have the mind of an adult.

Simply because some of Reagan's advisors have grown in the interim does not mean he would have...unless mommy had helped him with his lessons.

9:56 AM  
Blogger FJ said...

Reagan would wring Obama's scrawny redistributionist neck!

9:57 AM  
Anonymous d. simes said...

My fellow prisoners,

O is up FIFTEEN in Pew today.

And they were going to take Landrieu out for sure...

hahaha...she's up TWENTY.

Then there's the innertubes guy.

10:17 AM  
Anonymous simes said...

Uh...my daddy would beat up your daddy.

Hahaha...migod, what a puerile, little fuck...what you'd expect from some pretentious 14 year old who cuts and pastes asinine segments from Plato.

10:19 AM  
Anonymous cooty said...

The aftermath of Ashley Todd’s story
By Jay Bookman | Friday, October 24, 2008, 04:50 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

McCain volunteer Ashley Todd has now confessed that she made up the story about being attacked by a large black man who carved the letter “B” into her cheek.

The young lady has issues, and I hope she gets the help she needs. End of story.

But let’s talk in a little more depth about the eagerness and even glee with which some in the right-wing blogosphere jumped on that story and immediately claimed it as proof of their worst nightmares coming true. So much of that story was unbelievable from the very beginning, yet certain people wanted to believe it so badly that they ignored all the warning signs and launched into full battle cry.

Andy McCarthy at the National Review’s Corner responded with a post so embarrassing he has now taken it down so nobody can see it.

Dan Riehl at riehlworldview.com posted under the headline “Thugs for change,” claiming that “Obama’s run his campaign just like a street thug out of Chicago. Now we get to see what some of his worst supporters are like.”

Noel Sheppard at newsbusters.org chastized AP for daring to be skeptical of the initial report. Most of all, he wanted to know why the AP didn’t report that the alleged perp was black. How dare they exclude a detail that had no bearing whatsoever on the alleged crime!!

Josh Painter at redstate.com blamed the attack on Barack Obama, suggesting an “Obama thugocracy” was coming: When Obama “urged his supporters to get in their face, did it not occur to him that some of his more deranged followers might take him literally?” Painter asked.

He was echoed by fellow redstater Erick Erickson, who wrote: “Hey! The dude was just doing what The One asked him to. Full pardon on January 21st.”

At Atlas Shugs, they posted the woman’s photo and called it “the new face of the Republican Party.”

“Shame on those that doubted this poor girl,” the post read. “Always ready to jump on the side of the leftists and thugs. ugh. Americans, I implore you to get off your asses and save this country from the radical left coup on the White House, Senate and House

1:55 PM  
Blogger FJ said...

Yes, we can see who the "cut 'n paste king is by the posting on this thread.

It's a shame your posting reflects the level of your literacy... it reminds me of the good old French Revolution.

Mind your step!

5:11 PM  
Blogger John said...

It's gotten too close for comfort for them, fj, and they're starting to go ape.

6:02 PM  
Anonymous karin said...

Lol...yes, comfort poor little FJ. And, now the French Revolution... like he's ever had a clue about it.

6:29 PM  
Anonymous karin said...

You're right about one thing, though.

Being on the same planet with you vermin is too close for comfort.

6:30 PM  
Blogger John said...

Amazing. I leave the door open for a day or two and they swarm back in after I booted them out and locked the door months ago.

6:43 PM  
Blogger John said...

"Being on the same planet with you vermin is too close for comfort."

Yeah. After she runs through the open door and makes herself at home here.

7:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lol...you mean you're tired of plugging your ears and screaming?

Don't worry...your little shithole here won't hold anyone's attention for very long.

9:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is "making herself at home" synonymous with stepping on your cockroach ass?

9:18 PM  
Blogger John said...

Hissed the parasitic cockroach to the host human who can step on it anytime he wants and obliterate it.

It exists here because I allow it, and how it exploits that grace to attack the giver of it is a fine example of ex pede hurculem, i.e. how the leftist takes advantage of freedoms provided by the Constitution to destroy it.

5:13 PM  
Anonymous knows he's a joke said...

Hahaha...plugging his ears and screaming is his idea of obliterating something...then he hopes we don't notice the sorry ploy by trying to dress it up with a little Latin he looked up in a big book he can't really read.

What an impotent little weakling..."obliterate" away, you yellow, little pissant...like anyone would give a shit.

11:35 PM  
Blogger John said...

"hahaha! peabrains! hahaha! pissant! hahaha! reichos! hahaha! GOPiggies! hahaha! shit!"

11:57 AM  
Anonymous karin said...

Lol...midnite, you've driven him over the edge below the one he was already over.

When they start affecting that macho thing, you know they're about ready to crack.

3:38 PM  
Blogger John said...

You're tho thmart, Karin. I can't get anything patht you.

2:20 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home