[Jerry Glenn Hartwig]

USNews reported:

As part of his "Tax Fairness for the Middle Class" plan, Barack Obama is in favor of nearly doubling the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to 28 percent. Leaving the fairness issue aside for a moment—as well as the impact of higher taxes on economic growth—the Obama plan could also be called a "Ways in Which Government Can Collect More Taxes to Pay for New Spending" plan, since Democratic candidates are all scrambling to figure out ways to plausibly pay for new healthcare, education, and infrastructure spending if elected.

At a time when Ohio home owners are struggling with mortgages, foreclosures are at a record rate, Obama wants to increase taxes not only on home property sales but - reported elsewhere - also tax first home sales that have historically been exempt?

[Michael Cantor]

Jerry - you're quoting information which appeared about a year ago in a blog on the US News web site, you're taking a single element of a comprehensive tax plan and pointing to that without looking at the entire picture, and you're ignoring any changes in the proposal which may have been made in the past year (or are you simply quoting some scarey statement you found elsewhere on the internet?)

I'm not going to get into one of these Google debates with you, where we trade instant punditry. But whenever somebody launches a discussion/debate by quoting a single point from a year-old restatement of a partial summary of a paraphrase - my alarms go off! Little voices tell me that this guy has picked up a factoid somewhere and is running with it, and that the factoid may have been misused before, and may even have been used as a scare tactic by somebody with a - golly - political agenda. Looking at small parts of a large package can be just as misleading as misstating a voting record, and every other political trick in the book. I don't think you're pulling a political trick - but I wonder if you've been seduced by one.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Can you link to that story, Jerry. I can't find it anywhere.

I have a problem reading things out of context. It's too easy to cut and paste the parts which agree with whatever position the cut and paster is taking and too hard for anyone else to get a bigger picture.

For instance, I can cut and paste the following:

1) Create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $1,000 for America’s working families

(2) Create a new universal mortgage interest credit that will benefit low and middle-incomehomeowners

(3) Honor America’s seniors by eliminating income taxes for those making less than $50,000 per year

(4) Simplify tax filings so millions of Americans can do their taxes in less than 5 minutes

(5) Eliminate special interest loopholes and tax breaks and crack down on international tax havens

and tell you it's Obama's 5 part plan to cut taxes and that seniors in Virginia and all over the United States are thrilled to death that the majority of seniors on SS and small pensions are going to be tax-exempt.

But - taken out of context, without a date and without the link, it means whatever I want it to mean, doesn't it?




[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited September 10, 2008).]

[Maryann Corbett]

Lo, you're going to need to turn off smilies and edit. Part of the link is being turned to a red-face.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Mary Anne, I know...I took the link out.

And before anyone else jumps on it - here's a bit taken from a McCain speech given in 2007 in reference to Hillary Clinton's proposed health care plan:

McCain criticized Democratic contenders for offering what he called costly universal health care proposals that require too much government regulation. While he said he had not studied Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's health-care plan, he said it was "eerily reminiscent" of the failed plan she offered as first lady in the early 1990s.

"I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," he said of her proposal.


http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/mccain_rolls_out_health_pla n_a.html



[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited September 10, 2008).]

[Roy Hamilton]

But that's what liberals do isn't it, tax and spend? You know, they throw money at problems until they go away. It's the same up here.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally posted by Roy Hamilton:
But that's what liberals do isn't it, tax and spend? You know, they throw money at problems until they go away. It's the same up here.

Sure, Roy, and that's why the National Debt here in The United States was 5.7 trillion when Clinton left office and now stands at 9.4 trillion and rising.
http://www.askquestions.org/details....FQSPFQodQxDnig

Correct me if I'm wrong but President Bush is hardly considered a "liberal," is he?

[Roy Hamilton]

That's true Lo, but Clinton wasn't at war now was he? Perhaps if he had been...

[G. M. Palmer]

Lo:

Bush is a liberal/progressive in all the pertinent ways -- he is for state control (homeland security), state assistance (the government is here to help), and intervention (the war on terra). Neo-conservatism is simply the Democratic party with guns.

We haven't had an actual conservative in the white house for years -- possibly since Reagan but much more likely since Ike (easily the best president of the 20th century).

M

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally posted by G. M. Palmer:
Lo:

We haven't had an actual conservative in the white house for years -- possibly since Reagan but much more likely since Ike (easily the best president of the 20th century).

M

Ike's granddaughter spoke at the Democratic National Convention - she endorses Obama.

Maybe she learned something from Grandpa, huh?