Profiles In Doubletalk - Clinton/Obama
Posted April 17th, 2008 by Da King
Here's a transcript of the April 16, 2008 ABC Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia.
I mostly want to deal with the second hour of the debate, since the first hour was about both candidates various gaffes, pratfalls, and lies, which has already been discussed in the media and on the internet. The second hour was about the issues. I would like to congratulate Hillary for basically admitting that she lied about the Bosnia sniper fire incident, although you might not have noticed unless you were paying careful attention, given the way she parsed her admission -"On a couple of occasions in the last weeks I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case…"
Yes, Hillary, we know. Thanks for admitting it. For his part, Obama finally admitted "there's no doubt that I can see how people were offended" by his remarks about small town midwesterners clinging to guns and religion and having antipathy to immigrants and those different from themselves. The problem is that in the next breath, Obama again characterized people's religion and stances on issues as a refuge against their disappointment in government rather than a genuine reflection of their beliefs, so he STILL doesn't get it. This is very curious for a man who professes to be carried by his faith. Here's the relevant excerpt:
"the point I was making was that when people feel like Washington's not listening to them… then politically they end up focusing on those things that are constant, like religion…They end up being much more concerned about votes around things like guns…what is also true is that wedge issues, hot-button issues, end up taking prominence in our — in our politics. And part of the problem is that when those issues are exploited, we never get to solve the issues that people really have to get some relief on, whether it's health care or education or jobs."
Every word of this is utter nonsense. What Obama is saying here is, 'Your issues don't matter rubes, only mine matter, so let's not get distracted by your petty beliefs. Let's concentrate on mine.' Plus, I'm pretty sure it's possible for this country to focus on both the Second Amendment AND health care at the same time. It's not a one or the other scenario.
But enough about that. The second hour of the debate, which I'll call, PROFILES IN DOUBLETALK !, was about the issues. Since I just mentioned the Second Amendment, listen to this torturred statement from Obama on that issue (and I apologize to Barack for bringing up this "wedge issue", but hey, it IS an actual Constitutional right, as opposed to, say, the Clinton/Obama faux 'right' to universal health care:
"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right"
Got that, america ? Obama says you have the right to bear arms…unless the government decides you don't. Is it just me, or does such an attitude pretty much nullify the Bill of Rights ? Don't presidents have to swear to uphold the Constitution ? I'm sure I read that somewhere. I do have to agree with Obama about one thing. This country IS at a "critical juncture in it's history." It's critical that we keep Obama out of the Oval Office.
Hillary had about the same ambiguous take on the gun rights question. Both candidates claimed they had to study the issue some more. Incredible.
When it came to a very important policy question, taxation, both Democrats stumbled so badly (with Obama being the worst) that it would have been comical if not for the fact that both of these big government turkeys want to pluck our financial feathers. In classic liberal class warrior 'soak the rich' fashion, both candidates promised to only raise taxes on those making $250,000 and above (or possibly $200,000 and above in Obama's case). Charles Gibson sliced their lies to the bone in the ensuing exchange, when he pointed out that they both advocated raising the capital gains tax, which would raise taxes on 100 million stock owning americans, not just the rich. In Obama's case, he had proposed nearly doubling the capital gains tax. Gibson also had Obama hem-hawing when Gibson pointed out that history shows capital gains revenue actually rises when the rates are lower (because more money is invested - that spurs economic growth). Obama also advocates lifting the Social Security payroll cap, which is a tax increase for everyone making over $97,000 per year, not just the wealthy. Obama did a whole lot of backpedaling on issues of taxation following Gibson's astute observations. He looked like a Not Ready For Prime Time Player. A related question I'd love to hear the Dems attempt to answer is "Isn't it deeply irresponsible to be proposing the biggest tax increases in the history of the country when we are already in an economic recession ?" I also think someone should try to add up the revenue vs. expense numbers on Hillary and Barack's huge government expansion proposals. I can't see how the numbers can possibly add up. Obama keeps referring to his tax proposals as an issue of "fairness". In Obama's world, "fair" is when the wealthy pay 50% or more in taxes, and the lower half on the income scale pay nothing. I'm not sure what word describes that scenario (maybe "theft" ?), but I know "fair" is not it.
But at least Obama had a proposal for Social Security, even if it was the wrong proposal. Hillary dodged the issue. She said she wouldn't cut benefits, wouldn't raise taxes, and outrageously blamed Bush for the whole mess (Hillary blames Bush for absolutely everything, in case you haven't noticed). She basically said nothing (which pols have been doing for decades now about Social Security). Charlie Gibson should have exposed her non-answer, but instead he let it go and moved on to the next issue.
On foreign policy, Hillary said she would pull out of Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground and regardless of what her military advisors told her the consequences would be. It was pretty much an 'Iraq can go suck an egg' policy. Obama said close to the same thing. Hillary said she wanted to pump up the american presence in Afghanistan. Then, incredibly, both candidates stressed the importance of containing IRAN, not pulling any options off the table in denying Iran nuclear weapons, backing Israel, striking Iran if it attacked Israel or didn't stop it's nuclear program, and preventing Iran from aiding and abetting Hezbollah and Hamas. As glad as I was to hear them say these things about Iran (who says I never agree with Democrats ?), I was thinking, why is it critically important for the United States to stop Iran's influence everywhere EXCEPT Iraq ? That doesn't make any sense. If it's all important to stop Iran from destabilizing the Middle East (it is), then it's damn well important to stop them from doing the same in Iraq, as they HAVE BEEN DOING. There was a real mental disconnect from the candidates there. Foreign policy has to be about more than controverting everything B-U-S-H. The Dems can't be hawkish everywhere except Iraq merely because it goes against Bush. That's childish.
I could go on and on, but I'll stop here for now.
Here's my two cents worth - If I was a Democrat, I might want Hillary Clinton representing my party against John McCain for one simple reason. Hillary's skeletons are already known far and wide. There aren't likely to be any new surprises with her, whereas the other shoe is just beginning to drop with Barack Obama. We are 7 months away from the election. Obama could self-destruct by then. Since both candidates have similar views, Hillary seems to be the better bet to take the White House.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:27 am
No need to deconstruct this post. It's a self-deconstructer.
Here's all anyone needs to read….
"…Gibson's astute observations."
My goodness.
No wonder the country is divided.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:36 am
The liberal Democrat's definition of "divided" is - Someone disagrees with liberals.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
"We are 7 months away from the election. Obama could self-destruct by then. Since both candidates have similar views, Hillary seems to be the better bet to take the White House."
For someone that claims to be able to take a hit, and brags about the "South side of Chicago" style politics, Osama came away looking like a 3rd grader beaten up for milk money. He wants to lead this country and can't even take a sucker punch from George Stephanopolous? All of the far-left blogs are about to implode, over ABC's handling of the debate, and it really is entertaining. The Obamabots wanted canned questions, as CNN and MSNBC have previously delivered, yet they were faced with real ones. Sorry for avoiding the prerehearsed answers, but welcome to the everyday reality of the GOP. Many argue that these were trashy tabloid-worthy topics, but the fact remains the same………………..these are pertinent issues that many Americans want answers to and never received closure.
Seeing these libs squirm with the tax issue was priceless and they almost sounded like republicans, or a moment. We know they're for taxes and why don't they just acknowledge this and come clean? There is nothing worse than a bad liar.
While all the cries of bias continue, I seem to recall what Hillary was subjected to for the past several months.
Rev, Truth……….where were your outcries when she was the sole target? Why did you not defend her while K. Olberman, Chris Mathews, & T. Russert beat her with bats? Was that not bias, since those three are in the tank for Osama? Does the bias card only apply when it interferes with the bias of the Kool-Aid gang? Sorry, but I cannot feel sorry for those that do not recognize bias as a 2-way street. Chris Mathews will need more than Viagra to get his tingle back and put positive spin on this disaster.
Hats off to ABC, to hell with the Huffington Post, and many kudos to an invigorated Hillary Clinton. Perfect timing, too! The super-D's were just waiting for adequate justification and now they've been served a platter full.
As the Osama sock puppets turn bitter, may they find comfort in clinging to their rapidly eroding hope and change. If their gun control views were constitutionally correct, a round of russian roulette would provide a more eternal peace.
Not sure what the odds are, but I'll go out on a limb next Tuesday.
PA final tally: Clinton 57%, Osama 40%
Let's see who can guess closest. How can Osama even spin a 17% loss, when the polls have been crafted to only show 5%?
April 17th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I keep wondering why I, one of the most anti of anti-Hillary people for the past 8 years find myself defending her all the time. I think that Alexander D. has done a better job of questioning how Hillary has been treated the past months by the talking heads of newsdom than I could ever do. It is too bad that that all so important debate last night had to be done on a real debate type agenda as it was but Obama can't expect to have nothing but CNN and MSNBC softball questions forever, I think.
I think that Obama is in a period of seeing his mask slip a bit more every time he has to get outside his prepared speeches. I would again suggest that if you haven't read the Kristol opinion about the mask that the MSM and the Obamanation have managed to keep on him you need to do so. The mask slipped a bit in San Francisco and it slipped again last night. We are finally learning something about the man other than that he is a black man, . . . . . surely there is something else we know about him, oh yeah, he is a Democrat.
I have seen it said so many times that gender and race just have no right to be election issues but we don't know much about Obama other than his gender and race. Well, lately more and more has come to light and it is too much fun to watch the members of the Obama "cult" working so hard to keep it all down to those two non-issues. Every time someone suggests that the candidates talk about some real issues they fall on their faces so I guess race and gender is about all eiher of them has.
It is, afterall, very tough for any liberal to talk about taxes without lying and knowing that most people know they are lying.
King, I think that what both of these people think about when the word, taxes, comes up is income tax only. Somehow they don't see taxing beyond the $97,000 amount as an increase. They don't see the 18 cents on fuel that Bush proposed dropping, for a while, as a tax. If people of all income ranges have to pay the same amount they don't see that as fair, only income counts with them. Why don't we ever see Democrats talking about all those hidden taxes we pay when they talk about taxes? I guess nobody ever asks them hard questions like that at "debates".
I guess they finally had to actually debate without a prepared script and now they will have to work on ABC for having an unfair agenda. It seems to me that as Kristol suggested the other day, the mask slipped a bit more last night.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
"Obama also advocates lifting the Social Security payroll cap, which is a tax increase for everyone making over $97,000 per year, not just the wealthy."
Huh? That's only 6% of the population, King. Call it a tax increase if you need to, but as far as tax increases go, good luck getting people making $40,000 to think that's a bad one.
"I was thinking, why is it critically important for the United States to stop Iran's influence everywhere EXCEPT Iraq ?"
If the Iraq occupation was realistically capable of stopping Iran's influence, I might agree. Yet while things right now are as good as possible with our military limitations we still had to use Iran to broker a truce between Maliki and Sadr. Anyway, the point is that being in Iraq doesn't mean all the bad things that hawks say will happen if we leave will automatically NOT happen if we stay. And besides all that, a military that is NOT consumed with occupying another country is much more of a deterrent and more useful as leverage than a military that IS consumed with occupying another country.
"If I was a Democrat, I might want Hillary Clinton representing my party against John McCain for one simple reason. Hillary's skeletons are already known far and wide. There aren't likely to be any new surprises with her, whereas the other shoe is just beginning to drop with Barack Obama."
Three reasons why that's unconvincing:
1) You're assuming all general election voters already know everything that's out there. That's not true. The portion of the country that has actually voted in the primaries is relatively small and there are plenty of people who don't know everything the news junkies do. Oops, sorry- is that elitist?
2) Hillary Clinton definitely has a popularity ceiling precisely because she is much more well-known already. So she's the reliable veteran but Obama is the rookie with more upside. Thus, she has no room to grow but Obama still has the potential to get even more popular, especially considering my first point.
3) According to:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
Obama is now consistently beating Hillary in national Dem polling and:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
he matches up better with McCain than she does.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Roy,
You don't ever hear Dems talk about all the hidden taxes each and every one of us pays because the Dems want as much tax money as they can possibly get. When McCain even hinted at dropping the federal gas tax for the summer, the Dems jumped all over him, citing how important that tax revenue was. Nothing gets Dems all worked up faster than tax cuts.
Here's another question I wish ABC would have asked Hillary or Obama in regards to Social Security - Will you pledge to have the government stop spending all the people's Social Security money and finally create a real trust fund, as opposed to the hidden tax ponzi scheme the government is running now ?
I predict Hillary would have immediately started talking about how SS was fine until Bush screwed it up, and Obama would start talking about how these types of questions distract from allowing him to deal with the real problems of the country, lol.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Alex,
After 21 debates, Obama finally got a few semi-tough questions, and he stumbled badly. I'm sure the Obama acolytes won't see it that way, but it's not like they have many rational arguments to support Obama over Hillary to begin with. The most I've ever heard an Obama supporter even be able to come up with for Obama policy is 'pull out of Iraq' and 'universal health care', and Hillary has the exact same positions plus much more experience. It's really all about the hope and change, baby. The Obama phenomenon isn't about policy, issues, or logic, it's mostly about appearances and non-specific inspiration. It's mostly a mirage.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
The SOLUTION to the education crisis.
When confronted with the fact that by raisng the capital gain tax the government will enjoy less reveune Oblam stated it was an issue of fairness.
Schools could ask for less money and lower the grades of succsessful students and reduce the test scores of the better acheiving schools in the name of fairness
Am I the only one that found it unbelievable that a candidate for President would promote taking money from one person for the purpose of fairness even it means less reveune for the gov.?
April 17th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
And he doesn't even know what fairness means, ac.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
King,
Neither of those two Dim clowns can win in November.
B. Hussein Obama is so obviously anti-american that it oozed out of him, while Comrade Hillary is despised by about 50% of the country.
Not that I would ever have voted for him, but if the Dims had any sense they would have nominated, say, Joey Biden. He may be a gasbag but at least he's not an abject disgrace like BO and HRC.
The odds of a McCain landslide increase by the day.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
King, the Dems get mad when the debate doesnt run back and forth between anti-Bush questions. That is why they didnt like the questions.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Roy/King,
An interesting turn of events, to say the least. The leftists have now created their own war against ABC and G.S.. I've come across many that seem to equate ABC with Fox. In my opinion, this can only be construed as good news for ABC. Not quite sure they would want the ratings of CNN, nor MessNBC.
The left has spun this into a persecution of tabloid type interrogation, but aren't any questions, that pertain to electability, fair game for Hill? OB also cries about the 45 minutes that were devoted to this line of uncomfortable questioning. He should consider himself lucky because, had the time been alotted to discuss his accomplishments…………he would have been pressed to find 5 minutes. Also, as Ben stated, they seemed to be at a loss without the typical canned questions which allow for the "failed policies of G.B." response.
George Stephanopoulos is guilty as charged! He is guilty of embarassing the other networks, by doing their neglected tasks. To this point, he has defended his line of questioning and I hope he sticks to his guns, such as Carville and Ferraro have. Shame on him for posing the most difficult task to liberals: asking them a direct questions which requires a concise answer.
Another interesting revelation was that of pastor Wright's words which, BO was fully aware of, and cancelled an invite because of it. BO mentioned that the type of rhetoric was a bit different than that of late, but as the Rolling Stone magazine goes:
Rolling Stone magazine, which fawns over Obama nearly as incessantly as MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, had the truth about Obama and his pastor a year ago, though of course it was packaged in as laudatory an article as possible, a lengthy essay originally titled “The Radical Roots of Barack Obama.” (Tellingly, in an obvious act of damage control, the article has been renamed “Destiny’s Child” in the magazine’s online archive.)
The Rolling Stone piece delves into the history of Obama’s church and quotes from one of Rev. Wright’s signature sermons, larded with anti-American calumny and the kind of profanity one doesn’t expect to hear from a pulpit on Sunday morning:
We [the U.S.] are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS [caps in original]…. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God…. We care nothing about human life…. And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be Sick! OF THIS [EXPLETIVE]!
Sounds similar to me. I could never support the policies of Hill, but I do admire her fight. She found herself caught in a lie, regarding sniper fire, and took the hit for that one. In retrospect, she wasn't that far off. The BO mesmerized media has subjected her to quite a bit of sniper fire, until now.
The riots of Denver are seeming more probably each day and I'm not sure rubber bullets will be enough. Once BO is stripped of his hypnotic profits, there will be an all out revolt.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Great stuff, Alex.
But of course, Obama wasn't in church on any of THOSE weeks.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:43 am
Brent,
Granted, a person making $40,000 might not care if a person making $97,000+ pays more in taxes (although I care a lot, because SS is such a horrid scam), but that's beside the point I was trying to make. The point was that Charles Gibson caught Obama lying about not raising taxes on anybody making less than $200,000.
On Iraq, I'm not following how pulling out of Iraq will make us more able to lessen Iran's influence there. I think having our forces right next door to Iran is a bigger deterrent than moving them away.
Obama DOES have more upside than Hillary. I agree with you there. It just looks to me like he's about to blow up, and the Dems certainly won't want that to happen AFTER he has the nomination. But I could be wrong. I was just offering my opinion (as opposed to the rock solid facts I usually present)
April 18th, 2008 at 7:06 am
"But of course, Obama wasn't in church on any of THOSE weeks"
Never! Have you seen the "shabby" home this pastor is erecting? Seems that he has a 10,000,000 credit line through the church, too. Of course, none is subject to scrutiny as it is considered non-taxable church income. Some of his defenders were actually on tv saying that he is owed "something" for his efforts. Our priest of 30+ years was living in a 1500 sq. ft. ranch with utilities, medical, and car allowance paid for by the members. I'm all for a parish taking care of their leader, but I'll stop short of advocating a pillaging of the system.
I can now see how some of this "Liberation" theology is more beneficial, than destructive. It liberated the pastor into a nearly all-white neighborhood, with a 1.3 mil 4 bedroom home. Don King would say "only in America", I'll let everyone guess what the pastor would say.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Two points. No…not the one's on roy's head.
1)Fairness on the capital gains tax issue.
Hedge fund managers make hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Nothing wrong with making money. Secretaries of hedge fund managers, as you might expect, make far less. For the sake of this argument….let's set secretary's salaries at $50K.
Hedge fund managers, under Bush, pay 15% capital gains tax rates. In addition, payroll tax applies to only a miniscule fraction of their overall income.
Hedge fund manager secretaries pay income tax at a 20% rate while every dollar they earn is subject to the payroll tax.
THAT'S WHAT'S UNFAIR. To fail to understand Obama's point is to not WANT to understand his point. Simple as that.
2)Electability.
Somewhere in my distant past, I thought I learned that Americans needed to know what candidates would do, if elected, about real life issues. Understanding where the candidates stood ON THE ISSUES. Foreign policy, economic issues, health, environment, education, energy,….you know…..those things.
If candidates answered those questions, voters would know which candidate to choose.
Not any more. Candidates are shaped and framed now by the Knee Padders. If the corrupt and lazy and out of touch Knee Pad Media SAYS "electability" is the only concern of the voters….then the same Knee Padders make it happen.
Whether a person is electable or not should be based on their answers to those policy issues I listed. But see? Knee Padders know what's best for you. They know that you get bored far too easily if tax rates or Iraq casualty numbers or health insurance options….zzzzz…..are talked about too much. THEY know what we need to hear in a "debate".
Electability is a Republican-establishment-Hillary meme of wishful thinking. Stephanopolous and Gibson did their best to help defeat Obama, because they don't want him elected. He's a progressive speaking threatening words to the corporate strangleholders of our nation. The Knee Pad boys will all turn into screaming, moronic water carriers for McCain before this is all over. That's how important the status quo is to these whores.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Rev—If you really cared about the corporate ruination of our world, and you really want someone to negotiate directly with Hamas (known terrorist sponsors, known active terrorists, known for advocating the annihilation of Israel), go talk to Ralph Nader. O'Bama is not anyone to talk about "corporate" influence—his bold talk on this subject would be great if it were truthful also. He is NOT a true Progressive. He seems to be a confused amalgam of all sorts.
My advice to you…take a real, hard look at your choice for President—leave the ego crap out of the equation.
O'Bama is full of malarkey. All talk, no walk. At least Nader walks his walk while he talks his talk.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Rev Red, pointy headed little me would like to have you explain how you find equality in charging those CEOs the same rate you charge their secretarys. I wonder why equality in taxation is so important to you. Somehow I have watched you argue that point so many times and always you come back to that equality thing while ignoring the fact that if they paid equal percents there would be just as wide a gulf in the tax punishment for making money as there would be in the salaries to start with. Yep, I understand that what you want is equality, period. Tax those rich guys enough to bring them down to complete equality with their secretarys. Now Red that seems to be just what the Marxists of the world would like to see happen. Hmmmmm, does that not say something about your thinking.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:50 am
If a secretary, who does most of the real work for any given CEO, makes 5,000.00 this year from her stock—20% of that would be 1,000.00 dollars, right? (I went to the Akron Public Schools, so check my math, please) so she gets taxed 1,000.00 dollars. If her boss, the CEO makes 100,000.00 on his stock that same year and is taxed at 20%, then his share that would be tax owed is 20,000.00. Seems like a fair way to me. It is relative to what each seperate person is making.
What is not fair is the way our income taxes tend to be progressive at the lower end of income versus the cap at the higher end which effectively ends their progression.
If that secretary is fortunate enough to be making roughly 358,000. per year (yeah…right) and her CEO Boss is making 5 million per year—they are in the same 35% tax bracket because the cap on income tax is 35%. So one CEO could make 5 billion per year or more, and still be taxed at 35%
Anyone who makes more than $357,701.00 is taxed at 35% NO MATTER how much said person is making.
This is why CEO's are offered stock options in lieu of and as an addition to their income—that way the CEO can exercise his/her options and be taxed at ONLY the 15% (which is the current flat tax rate on capital gains for all) versus his/her having to pay an across the board 35% ( a full 20% more than the 15% rate).
To my way of thinking, a more progressive tax at the higher end of income and a less progressive tax at the lower end would be more fair.
How much money does one person need to be happy on earth?
That dividend that that billionaire CEO makes with a less progressive tax rate can buy him and his entire family including all his cousins an extra BMW—from Germany…with extra left over, depending on the size of his extended family, which does not help American workers at all, except his family gets to drive BMW's.
Following is our current tax bracket in the Married Filing Jointly as of 2008.
Marginal Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,025 $0 – $16,050 $0 – $8,025 $0 – $11,450
15% $8,026 – $32,550 $16,051 – $65,100 $8,026 – $32,550 $11,451 – $43,650
25% $32,551 – $78,850 $65,101 – $131,450 $32,551 – $65,725 $43,651 – $112,650
28% $78,851 – $164,550 $131,451 – $200,300 $65,726 – $100,150 $112,651 – $182,400
33% $164,551 – $357,700 $200,301 – $357,700 $100,151 – $178,850 $182,401 – $357,700
35% $357,701+
April 18th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
What would be really 'fair' in the true sense of the word is if each adult citizen threw the same amount of money in the national kitty, say $1,000.
Taxing people according to the amount of money they have, rather than according to their fair share of government services, won't ever be changed but it's backwards and one of the basic reasons our government is completely out of whack.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:27 am
I have to agree with larry here.
There is nothing about our system of taxation that is "fair". If fairness is what we are striving for, there should be one tax rate for everyone (about 10% is fair to my way of thinking). When everybody is taxed at the same tax rate, those who earn a lot more will still pay a lot more. 10% of $500,000 is a lot more than 10% of $50,000.
Rev, I think you are making a mistake by looking at capital gains tax rates the same as you do income tax rates. Capital gains come about from investment, which means the investor risks losing those funds as well as gaining. Putting a high tax rate on the gains will depress investment, resulting in a more depressed economy. Also, most of the funds people invest with have already been through the grind mill of government taxation. What is invested is what's left over. By instituting an oppressive capital gains tax rate, you are hurting the little guy the most. You are harming his stocks, his retirement accounts, and his equity. I thought Dems were supposed to be about helping the little guy. That's the mythology, anyway.
In any case, Obama didn't have a clue what he was talking about regarding the capital gains tax in the debate, and I'm pretty sure that IS a real issue. An important one.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:18 am
"Obama didn't have a clue what he was talking about regarding the capital gains tax in the debate"
This man is an economic illiterate and an embarassement.
BO has put the Dim superdelegates in a fix. They know he's an airhead but because the Negores have gone cuckoo over him [it's a tribal thing], they dare not 'dis' him.
I love it.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
King—I would go for a ten percent tax rate across the board—no problem.
April 19th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
I want to see Neal Boortz's Fair Tax put into effect. If we did that and did away with all other taxes we would still have plenty of money to live on. Of course, Obama doesn't understand that because that would allow for people to keep all the money they got from investments. There would only be a tax on money we spend except for those things needed for a family to live on. Why so many people can't look at and see what would happen makes those of us who don't want to tax every little thing look about as stupid as Dems are because they want to tax everything which woud include taking care of our important bodily functions if they could pass a tax like that.
April 20th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
They've gotten around to taxing the air, Roy, so bodily fluids are probably next. The Lieberman-Warner climate change bill would be about a $ 1.2 trillion tax increase over 10 years, to keep CO2 from destroying the planet (sigh).
If I didn't know better, I'd think the government was TRYING to bankrupt us all, because that sure seems like what they're trying to do with these endless taxes and endless spending.
April 20th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
"If I didn't know better, I'd think the government was TRYING to bankrupt us all, because that sure seems like what they're trying to do with these endless taxes and endless spending."
Not exactly, King.
What the political class — lead especially by the libs & Dims — is trying to do, however, is to extend its control over society, and taxes just happen the most powerful means towards their socialistic ends.
This is particularly obvious with the global warming hoax and its associated carbon tax.