[Roger Slater]

Originally posted by Roy Hamilton:
That's true Lo, but Clinton wasn't at war now was he? Perhaps if he had been...

Yes, it was rather stupid of Bush to start an unnecessary, elective war that would not only backfire in terms of foreign policy and national security, but would also cost so much money that it would damage the US economy and threaten America's economic standing in the world. Perhaps he actually believed what he and McCain promised, that the war would be funded by Iraqi oil revenues?

But even still, the war does not fully account for the extra 3.5 trillion dollars that Bush added to the national debt. At best, it accounts for about a third of it.

The fact remains that Bush and the Republican Congress inherited a budget surplus and a shrinking national debt, and they basically threw it all away. Having done so, they are falsely accusing the Democrats of being the "tax and spend" party.

The truth means nothing to the Republicans lately. Sarah Palin is billed as a fiscal conservative even though she took a debt-free Wasillia and, when she was through being its mayor, left it with a $22 million debt. And as governor of Alaska, she took the temporary surplus brought about by higher oil prices and distributed it to the taxpayers, which would have been a nice gesture had she not then been forced to turn around and have the state borrow money for existing programs. In other words, she opted to operate the state on borrowed money because she preferred the grandstanding gesture of sending thousand dollar checks to the voters.

Again, the truth means nothing. Even after the lie was pointed out, Sarah Palin continues to deliver the same speech in which she flat-out lies about her supposed opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere. Among other things, she lies by saying that she sent the money back to Washington, when the simple fact is that she kept the money and used it for other projects (including building a new road leading to the site of the bridge that would not be built after all).

[Robert Meyer]

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

The thing is, if you really believe that this or that war is in the national interest, you pay for it. If a president believed that a war was a life or death struggle, that president would use the 'bully pulpit' and go on national TV and radio saying something like, "I don't like taxes and I know you don't like taxes, but this is WAR, a fight for our very existence as a people; that is why I am asking Congress to (1) raise the income tax, (2) institute a rationing program for things needed for war, such as gasoline, and (3) start up the draft again." This has never been done. This has never been debated in Congress. This has never been even talked about at the dining room table in our homes. In fact, over the past 8 years, it's been the exact opposite; lower taxes, even in a time of war. Apparently the war, or should I say "wars" plural, is/are trivial in this president's (and our people's) thinking, not worthy of any such sacrifice.

Robert Meyer


[This message has been edited by Robert Meyer (edited September 10, 2008).]

[Michael Cantor]

I agree with Robert on all three points. This war is helping to destroy our economy (as Roger points out, there were many other Bush Administration actions that also contributed to the massive deficit); and a small number of enormously overburdened and screwed-over troops and reservists are being sent to fight again and again and again - and then further screwed by an underfunded (gotta generate the cash for those tax cuts for the hedge fund managers and tax breaks for the oil industry) and dysfunctional Veteran's Administrration.

If the draft had been restored I wonder how the American public would feel about Iraq. And Bush. And McCain. And She Who Cannot Be Discussed or Interviewed or Appear Without a Minder Because It Would Be Sexist.

[Mike Slippkauskas]

Roger's right. The truth doesn't matter.

McCain/Palin '08: The Lie Is The Plan
by Hunter
Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:50:59 PM PDT

Jonathan Weisman at WaPo has a story about the damn lying:

From the moment Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin declared that she opposed the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," critics, the news media and nonpartisan fact checkers have called it a fabrication, a distortion or, at best, a half-truth. But yesterday in Lebanon, Ohio, and again in Lancaster, Pa., she crossed that bridge again.

"I told Congress: 'Thanks but no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere up in Alaska,' " Palin told the crowds at the "McCain Street USA" rallies. "If we wanted a bridge, we'll build it ourselves."

Palin's position on the bridge that would have linked Ketchikan to Gravina Island is one example of a candidate staying on message even when that message has been publicly discredited. Palin has continued to say she opposed a project she once campaigned for -- then killed later, only after support for it had collapsed in Congress.

I maybe detect a wee bit of an exasperated tone, in those opening paragraphs -- or perhaps it is just wishful thinking. But it's not all that often that you can see a report that pretty much says "yep, it's a lie," and even in this article Weisman bends over backwards for "balance" against lies coming directly from the Republican candidates' mouths.

So then, what's the Republican response?

John Feehery, a Republican strategist, said the campaign is entering a stage in which skirmishes over the facts are less important than the dominant themes that are forming voters' opinions of the candidates.

"The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent," Feehery said. "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."

[Robert J. Clawson]

I believe that Republicans call the Democratic Party the tax and spend party because it's been said so often that uninformed people believe it. It's a useful myth.

But even if it were true, wouldn't it be better than the idiocy of gross spending WITHOUT taxing? That's a simple-minded credit-card mentality. It's why we're broke and China's calling shots like, "Fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or else."

I would think that the "patriotic" crowd would be deeply embarrassed to know that Bush & Co. have sold out to the Chinese. It's just another business at which he's failed.

Guess who's won the best oil contract from the Iraqi government? You got it: the Chinese.

Awk!

Bob

[Roy Hamilton]

Well I think there's a philosophy behind keeping taxes low, Bob. But I think smarter is usually better. I'm more powerful than you is not really working all that well so lets give them a big dose of: I'm a lot smarter than you! Who knows, it might work.

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Roy Hamilton:

Well I think there's a philosophy behind keeping taxes low, Bob.

Correct: it's called pandering.

I might actually vote Republican if they kept taxes AND spending low, but they spend impulsively. Bush has run up more debt than all other administrations combined.

We're broke.

Sad, Roy.

[Jerry Glenn Hartwig]

Michael was correct - that article I copied from turns out to be from late '07. It seems he's changed some of his stratagy, but I'm checking on the home sale information to see if he's modified that plan.

From LA News:

Obama details capital gains, dividend tax plans
8:41 PM, August 14, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign on Thursday spelled out the details of the Democratic presidential candidate’s tax plan on his website and in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal.

"I just wanted to note the basic proposals for capital gains and dividend tax rates here:

--- Families with incomes below $250,000 would pay current capital gains rates (a maximum tax of 15% on gains on assets held more than one year). Those earning more than $250,000 would face an increase -- a top rate of 20%.

--- The top dividend tax rate would remain the current 15% for those earning less than $250,000, but would rise to 20% for those earning above that threshold.

--- For single people, the tax increases above would apply to those earning more than $200,000."

Obama's tax proposed income tax cuts will aid the lowest income families, hit the upper income families ($250,000 year and up) pretty hard, but basically do nothing for the middle income families that are being wooed in Ohio. From the numbers I've seen crunched, these proposed tax rates won't begin to show any real effect unless a family income is under $25,000.

He's also proposing a $4000 tax credit for college students who do 100 hours of community service, but I haven't been able to locate details on it, so I can't relate that to a dollars-per-hour wage.

quick addendum:

Sept. 9 '08

It’s untrue that Obama is proposing a 28% capital gains tax rate. He said in an interview on CNBC that he favors raising the top rate on capital gains from its present 15% to 20% or more, but no higher than 28 percent. And as for a 28% rate, Obama added, “my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that.” Furthermore, he has said only couples making $250,000 or more (or singles making more than $200,000 according to his policy advisers) would pay the higher capital gains rate. That means the large majority of persons who pay capital gains taxes would see no increase at all.

A turnaround for the good perhaps, but still belies his stated, "Read my lips. No new taxes."

http://obamesque.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/will-obama-tax-home-sales-or-raise- capital-gains-taxes/

[This message has been edited by Jerry Glenn Hartwig (edited September 11, 2008).]

[Jerry Glenn Hartwig]

Another addendum: Obama appears to have backtracked on his plan to tax capital gains on personal home sales: or at least put it on hold until he is (possibly) elected.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Home sales:

The claim that Obama would impose a 28 percent tax on the profit from "all home sales" is false. Both Obama and McCain would continue to exempt the first $250,000 of gain from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) which results in zero tax on all but a very few home sales.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...fits_if_i.html

This is a fairly comprehensive breakdown of both candidate's proposed plans:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news..._tpc/index.htm

It's all pretty complicated, but from what I can figure out, you're right, Jerry, Obama's plan is offering the most break to the lowest income earners.

On the other hand, what you haven't mentioned is that McCain's plan is offering the most break to the highest income earners.

So, forgetting for a moment all those middle class people you're most concerned with since most of them will see things remain relatively unchanged {give or take a few hundred dollars under either candidate,} which group would you rather see benefit?

Regardless, it's not an issue I'm getting all worked up about - I've heard the promises before, haven't you?

Read my lips, no new taxes. G. Bush Sr. 2 years before he raised taxes

Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.

MCCAIN ........ OBAMA

Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill

Over $2.9M ...-$269,364 ... +$701,885
$603K and up. -$45,361... +$115,974
$227K-$603K.. -$7,871...... +$12
$161K-$227K ..-$4,380...... -$2,789
$112K-$161K.. -$2,614 .... -$2,204
$66K-$112K .. -$1,009 ..... -$1,290
$38K-$66K ... -$319 ........-$1,042
$19K-$38K... -$113 ........ -$892
Under $19K -$19 ........ .. -$567

edited to add cross-posted with Jerry - questioning where and when Obama said "read my lips." and requesting that if he didn't say it that the quote be rightfully attributed. If I didn't know better, Jerry, I'd say you're not nearly so open-minded and unbiased as you claim to be. In fact, I'd say you're doing a McCain/Palin and attempting to slip in untruths under the guise of telling the truth.

If you can link me to a source where Obama says, "read my lips, no new taxes" I'll apologize - if not, I think I kinda expect one.



[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited September 11, 2008).]