Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Only the Palin stuff is shtick.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter adonis
- Start date
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I really wish you guys would stop quoting his tired shtick - it defeats the ignore feature.
Statorama
Footballguy
adonis
Footballguy
Hard to believe that was newsworthy.
Statorama
Footballguy
It speaks to the larger concern that he tells people what they want to hear in one place, then goes to another and makes fun of how they cling to guns and religion.The guy doesn't stand for anything, except taking money from people that earned it and "spreading it around" to those that didn't.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
He's clearly having a little fun at his own expense - not a bad thing. And if you actually read it, he's not contradicting himself, voting "present", or rooting for both as some tools would imply. The Rays knocked his team out and he's congratulating them on their season.
adonis
Footballguy
He's already professed his support for the Phillies, yet he reaches out and says Hello and shows some love to the Rays. Not quite sure how that's saying one thing and doing another.Seems like it's more, he still supports the Phillies, but he's willing to meet with the Rays and to say hi, make them feel good, and not just totally ignore the team he doesn't support. True leadership
.
adonis
Footballguy
Sadly, apparently it's news in that paper.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
No. Stat posted and we all bit.
CBusAlex
Footballguy
Pooch
More Yang than Yin
I firmly agree with this. Obama really needs to press the issue about making sure the vote gets out.
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
I think Obama just said something racist. He said something like "We will no longer be bamboozled"
Bamboozled is a racist term. Thoughts?
Bamboozled is a racist term. Thoughts?
fluorescent walkway
Footballguy
Racist against panda bears, sure.
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
Against black people, dude
fluorescent walkway
Footballguy
Don't think I've heard that one. Of course I'm not as up on racism as some other people around here.
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
I'm pretty sure you are wrong. Bamboozle doens't have any racist connotations that I am aware of. It just means to hoodwink. Wait a second... hood... wink... maybe you are on to something...Nah.
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
It means "to make a baboon out of"
fluorescent walkway
Footballguy
I thought you were joking, but it appears that you might be right.Still, I've never heard it in anything like a racist context. But then, I couldn't believe it when people didn't know that "porch monkey" or "tar baby" were racially charged terms.
If we're going this far, there are probably only three-dozen words that can't be considered racist.
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
All that says is that they don't really know what the origin of the word is, but one possible etymology of is the word embabuiner which has the baboon reference. The word it self doesn't mean that at all.
Orange Crush
Footballguy
Wouldn't that be baboozled? baboonified? transbaboonified?
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Are you and Stat now working on a joint shtick project?
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
No, it wouldn't.Hey, you guys might be cool with him saying stuff like that. Maybe it's OK becuase it's Obama.
Death Bytes
Footballguy
Well, let's narrow them down by using eeny meeny miny m
h, wait! Southwest Airlines got sued for using that because it's racist. Oops!fluorescent walkway
Footballguy
I still can't tell if you're serious.No, it wouldn't.Hey, you guys might be cool with him saying stuff like that. Maybe it's OK becuase it's Obama.
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
He can't be.I still can't tell if you're serious.No, it wouldn't.Hey, you guys might be cool with him saying stuff like that. Maybe it's OK becuase it's Obama.
Statorama
Footballguy
Reports continue to come in about Obama's past association with the New Party
Was Obama even vetted?
Statorama
Footballguy
Obama supporters shoot at McCain tourbus
Good grief, this didn't even get a mention on the news. If this had happened to Obama, it would have been reported like JFK in Dallas all over again.
Statorama
Footballguy
The Truth about Obama's "Tax Cuts"
Way to steal credit for the Bush Tax Cuts (that you voted against), Senator Government
Statorama
Footballguy
Statorama
Footballguy
Obama wants an African-American appointed if his Senate seat is vacated
JUST IMAGINE the furor if John McCain said he wanted a white person to fill his vacated Senate seat.
JUST IMAGINE the furor if John McCain said he wanted a white person to fill his vacated Senate seat.
Statorama
Footballguy
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Stat, you hopped up on meth tonight or what? Never seen you quite this prolific.
Keep up the good work though.
Keep up the good work though.
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
So what are you planning to do with all of your new found free time on November 5th?
timschochet
Footballguy
My main objection to Barack Obama has nothing to do with his character or judgment or past relations. I am satisfied with all those areas. I am also satisfied with his foreign policy views and his social positions. In addition, I worry about how a defeat of Obama at this point would lead to a lot of ugliness and a feeling among African-Americans and others that we are a racist country. This last makes me almost hope for an Obama victory.
But I still can't vote for him, because I so fundamentally disagree with his economic positions. Here is a good critique by Paul Rubin, a noted conservative economist. It's a bit too draconian IMO in it's predictions, but I think the criticisms are accurate:
Get Ready for the New New Deal
Obama is much more dangerous to economic freedom than FDR.By PAUL H. RUBIN
In 1932, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected president as the nation was heading into a severe recession. The stock market had crashed in 1929, the world's economy was slowing down, and all economic indicators in the U.S. showed signs of trouble.
The new president's response was to restructure the economy with the New Deal -- an expansion of the role of government once unimaginable in America. We now know that FDR's policies likely prolonged the Great Depression because the economy never fully recovered in the 1930s, and actually got worse in the latter half of the decade. And we know that FDR got away with it (winning election four times) by blaming his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, for crashing the economy in the first place.
Today, the U.S. is in better shape than in 1932. But it faces similar circumstances. The stock market has been in a tail spin, credit markets have locked up, and a surging Democratic presidential candidate is running on expanding the role of government, laying the blame for the economic turmoil on the current occupant of the White House and his party's economic policies.
Barack Obama is one of the most liberal members of the Senate. His reaction to the financial crisis is to blame deregulation. He even leverages fear of deregulation onto other issues. For example, Sen. John McCain wants to allow consumers to buy health insurance across state lines. Mr. Obama likens this to the financial deregulation that he alleges got us into the current mess.
But a President Obama would also enjoy large Democratic majorities in Congress. His party might even win a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, giving him more power than any president has had in decades to push a liberal agenda. And given the opportunity, Mr. Obama will likely radically increase government interference in the economy.
Until now, this election has been fought on the margins, over marginal issues. But it is important to understand how much a presidential candidate wants to move the needle on taxes, trade and other issues. Usually there isn't a chance for wholesale change. Now, however, it appears that this election will make more than a marginal difference. It might fundamentally change America.
Unlike FDR, Mr. Obama will not have to create the mechanisms government uses to interfere with the economy before imposing his policies. FDR had to get the Supreme Court to overturn a century's worth of precedents limiting the power of government before he could use the Constitution's commerce clause, among other things, to increase government control of the economy. Mr. Obama will have no such problem.
FDR also had to create agencies to implement regulations. Today, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations Board (both created in the 1930s) as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and others created later are in place. Increasing their power will be easier than creating them from scratch.
Even before the current crisis, there was a great demand for increased government regulation to limit global warming. That gives the next president a ready-made box in which to place more regulation, and a legion of supports eager for it.
But if the coming wave of new regulation from an Obama administration is harmful to the economy, Mr. Obama will take a page from FDR's playbook. He'll blame Republicans for having caused the market crash in the first place, and so escape blame for the consequences of his policies. It worked for FDR and, so far in this campaign, blaming Republicans and George W. Bush has worked for Mr. Obama.
Democrats draw their political power from trial lawyers, unions, government bureaucrats, environmentalists, and, perhaps, my liberal colleagues in academia. All of these voting blocs seem to favor a larger, more intrusive government. If things proceed as they now appear likely to, we can expect major changes in policies that benefit these groups.
If those of us who favor free markets for the freedom and prosperity they bring are right, the political system may soon put our economy on track for a catastrophe.
Mr. Rubin is a professor of economics and law at Emory University. He held several senior economic positions in the Reagan administration, and is an unpaid adviser to the McCain campaign.
But I still can't vote for him, because I so fundamentally disagree with his economic positions. Here is a good critique by Paul Rubin, a noted conservative economist. It's a bit too draconian IMO in it's predictions, but I think the criticisms are accurate:
Get Ready for the New New Deal
Obama is much more dangerous to economic freedom than FDR.By PAUL H. RUBIN
In 1932, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected president as the nation was heading into a severe recession. The stock market had crashed in 1929, the world's economy was slowing down, and all economic indicators in the U.S. showed signs of trouble.
The new president's response was to restructure the economy with the New Deal -- an expansion of the role of government once unimaginable in America. We now know that FDR's policies likely prolonged the Great Depression because the economy never fully recovered in the 1930s, and actually got worse in the latter half of the decade. And we know that FDR got away with it (winning election four times) by blaming his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, for crashing the economy in the first place.
Today, the U.S. is in better shape than in 1932. But it faces similar circumstances. The stock market has been in a tail spin, credit markets have locked up, and a surging Democratic presidential candidate is running on expanding the role of government, laying the blame for the economic turmoil on the current occupant of the White House and his party's economic policies.
Barack Obama is one of the most liberal members of the Senate. His reaction to the financial crisis is to blame deregulation. He even leverages fear of deregulation onto other issues. For example, Sen. John McCain wants to allow consumers to buy health insurance across state lines. Mr. Obama likens this to the financial deregulation that he alleges got us into the current mess.
But a President Obama would also enjoy large Democratic majorities in Congress. His party might even win a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, giving him more power than any president has had in decades to push a liberal agenda. And given the opportunity, Mr. Obama will likely radically increase government interference in the economy.
Until now, this election has been fought on the margins, over marginal issues. But it is important to understand how much a presidential candidate wants to move the needle on taxes, trade and other issues. Usually there isn't a chance for wholesale change. Now, however, it appears that this election will make more than a marginal difference. It might fundamentally change America.
Unlike FDR, Mr. Obama will not have to create the mechanisms government uses to interfere with the economy before imposing his policies. FDR had to get the Supreme Court to overturn a century's worth of precedents limiting the power of government before he could use the Constitution's commerce clause, among other things, to increase government control of the economy. Mr. Obama will have no such problem.
FDR also had to create agencies to implement regulations. Today, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations Board (both created in the 1930s) as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and others created later are in place. Increasing their power will be easier than creating them from scratch.
Even before the current crisis, there was a great demand for increased government regulation to limit global warming. That gives the next president a ready-made box in which to place more regulation, and a legion of supports eager for it.
But if the coming wave of new regulation from an Obama administration is harmful to the economy, Mr. Obama will take a page from FDR's playbook. He'll blame Republicans for having caused the market crash in the first place, and so escape blame for the consequences of his policies. It worked for FDR and, so far in this campaign, blaming Republicans and George W. Bush has worked for Mr. Obama.
Democrats draw their political power from trial lawyers, unions, government bureaucrats, environmentalists, and, perhaps, my liberal colleagues in academia. All of these voting blocs seem to favor a larger, more intrusive government. If things proceed as they now appear likely to, we can expect major changes in policies that benefit these groups.
If those of us who favor free markets for the freedom and prosperity they bring are right, the political system may soon put our economy on track for a catastrophe.
Mr. Rubin is a professor of economics and law at Emory University. He held several senior economic positions in the Reagan administration, and is an unpaid adviser to the McCain campaign.
timschochet
Footballguy
Certainly true, and I said so. But I also said that several of the points made sense to me.One of the ideas I hear more and more that I really reject is that if something is partisan it can just be ignored. The conservatives use this all the time: "Oh, you can't trust anything you read in the New York Times!" Democrats: "You can't believe anything on Fox News!" This is an effective way to stifle all conversation. If a comment has merit, it really doesn't matter who said it.
Orange Crush
Footballguy
Ok, I didn't read the whole article because I dismissed it after reading his opening. The guy categorized the country as heading into a recession when FDR was elected, and FDR's policies caused and extended the great depression.That is categorically false. When FDR was elected, unemployment was at 25%. It only went down from there. The two biggest things that caused and extended the depression was the Fed contracting the money supply and the passage of the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, both of which occurred before FDR was elected.
A lot of conservatives have found a little cottage industry blaming FDR and the resultant liberal policies for the great depression in order that they can push their own ideas as a one size fits all balm for every economic bump in the road, except that its blatantly wrong.
timschochet
Footballguy
Here is another well-written critique of Obama's potential economic policies, this one dealing with my biggest concern of all: protectionism.
Starting To Pay Price For Our Protectionism
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Trade: As Obama makes political hay off protectionism and promises a new Smoot-Hawley era, it's no surprise our trading partners are beginning to look to other markets — such as Europe. It's a warning.
Our No. 1 trading partner, Canada, isn't stupid. When Obama threatened last February to rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement on his own terms, our northern ally started looking abroad to other markets.
They found a big one in Europe, which seems to have few hang-ups about increasing exports and signing free-trade treaties. Last Friday, Canada and the European Union held the first talks toward an eventual free trade agreement between the two.
When this goes through, $27 billion in new trade is expected by 2014, according to a joint EU-Canada study. Canada will add an extra 0.8% to its GDP and see income gains of $11.1 billion from the new jobs and higher salaries coming in from Europe.
After all, if free trade with the U.S. bolstered Canada's economy and standard of living by a factor of four since 1994, it makes sense to do more of what brought in that wealth.
Europe's $14 trillion market is an attractive alternative to the U.S. for the Canadians, if it comes to that, and the Europeans are happy to add Canadian investment to the $500 billion investment its three largest economies drew in 2007.
Canada isn't the only one responding to these chill trade winds blowing in from the Washington elites in election season.
Colombia is also preparing to sign a free-trade deal with Europe, as its own free-trade accord with the U.S. languishes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked it in Congress last April.
U.S. allies are wise to seek other partners no matter what the U.S. climate — the U.S. downturn no doubt plays a role too. But it started with noises out of the U.S. about pulling up the drawbridge.
With a global downturn, free trade makes more sense than ever. That ought to be an election issue for the U.S., which needs to stay globally competitive. Sadly, it's not.
Canada and Colombia are effectively defending themselves from the anti-trade vortex in the U.S. by turning to other markets. The Europeans have no intention of imitating the mistake made by the U.S.
"It's never a good sign when the U.S. becomes protectionist," Philippe Favre, special ambassador for international investment and chairman of Invest in France Agency, the country's foreign investment arm, said in recent comments to IBD.
Like many European officials, Favre thinks the sentiment has been brewing for a while. "If you look at the last two or three years, there was the U.S. preventing foreigners from buying ports," he said. "The Chinese wanted to buy an oil company and they were stopped. Then you have the contract for (air refueling) tankers refused to a European company (EADS)."
Another failure was the World Trade Organization talks. "We have seen since 9/11 a U.S. trend to be more wary of the rest of the world," Favre said. "We probably underestimated the impact (of the attack) on the people and the country in the EU."
Agree or disagree, there's no doubt that protectionism will make America poorer and less influential, protecting nothing. Outsourcing is particularly full of misperceptions.
"Look at the auto industry — Japan started by exporting to Canada and the U.S., and now produces cars in the U.S. They did it because the market itself is in the U.S. We see exactly the same thing in Europe. More car plants are going up in Germany and France than Bulgaria and Romania, even though the labor costs are lower there."
Michael Pfeiffer, managing director of Invest in Germany, told IBD that exports are no threat: "We (Germans) are the largest exporters in the world — it's something we do. We have to do it."
Why? Germany doesn't have the diversified economy America does. "One-quarter of German people are employed for export industries," said Pfeiffer.
With the possibility of a protectionist Democratic president (Barack Obama) working with a protectionist Democratic Congress, the U.S. may be the odd man out when it comes to free trade.
Pity. Because free trade, as any economist will tell you, inevitably boosts the economies of those who engage in it. So others, like Canada, Colombia and Europe, will continue down the free-trade path — toward greater wealth for their citizens — while the U.S. sits on the sidelines.
The world will decide it isn't going to wait for Nancy Pelosi to come around on free trade — it's going to leave the U.S. in the dust.
Starting To Pay Price For Our Protectionism
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Trade: As Obama makes political hay off protectionism and promises a new Smoot-Hawley era, it's no surprise our trading partners are beginning to look to other markets — such as Europe. It's a warning.
Our No. 1 trading partner, Canada, isn't stupid. When Obama threatened last February to rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement on his own terms, our northern ally started looking abroad to other markets.
They found a big one in Europe, which seems to have few hang-ups about increasing exports and signing free-trade treaties. Last Friday, Canada and the European Union held the first talks toward an eventual free trade agreement between the two.
When this goes through, $27 billion in new trade is expected by 2014, according to a joint EU-Canada study. Canada will add an extra 0.8% to its GDP and see income gains of $11.1 billion from the new jobs and higher salaries coming in from Europe.
After all, if free trade with the U.S. bolstered Canada's economy and standard of living by a factor of four since 1994, it makes sense to do more of what brought in that wealth.
Europe's $14 trillion market is an attractive alternative to the U.S. for the Canadians, if it comes to that, and the Europeans are happy to add Canadian investment to the $500 billion investment its three largest economies drew in 2007.
Canada isn't the only one responding to these chill trade winds blowing in from the Washington elites in election season.
Colombia is also preparing to sign a free-trade deal with Europe, as its own free-trade accord with the U.S. languishes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked it in Congress last April.
U.S. allies are wise to seek other partners no matter what the U.S. climate — the U.S. downturn no doubt plays a role too. But it started with noises out of the U.S. about pulling up the drawbridge.
With a global downturn, free trade makes more sense than ever. That ought to be an election issue for the U.S., which needs to stay globally competitive. Sadly, it's not.
Canada and Colombia are effectively defending themselves from the anti-trade vortex in the U.S. by turning to other markets. The Europeans have no intention of imitating the mistake made by the U.S.
"It's never a good sign when the U.S. becomes protectionist," Philippe Favre, special ambassador for international investment and chairman of Invest in France Agency, the country's foreign investment arm, said in recent comments to IBD.
Like many European officials, Favre thinks the sentiment has been brewing for a while. "If you look at the last two or three years, there was the U.S. preventing foreigners from buying ports," he said. "The Chinese wanted to buy an oil company and they were stopped. Then you have the contract for (air refueling) tankers refused to a European company (EADS)."
Another failure was the World Trade Organization talks. "We have seen since 9/11 a U.S. trend to be more wary of the rest of the world," Favre said. "We probably underestimated the impact (of the attack) on the people and the country in the EU."
Agree or disagree, there's no doubt that protectionism will make America poorer and less influential, protecting nothing. Outsourcing is particularly full of misperceptions.
"Look at the auto industry — Japan started by exporting to Canada and the U.S., and now produces cars in the U.S. They did it because the market itself is in the U.S. We see exactly the same thing in Europe. More car plants are going up in Germany and France than Bulgaria and Romania, even though the labor costs are lower there."
Michael Pfeiffer, managing director of Invest in Germany, told IBD that exports are no threat: "We (Germans) are the largest exporters in the world — it's something we do. We have to do it."
Why? Germany doesn't have the diversified economy America does. "One-quarter of German people are employed for export industries," said Pfeiffer.
With the possibility of a protectionist Democratic president (Barack Obama) working with a protectionist Democratic Congress, the U.S. may be the odd man out when it comes to free trade.
Pity. Because free trade, as any economist will tell you, inevitably boosts the economies of those who engage in it. So others, like Canada, Colombia and Europe, will continue down the free-trade path — toward greater wealth for their citizens — while the U.S. sits on the sidelines.
The world will decide it isn't going to wait for Nancy Pelosi to come around on free trade — it's going to leave the U.S. in the dust.
Pooch
More Yang than Yin
According to our most recent Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman:“[The federal government] can provide extended benefits to the unemployed, which will both help distressed families cope and put money in the hands of people likely to spend it. It can provide emergency aid to state and local governments, so that they aren’t forced into steep spending cuts that both degrade public services and destroy jobs. It can buy up mortgages . . . and restructure the terms to help families stay in their homes.
“And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case. The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn’t needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let’s get those projects rolling.”
He says the Feds need to spend money to stimulate the economy.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well, this is certainly the liberal argument, and Krugman has long been an effective spokesman for this position. I have no objection to spending on infrastructure.But IMO the engine to our economy is not the government, but the free market, and taxes and increased government spending inhibit the free market. I'm not going to go so far as to make the conservative argument that cutting taxes on the productive increases government revenues. But I will argue that doing so speeds up the economy, eventually increases it's size, and this does eventually increase government revenues. New taxation on these same people, while bringing in more immediate revenue, slows down the economy, which in the long run will result in less revenue, not more.According to our most recent Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman:“[The federal government] can provide extended benefits to the unemployed, which will both help distressed families cope and put money in the hands of people likely to spend it. It can provide emergency aid to state and local governments, so that they aren’t forced into steep spending cuts that both degrade public services and destroy jobs. It can buy up mortgages . . . and restructure the terms to help families stay in their homes.
“And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case. The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn’t needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let’s get those projects rolling.”
He says the Feds need to spend money to stimulate the economy.
Pooch
More Yang than Yin
It could also be argued that government spending on infrastructure will create jobs and increase revenue as well, in the form of both tax revenue and increased consumer spending.If I understand correctly, Obama's tax plan simply involves rolling back the Bush tax cuts. Going back to the rates that were in effect during the Clinton administration. Hardly draconian.Well, this is certainly the liberal argument, and Krugman has long been an effective spokesman for this position. I have no objection to spending on infrastructure.But IMO the engine to our economy is not the government, but the free market, and taxes and increased government spending inhibit the free market. I'm not going to go so far as to make the conservative argument that cutting taxes on the productive increases government revenues. But I will argue that doing so speeds up the economy, eventually increases it's size, and this does eventually increase government revenues. New taxation on these same people, while bringing in more immediate revenue, slows down the economy, which in the long run will result in less revenue, not more.According to our most recent Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman:“[The federal government] can provide extended benefits to the unemployed, which will both help distressed families cope and put money in the hands of people likely to spend it. It can provide emergency aid to state and local governments, so that they aren’t forced into steep spending cuts that both degrade public services and destroy jobs. It can buy up mortgages . . . and restructure the terms to help families stay in their homes.
“And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case. The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn’t needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let’s get those projects rolling.”
He says the Feds need to spend money to stimulate the economy.
timschochet
Footballguy
If true, while I'm still against doing it, I would be drastically relieved.But the problem is, from what I understand, he is also proposing, in addition to this rollback, an increase in capital gains taxes and an increase in estate taxes. Also new restrictions and fines on energy as a means to combat climate change, which in effect will be a new tax on all of us. So I don't think it's quite as simple as you're making it sound.
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
Wow, Statorama just pwned Obama here
Pooch
More Yang than Yin
From his website:Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.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.
timschochet
Footballguy
He's going to increase capital gains taxes for businesses which are "not small", and I don't know how that is defined, either. This will mean less investment, and a slowdown of growth. Look, I don't like this "the rich will pay for all of us" mentality. It's not good for America, it won't work anyway, and it's nothing more than class warfare. If Obama would just change his mind about this stuff, I'd be in love with the guy. I like everything else about him. But this progressive BS has got to go! (IMO)
Similar threads
