Obama Tax Proposals

Chris Edwards writing for the Cato Institute blog exposes Obama's tax "proposals" concluding:

In sum, Obama’s tax proposals are pretty awful. It is true that many Republicans and Democrats have proposed similarly bad tax ideas over the years. But Obama can be contrasted with candidate McCain, who thus far has avoided narrow favoritism in his tax proposals, and favors broad-based tax reductions designed to spur economic growth.


The populism Obama is espousing is mind-blowing to me, and so transparent that many people apparently don't even see it.


14 Jun, 2008 | Virgil
« Prev item - Next Item »

Comments


by Ed Burley - 14 Jun, 2008 - 23:05:35
Based on a Policy Analysis I read over at Cato called "The Libertarian Vote," by David Boaz and David Kirby; they define a populist as someone who believes in regulation of the economy and regulation of personal liberty. I would say that describes John McCain to a tee. He's certainly no libertarian (who would oppose both of his positions).

Obama, on the other hand, is a solid liberal populist, who would support regulating the economy, but would allow only some personal freedom in areas like medical marijuana, abortion; while free association, and free speech might be regulated. After all, he still supports political correctness (except when it comes to his pastor friends).

Bob Barr is the only Conservative/Libertarian in the race, as far as I'm concerned. He believes in free markets, and in most areas of personal freedom a hands off (laissez faire) position. Of course, Barr remains a solid pro-life candidate, which keeps that one foot (the only one I like) in the conservative camp.

I'm voting Barr in '08.

ed

by Virgil - 14 Jun, 2008 - 23:07:49
Ed, freedom of markets and of individuals is screwed either way this time around.

by Jl - 15 Jun, 2008 - 11:05:38
Barr in '08

by Ed Burley - 15 Jun, 2008 - 11:06:27
I consider myself a "moderate libertarian" and therefore can tolerate some government, but this is getting crazy. Most of us who listen to the news know about Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" where he encouraged Republicans to vote in the Democrat primary for Hillary, in order to keep the primary going. It worked for awhile, but now Obama's wrapped it up.

McCain's win though is thought by some to be a result of Democrats and Independents voting in the Republican primaries.

I'm thinking that if libertarians, Christian conservatives and paleo-conservatives (what Grover Norquist calls, "The Leave-Us-Alone Coalition) vote for Barr rather than McCain (who looks like he may be getting the support of a lot of Hillary supporters), it might be a solid 3 way race. Of course, a lack of electoral votes puts the election into the House, where Obama clearly has an advantage.

Did you notice that the last three Dems elected in those special elections are all supporting McCain? They are Blue Dogs who don't want the kind of gov't encroachment that Obama is talking about. Unfortunately, they still have that populist inclination due to their support of the good senator from Arizona.

I have been torn between voting my conscience and voting for the lesser of two evils. The problem is, sometimes it's difficult to determine who exactly is "the lesser." McCain's election, and subsequent liberal ruling policies, could be the end of the GOP - which might be a good thing, I'm not sure.

I think back to the old days when Democrats were the party of the blue collar conservatives. Hard-working men and women believed in the values embraced by the DNC, but now the party has gone so far left, they more resemble the Communist Party than anything that Scoop Jackson/Hubert Humphrey/Harry Truman ever envisioned.

It's true that there is no real place for Independents, those old-line Democrats, but I would argue that the Libertarian Party could be a home for them. It sure isn't the GOP, with all the talk of McCain choosing either Lieberman or Hillary as a running mate. WTF? And in regards to Republican running mates, I've heard Bloomberg's name being slapped around - and since he was a Democrat before running for mayor, I ask again: WTF?

If McCain chooses someone like Mike Pence, or some young conservative like him, I might be willing to vote for him, but not if he selects a liberal. Obama, I think, should choose Bill Richardson as a running mate. He could help with the hispanic, blue-collar, and Southwest US votes. Plus Richardson is a "team player" and won't try to undermine Obama, like Hillary would.

Oh well, just some rambling thoughts.

ed

by Jl - 16 Jun, 2008 - 12:42:06
Ed,

If Michigan is a swing state, vote McCain.

McCain has written off California, so I'll have 7 votes for Barr.

by Ed Burley - 16 Jun, 2008 - 13:00:19
JL,
I'm telling you, I have a hard time with McCain. I'll list some of the things I have a problem with:

1.Global Warming and the regulation of the economy

2. Ongoing and perpetual military involvement in every part of the world.

3. The "Hagee Principle."

4. Continued war on drugs.

5. Campaign finance reform

6. Willingness to raise taxes.

Things I like about McCain, which thus far don't outweigh his negatives:

1. Never voted for an earmark, or requested one.

2. Willing to defend America (although he would have to bring the troops home).

3. Pro-life

The immigration issue is a no-win as far as I'm concerned. Dems want business as usual (too costly), McCain wants what he wants (not workable), and Libertarians want open borders (not practical). I think we need a secure border with liberalized immigration requirements. Let more people in legally. Free market economics teaches that the more people that are working, the more wealth is created. McCain perhaps comes closest to what I'd like to see, but I don't think his plan is workable in the long term.

I'm sorry, I don't care if MI is a swing state. I'm not sure I'll vote for McCain. Barr fits my position much better across the board.

ed

by Windpressor - 17 Jun, 2008 - 03:18:29
***************

"We The People Foundation" would like to hold
the scoundrels' feats to the fire --
Can the GOP delegates nominate a Presidential candidate who openly defies the Constitution?

There is a significant development unfolding that could very well become a "show stopper" for the Republicans expecting the nomination of John McCain to proceed smoothly in St. Paul at the GOP's upcoming national convention.

Normally, convention delegates would be expected to cast their vote for McCain because he received more votes than Ron Paul or Mitt Romney during the primaries and caucuses. Beyond this, Party rules require the votes be cast for McCain.

However, the delegates are soon to face a new -- and very troubling and very public conundrum:

What if there were a set of new, irrefutable facts regarding Senator McCain and Rep. Paul that would "stop the show" and bring forth the possibility of a convention upset?

These startling facts would force the delegates to question their consciences, and put each of them on the horns of a practical and deep moral dilemma that will require them to search their souls for an answer to a VERY important question, "Can I cast my vote for a man who openly defies the Constitution?"

Between now and the end of August, the delegates will learn that the voting record of John McCain puts him in the company of Alan Dershowitz, who has publicly stated that �The People have no unalienable Rights, the Constitution is merely a piece of paper and the Government should not be held accountable to the Constitution by the People.� The delegates will learn that that candidate�s voting record also puts him in the company of President Bush who was recently quoted saying, �The Constitution is just a God d***** piece of paper.

The delegates will also learn that Senator McCain has cast his Senate votes squarely in cooperation with Rep. Henry Hyde who, as Chairman of the House Committee was responsible for the passage of the Iraq Resolution on October 2-3 of 2002 (five months before the invasion).

During the Hearing, Hyde responded to committee member Ron Paul�s stirring defense of the war powers clauses of the Constitution and Paul�s opposition to the Resolution by slamming Paul and the Constitution, saying (quoting from the Hearing transcript), "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. There are things that are no longer relevant to a modern society� things that are inappropriate, anachronistic."

On the other hand, the delegates will learn between now and August that the other candidate - Ron Paul, as a member of Congress has never cast a vote for legislation that was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States of America, and that he believes the last ten words of the First Amendment guarantee the Right of the People to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution.

In fact, the delegates will learn, that candidate Paul publicly declared in 2001, �[T]he right to a formal response is inherent in the constitutional right to petition the government.�

Read and link to more here

....................

by Virgil - 17 Jun, 2008 - 09:36:50
The stuff McCain says about the wealthy and corporations really makes the hair stand on my back. Just recently he was talking about taking away the profits of the oil companies and of big corporations.

That is anything but sound economics.

by Ed Burley - 17 Jun, 2008 - 12:44:17
Wind,
The GOP delegates (all except those committed to Ron Paul) will gladly and overwhelmingly cast their votes for McCain. The GOP left the framework of the Constitution way before GWB, and there's no hope in sight for them to go back there. They are as corrupt as the Democrats, big spenders who simply spend our tax dollars on corporations and military-industrial lobbyists, rather than the Democrats' spending on the lazy and insolent.

by Windpressor - 18 Jun, 2008 - 03:48:24
*************

I recommend watching "Bill Moyers Journal" on PBS.
I don't agree with the full scope of Moyer's views, let alone
any liberal agenda that might be ascribed to him.
I do think that he paints a fairly representative picture.
Excerpts from an earlier episode --

Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts: Bill Moyers talks with David Cay Johnston | PBS

January 18, 2008
Bill Moyers talks with David Cay Johnston

BILL MOYERS: From time to time over the next few months we will step outside the election bubble and look at the hard cold facts of power. We'll have the help of some journalists like Craig Unger, whose reporting raises uncomfortable questions few politicians of either party want to answer. For example: Why do some of the most powerful and privileged people in the country get a free lunch you pay for? You'll find some of the answers right here in this book by that very name: FREE LUNCH: HOW THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS ENRICH THEMELVES (sic) AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE (AND STICK YOU WITH THE BILL.) The author is another of America's top investigative reporters -- David Cay Johnston of THE NEW YORK TIMES.

...
...
BILL MOYERS: But some of your critics have said you've gone beyond investigative reporting in this book to become a crusader against the rich. do you object to people getting rich?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Oh, no. I-- good grief. I have no objection to that whatsoever. But get rich by working hard, working smarter, coming up with a better mousetrap. Don't get rich by getting the government to pass a law that sticks the government's hand into my pocket, takes money out of it, and gives it to you. ... And Adam Smith, you know, warned again and again that it is the nature and tendency of business people to want to put their thumb on the scale, and even better, to get the government to put the thumb on the scale for their benefit. ...

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, the theme of the book as I read it is that not that the rich are getting richer but that they've got the government rigging the rules to help them do it.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: ... They're doing it by taking from those with less to give to those with more. So the other moral authority I cite in the book is the Bible, both the Old Testament and the new. And all the way through those two books you can read condemnation after condemnation of taking from the poor to benefit the rich. You will come to ruin, it says in the Old Testament, if you give to the rich and yet that's what we're doing. We gave $100 million dollars to Warren Buffett's company last year, a gift from the taxpayers. We make gifts all over the place to rich people. ...

BILL MOYERS: You mentioned Warren Buffet. I was impressed in the book that you do name names. And so let me mention some of the names that you talk about in the book. Warren Buffet. Everyone respects him as the world's greatest investor. Yet he's in your book on free lunches.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: In Several places.

BILL MOYERS: Several places.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: He got a $665 million interest-free loan for the utility he has in the Midwest. Now--

BILL MOYERS: From? He got the loan from?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: From the taxpayers. Now, imagine for a moment that the house you live in today, you bought it 24 years ago and you agreed to pay the price then. And now you've got to pay back with no interest half the price in the dollars you agreed to in 1924. You could be rich just from that alone?

BILL MOYERS: But those are the rules. Buffet was doing something legal.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: That's right. And that's always the biggest scandal is what is legal. Steve Jobs. Well, Steve Jobs got $70 million of stock options at a meeting of the board of Apple company directors that never took place. ...


continued ...

by Windpressor - 18 Jun, 2008 - 03:52:20
~~~~~~~

And contrary to the popular mantra about a "rising tide ...", the interview concludes --

BILL MOYERS: Let me read you this quote from one of your critics, Larry Kudlow of NATIONAL REVIEW online and CNBC. He wrote this a couple of years ago after in response to something you had reported in the New York Times about how Bush's tax cuts on dividends and capital gains had helped people with the highest incomes. Quote: "These entrepreneurs use their God-given talents within the Reagan-esque free market framework that deregulated, slashed tax rates, and provided the first strong dose of economic incentives since the 1920s. A rising economic tide over the last 20 years has lifted living standards, productivity, and employment throughout America. Everyone got richer with a full $39 trillion in new wealth created during this period. Fair?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: No. Not accurate either. First of all a rising tide lifts all boats unless you're in the dinghy tied to the dock. And then you get swamped. The poor America, and it's not like being poor in the third world, but the poor America are worse off. Most Americans have seen their incomes stagnate or decline slightly. People have fewer fringe benefits. They have less in retirement. They have an enormous amount of debt. For every additional dollar since 1980 the people have gotten in equity in their homes, they've taken on $2 of debt. That's not a prescription for getting well off.

...
...

BILL MOYERS: But did you notice what happened when the Democrats briefly toyed with the idea of removing that tax break from the hedge fund and private equity managers Congress thought very briefly about removing it. And then the industry held a big party for-- Harry Reid, Senate Democratic majority leader down in Las Vegas, and he came back from that big party and said, "I don't think we'll be taking that up anytime soon."

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: The problem of the political donor class's outsized influence and its grip on Congress is bipartisan. There's one party in Washington. It's the party of money. It has different wings and factions. But Washington is the party of money. And the wealthiest people in America, the large corporations in America, are busy milking the government for everything they can get. And you are paying the price of their free lunch.

...

The latest episode touches on wealth disparity.
Maybe I will post on that later.

Sorry about length.
The points seem worth noting.
................

Leave comment

(comments are moderated and will need to be approved)
:

Permitted HTML: <a>, <i>, <b>, <u>, <strike>, <blockquote>
Line breaks will be added automatically.

:
:




© 2008 unfinishedchristianity.com | Designed by DesignsByDarren
Ported to Nucleus CMS: Suvoroff