Here in the reddest of the red states, white folks are torn over Obama. Is he the crazy nut black liberation theology Christian or is he the closet Muslim secret operative for Al Qaeda? (Curious, are there separate closets for gays and Muslims or do we “normal,” good Christians just shove them all into one?) Regardless, one thing is for sure — for sure, dammit — he’s a liberal. The sun rises in the east. Nothing is sure but death and taxes. Urinating into the wind is never a good idea. Obama is a liberal. It’s just a given. Right? Wrong.
Here’s a picture of Obama’s economic policy director. What a freaking pot-smoking, long-haired, hemp-loving, sandal-wearing, peace sign-flashing, Deadhead, tie-dyed shirt wearing guy this is, huh? Damn, did he just come out of the Kremlin or what, friggin’ liberal commie.
That other bastion of “liberals,” the unions, don’t like this guy too much. Guess why? He’s too “conservative.” That’s right. Obama, that “most liberal senator in the Senate,” has an economic policy director that’s too conservative. Gosh, it sucks when these darn little facts just keep getting in the way of perception.
A recent article, states, “Labor union leaders criticized the move, and said that ‘Rubinomics’ [named after Robert Rubin, who is no “liberal”] focused too much on corporate America and not enough on workers.”
The article touches on some of Obama’s other liberal wacko ideas like balancing the budget (gasp) and free trade agreements.
In all sincerity, I’m not trying to convince anyone to vote for Obama. I’m simply saying get your facts straight when you criticize him. Don’t rely on labels. I’ll do the same for McCain. It makes the discourse run a little smoother.
Well, the guy in the suit may look conservative, but Obama’s tax plan is anything but. Let me preface by stating the obvious…I’m not a rich person earning over $250,000 per year (wish I was). I guess I’m in the middle class whatever that number is. What I do know is that Obama’s tax plan would take us back to the Jimmy Carter years by providing much higher taxes on higher income workers. I’ve know some of these rich people in my life. They are doctors, lawyers, small business owners that hire lots of workers, farmers, engineers an on down the list you go. The dems and their partners in the main stream media portray wealthy people as Sam Walton, Bill Gates, Big Oil CEO’s, big tobacco CEO’s…. It just so happens those evil corporations employ millions of americans. in fact, most people earning over $250,000 are responsible for employing so many Americans and providing us with the valuable goods and services we rely on. Obama’s plan clearly would penalize inovation, success and entepranuership.
Obama’s tax plan would be the highest tax increase in American history. To be fair, he is proposing tax cuts/incentives for “working families” and these are families hit hardest by higher food and energy costs (they need help). Reading the fine print of his plan it seems to mainly address people earning less than $50,000 per year. I guess if you make more than that (as a family) you are rich. I will say I haven’t read the plan in it’s entirity, so maybe he provides tax cuts for people in the $50-$250k range. If so, please show me where.
The following paragraph is from an article I read which provides an example of what Obama’s tax plan will do to higher income workers/employers:
Among the more prominent elements of his tax proposal, Senator Obama would end the Bush tax cuts and allow the top two tax rates to return to 36 and 39.6 percent (from 33%). He also would allow personal exemptions and deductions to be phased out for those with income over $250,000. The real kicker, though, is that Senator Obama would end the Social Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. (The cap is currently set at $102,000.) These individuals will then face a tax rate of 15.65 percent from payroll taxes and the top income tax rate of 39.6 percent for a combined top rate of over 56 percent on each additional dollar earned.
Me again…The federal government would get 56% of each additional dollar earned where currently they receive 33%!!! Add in state and local taxes and that number balloons to nearly 70%…is this Russia??? There doesn’t sound like too much conservatism in Obama’s tax proposal with or without the guy in the suit.
If you take a small or medium size business owner and penailize them for success via a massive tax increase, their only recourse is too lay off workers, increase their prices and/or refuse to expand and grow their businesses. A major tax increase will hurt an economy that is already hurting due to high energy prices and the mortgage crisis.
I’m sorry, but Obama’s tax plan simply goes against the America I know and love. We should help lower income workers by provide tax cuts and incentives for healthcare, tuition, housing….I’m sold on that. We should have higher taxation for those who can afford to pay their fair share, which we currently have. What we should not do is put into place a system that discourages growth and opportunity. That flies in the face of who we are…we’re not a socialist country. Obama’s tax plan sounds eerily similiar to it with or without the guy in the suit.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/
I’m not sure if I posted the link right, but just go to money.cnn.com and find the article on June 11, 2008 if it doesn’t work. Here’s the tax breakdown:
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
Source:The Tax Policy Center
As you can see, Obama’s plan to repeal the Bush Tax cuts for those making over 603K will hurt, I guess. 227 to 603K will be flat unless you think that 12 bucks will hurt. 227K down gets a tax break.
McCain on the other hand gives eye popping breaks to the people I’ll never be sharing a bracket with, decent breaks in my neigborhood and then he spits on the poor.
I do think there is room for criticism of both plans, but Obama is clearly not just giving a break only to the poor. And I think overall his plan is fairer and makes more sense. But I readily admit a 700K tax increase is a bit drastic, even for the super rich.
At any rate, imo, this is not what we once called a liberal plan. It is a plan that benefits the vast majority of regular folks to the detriment of the very wealthy, so if that’s liberal, sign me up.
Yack — sincerely, seriously, and respectfully, I’d like to see some cites and back up to statements like, “Obama’s tax plan would be the highest tax increase in American history.” And why do you always refer to corporations as “evil” on comments on my blog. I’ve never said corporations are evil; quite the opposite.
Or am I calling them evil by asking them to obey the law just like we regular folks have to?
McCain was against the Bush tax cuts until he needed the nomination. What made him finally figure out how great they are?
Further, taxation is but one part of an economic plan, but if you want to debate/discuss this one, let’s cite our sources b/c I can Google “Obama tax plan” and get 10 articles that discuss how terrible it is and 10 articles that discuss how great it is. Same for McCain.
TB — you apparently commented while I was typing. I appreciate the stats. And your last paragraph, which says, “At any rate, imo, this is not what we once called a liberal plan. It is a plan that benefits the vast majority of regular folks to the detriment of the very wealthy, so if that’s liberal, sign me up” is the point I was making.
You (the understood you) may not like Obama’s tax plan. You may not like his foreign policy. Hell, you may not like him just b/c you don’t like him. But his plan is not “liberal” as that term is so consistently and disparagingly used in this country.
Yack, I appreciate your comment and — unless you’ve taken a typing class lately — you started working on it some time last week. But my point is that we can’t keep calling every Democrat who is not Zell Miller a liberal, which we all know is good Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes Republican code for “socialist.” The facts just don’t support it.
TB,
Those stats are fatally flawed and innacurate. Take someone making $300,000 a year. Currently that person pays Social Security payroll taxes on his/her first $102,000 dollars (the current cap). Under Obama’s plan, that person will pay Social Security payroll taxes on ALL his/her income.
Using real numbers (and I’m far from a CPA):
Currently someone making $300,000 pays $6,324 or 6.2% of $102,000 in Social Security payroll taxes .
Under Obama’s plan, he/she would pay $18,600 or 6.2% of $300,000. That’s an additional $12,276 for this worker or an additional $1,000 per month. (Not to mention, the tax would apply also to employers who match workers’ payments, amounting to a tax increase on businesses).
Also, Obama is in favor of letting the Bush Tax cuts expire. This means for ever dollar over $164,550, this same worker’s tax bracket would go from 33% to 36%.
So, take $300,000 less $164,550 and you get $135,450 that will be taxed an additional 3%. That number is $4,063.50.
As a side note: For every individual, there are deductions on certain things (mortgage interest, real estate taxes……) so the number will be slightly different in every case.
I think it comes down to your core belief in “what is fair”. To quote you TB:
“At any rate, imo, this is not what we once called a liberal plan. It is a plan that benefits the vast majority of regular folks to the detriment of the very wealthy, so if that’s liberal, sign me up.”
If I read your statement right, you believe it’s okay to punish the wealthy (those making over $250,000) with higher taxes to the benefit of the vast majority. I simply believe that is un-American. For one thing, our current tax rates already penalize those making higher incomes by having them pay a higher percent. I see these people as business owners, entreprenuers…the very people that sustain our economy and hire people like you and me. To punish them even more would hurt our economy very much.
To end, I’m not someone making $300K per year, so it would be very easy for me to say “yeah, let’s stick it to those greedy bastards”. However, my core beliefs say this is America and we’re not a socialist country. We should reward success and achievement not punish it.
Brian,
In repsonse to you, I didn’t say you called corporations “evil”. It’s the way a lot of liberal democrats and media elites portray them (i.e. – Big Oil, Big tobacco, Big pharmacy). How about Big Government??? There’s the biggest money vacuum going with so little in return and now they want more!
McCain was against the Bush tax cuts becuase they didn’t coincide with spending restraints. In hindsight, he was right. Now he knows (as do a lot of economists) that a tax increase would damage our already fragile economy.
I’m interested in hearing about Obama’s economic plans outside of his tax plan. I truly am open to hearing the details and making my own judgement.
Bravo. I think there’s a good case to be made that we should look only at someone’s party ID and their list of proposals, period. No labels (conservative/liberal) and nothing about the gaffes, statements, campaign back and forth, etc. that takes up about 90% of political coverage.
The numbers I cited come from a think tank, not from me. The link works by the way. Also, I may be mistaken, but what I have read about the social security tax is that the cap will remain as it is (it has gone up significantly every year under Bush, so I guess that won’ t change) but there will be a do-nut hole from the cap up to some number–I want to say its 250K, but I’m not sure. No one will pay social security tax on the income they earn from the cap up to that number.
Something not mentioned in the article is that Obama is proposing the estate tax cap at 3.5 million which I think will protect all those “family farms” from foreclosure, but will also ensure that Paris Hilton contributes to the common good.
As for “punishing the rich”, I don’t buy in to those talking points. By that logic all taxes “punish the (insert socioeconomic status here)”. It is a fair argument to be against progressive tax policy and in favor of a regressive one. I don’t agree with that view.
Obama’s plan calls for anyone making over $250,000 to pay the Social Security payroll tax on ALL of their income, thus disregard the $102,000 cap. Anyone making $250,000 or less still pays 6.2% of $102,000. Therefore, it’s a significant increase for wage earners making over $250,000. Further add an increase in the upper brackets from 33% to 36% and it’s a large tax increase. The chart you showed for people making $227K to $603K would get a $12 increase is factually wrong.
I wasn’t using talking points as you suggest. If the goverment takes more of my income I would consider it a punishment. If it sounds better, I’ll instead use your own words…”to the detriment of the very wealthy”.
I just googled Obama’s tax plan. The first site was AARP and it had a fairly even-handed assessment of both plans. It says you are not taxed on the income between the cap and 250K. This is consistent with what I have read several times. I won’t swear to someone else’s word though. So please point me to authority contradicting this point so I can consider it.
The way I interpet it is this:
Currently everyone is taxed 6.2% on the first $102,000 they make to fund SS.
Under Obama’s plan, this would continue on earners making $250K or less.
If you make a penny over $250K, your ENTIRE income will be taxed at the 6.2% rate. I’ve attached an article from the NY Post which clearly indicates this.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06142008/news/nationalnews/obama_tax_plan_raises_big_bracket_115443.htm
It doesn’t make sense for that to be the plan. But thanks for the cite. It bears watching. I have been an advocate of a donut hole in social security taxes for a long time. I believe it will help the upwardly mobile with no family wealth an opportunity to build wealth, i.e. me, and will even out the percentage disparity of contributions between the rich and the poor. If the sources I’ve read are wrong and the Post is right, I’ll be disappointed. But considering the sources and all I have to go on right now, I’ll assume my sources are accurate. I am sure both candidates will provide more details in coming months.
I’ll take a look at the actual proposal. It is what it is. Regardless, 2 things: (1) again my point is that Obama is not a liberal as that word is used as Republican code for socialist and (2) I have it on good authority that Obama will push for Pluto being added back to the list of approved planets.
So, we can quibble about tax brackets until the election, but which candidate will correct the solar system, huh?
He may not be a liberal, but any tax policy putting huge tax increases on higher incomes is right from the Jimmy Carter playbook. I hope the article I posted is wrong. It’s a bad time to increase taxes on any Americans. There needs to be a more conservative approach to saving Social Security. No politician wants to talk about raising the age or reducing benefits becuase that will cost votes. McCain hasn’t proposed anything that I’m aware of.
If McCain or Obama promise to make Pluto a planet like it deserves, they will have my vote…period!
on liberal v conservative
I started ignoring those labels after all of my pot-smoking, drug using, sex-addicted, binge-drinking college students kept using the label “very conservative” on their facebook page while continuing to post photos of their partying ways.
on using talking points (emails or talk radio) versus actual facts
this seems to be a trend among all the “i hate obama” folks I am around. It doesn’t really matter where they heard it, if it exists in print (in their in-box) it is a reason to repeat it and accept it as fact.
Part of that blame, however, must reside with our two-party dominated system. Once we have decided to support a candidate, it is too easy to overlook the shortcomings of our candidate and demonize the other. It is in the demonizing (swiftboating) and attacking the character of the other (with no factual basis) that unfortunately moves the poll numbers more quickly than any actual policy debate. But it is a blight on our character.
Amen, revbill. Also, re liberal/conservative labels, a lot of this tendency to use labels can be attributed to our need to distill complex issues into simple ones and do it fast. I think that our collective attention span has become that of a gnat. If you read CNN online, you’ll notice that its news articles, which are already only a few paragraphs long (and those paragraphs contain only 2-3 sentences), now have article highlights at the top of the article by the headline. So, we’re now highlighting already-abbreviated articles. Pretty soon, we’ll have news stories that read like old telegrams. “Train wreck. Yazoo County. 3 dead.” In other words, the headlines are becoming the stories.
I think it’s this way with political labels. No one wants to hear your theories on everything from the 2nd Amendment to abortion to economic policy; they just want to know whether you’re liberal or conservative or Republican or Democrat.
Or, even worse, these labels are used because the users are too lazy to formulate their own thoughts on the various areas and so they just default to a label. “I’m a liberal/conservative. I’m a Democrat/Republican.” It’s a shame because all these “boring” issues matter to our everyday lives.
And I’m glad you wrote about demonization. We really should hang out more. For years, I’ve been talking about how it cannot be that every person is fallible yet when they get together (a political party) they’re perfect, and the other fallible people getting together (the other political party) is still a bunch of fallible people coming up with crappy ideas.
So, I will concede that Obama does not have all the answers. There’s a lot of stuff that he believes in that I don’t. On these pages, I have criticized McCain for not being the man I admired in ’00, but I have never demonized him. In fact, I wrote a post in which I all but begged people to keep the political debate limited to facts and not character attacks.
Good comments revbill. Keep agreeing with me and you’ll go far in life.
Just curious, I’m I the only conservative that reads your blog? I feel like I’m Rush Limbaugh on the Bill Maher show.
I don’t know who reads my blog unless they comment, and then I only know if I can tell by the user name. If you were Rush Limbaugh on the Bill Maher show, you’d get laughed off the stage.
Here we’re engaged in enlightened civil conversation. Ok, maybe that’s a bit much, but I’ve enjoyed the accommodating nature of the give and take. It’s much better than when you become drunk and belligerent while I always stay only slightly buzzed and completely above the fray.
I don’t mind that I am the only conservative, but I was curious becuase you know most of the people posting. I guessed by viewing the responses to your posts that 99% of the people on here are democrats.
I know you hate Limbaugh, but come on, the guy is brilliant and the most successful radio talk show host in history. Bill Maher is an athiest, anti-marriage comedian hack. His views are so far left, it would worry me to think any moderate democrat or independent minded person would agree with him on most issues. I don’t think Rush would even entertain the notion of helping his ratings.
As for your sight (and I assume your last paragraph was sarcastic), I really enjoy debating with people that I have opposing views with. It would be pretty boring if we all were sitting around agreeing all the time.
I’m not even sure where to begin on this one, so I’ll just take it one paragraph at a time. I don’t know if anyone commenting on here is a Democrat or Republican. If you are of the view that people who are sick of this Administration and think that Bush is a lousy president, then 70% of the country are Democrats.
I don’t hate Limbaugh b/c I don’t hate anyone. But I don’t know if I have a lower opinion of anyone on the planet who is not a murderer, rapist, etc., than I do of Limbaugh. When is he turning himself in for illicit drug use by the way? I remember that he always preached about locking drug users up, but I don’t recall his doing any time in jail.
If you’ve watched Bill Maher at all then you know he’s a Libertarian and not “so far left.” He screams against the left wing of the Democratic Party on many issues, just like I do. And he’s just as funny now as Dennis Miller was before he became a shill for the Republican Party. Actually, I still think Dennis Miller is funny.
A comedian’s humor and my politics do not have to match up for me to think someone is funny. If Rush Limbaugh broke out a “Two rabbis, a priest, and a head of lettuce walk into a bar….” joke, I’d probably laugh. Then I’d think about what a lying, hypocritical, soulless piece of shit he is. But I’d laugh at the joke.
The last paragraph in my comment back to you was not sarcastic so much as it was just a lame attempt at humor — somewhere in the neighborhood of a knock knock joke.
thanks super, maybe Bill Maher will be calling one of us to sit in for him one day, haha
On the tax plan discussion, I am not as interested in the nitty gritty of it as yack is, but i admire you for getting such details. Tax plans are only proposed by a president and are amended and compromised and finally passed by congress. So I do not see the value in debating the details. The plan he proposes today will not be the plan ultimately passed.
Bottom line is that probably the taxes on those who make $250K a year will go up and there will be a small tax break for the middle class. I’m ok with that, even though I realize in the south it is sacrilege to be in favor of a tax increase of any kind.
We’ve got to pay for universal health insurance which means we need 60 billion a year, pay down the debt, quickly find alternative energy sources and a way to implement them, and a host of other priorities, all of which require money.
Of course it’s easier for me to say that because I would barely reach the bracket of middle class.
Warning….sarcasm!
My tax plan calls for anyone making over $250,000 to get a 20% tax increase and use that money to pay for everyone elses health insurance, gasoline, groceries and shelter…the basic needs in life. I’m mean if we’re going raise taxes on the rich for the benefit of everyone else, let’s really hammer the bastards. I bet 99% of those making over $250,000 haven’t worked a day work in their life.
Let’s just tax Rush Limbaugh’s drug transactions and we could balance the budget, or afford another war.
I’m for the Hollywood tax. Make them put their money where their mouth is and place an additional 50% tax on their earnings. (Of course I would exlude Bo Derrick, Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson under my plan).
I would use the revenue to rebuild New Orleans, pay Al Gore’s light bill and increase the capacity of Vaught-Hemmingway to 110,000 with luxury boxes for me and my friends (both of them)!
You wouldn’t need to exclude Derrick, Willis, or Gibson because taxes are based on a year’s earnings. I don’t think any of those folks make money anymore.
As for V-H, sign me up for that plan. I need plenty of elbow room for my broken heart, which is what I always leave Oxford with after Ole Miss woulda, coulda, shoulda, but didn’t, win another football game.
Wait a damn minute!!! Bruce Willis just did Diehard VII – The wrath of Hanz.
You keep beating me to the punch. I have an upcoming post about the Top __ Movie Sequels I Pray Don’t Get Made.
I guess it’s all those years living together. I love the part in Die Hard where Hanz was telling Marco or Carlo to “shoot the glass” in their native tongue. When he can’t understand what Hanz is saying he says it in English “Shoot the glass”.
I’ll have my laptop with on vacation, so keep them coming.
Yack and B: Im so happy to see that you guys are still so much in love with one another! I should have tried to date both of you at MC instead of being such a retard ( and I mean date in the most Christian way possible).
If you had dated one of us, you really would have been a retard — with all apologies to regular retards. Actually, I think the politically correct term is “‘tards.” Sorry about that to all the ‘tards. (I think my little pit in hell just got deeper/hotter.)
Something that troubles me with the conservative vs liberal polarization of this country is this, actually many things. I shall refrain from going over all of them.
Please understand that I am viewing this purely based on human nature and not party affiliation or conservative/liberal ideology.
So here goes:
Just because someone says something or holds to an ideology that you don’t like or particularly agree with does not mean that they are out to decieve you or to cause harm. It does not mean that they are lieing, wrong or otherwise making things up to reinforce their point of view.
The converse is also true:
Just because someone says something that you agree with or espouse an ideology that is in tune with your own, does not mean that they have your best interest at heart. It does not mean that they won’t screw you to achieve their own agenda.
Regardless of our political leanings, we all have the obligation to question the actions and viewpoints of those who we elect to represent us.
Further more, those who are elected represent us all and their duty to the common good should always outweigh their duty to politcal faction.
Sadly, this is not so.
Political divisions are entrenching and if you want to look at the end result, crack a history book. The history of mankind is replete with examples and just because we are the U.S. of A. does not mean we are exempt from similar ends.
The U.S. and the world at large are at a Social, Economic, Political and Environmental nexus, being stupid and dogmatic isn’t going to ensure that my children, and everybody else’s, are going to inherit a world worth living in. Or even a world capable of being lived in.
The short answer is this: “We must all hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately” . . . Thanks to Ben Franklin for that timeless wisdom.
Did you watch the HBO series on John Adams? It ought to be featured on every major network now that it’s had its run on HBO. Granted, it’s about John Adams, but it also touches on the dangers of party politics.
The fundamental problem with party politics in the 21st Century is that the world’s governments, economies, relationships, etc., are far too complex for one party to have all the right ideas. It simply can’t be that one party has all the answers and the other party is a bunch of idiots.
Some may say that while the above is true, one party may more closely align with their beliefs and, therefore, they can still vote the party line and compromise on the minority of issues that don’t line up with the party. The problem here is you find yourself trying to cram the totality of your thoughts and ideas into one of two parties.
My thoughts on the various issues of the day constrain me from saying this party or that party is my best fit. I have fundamental problems with both parties. Having said that, one party, in my opinion, has been hijacked by some really bad folks and so in this particular election cycle my choice for president is easy. But 4 years from now, that may not be true. And this illustrates the problem with voting a party line.
Rambling thoughts, I know, but my oldest child is sick and wanted to make sure all of us could stay up all night to share in her misery.
I didn’t see the HBO special, but I did catch one on PBS a while back.
Sorry to hear you have a sick youngin.
Hyperlink in a comment, huh? You know how to write code? Thanks for including the link; I will read it.
And thanks for the condolences. She’s getting better but we’re still in the “monitoring phase,” which is a medical euphemism for “you’re going to be on pins and needles and feel terribly helpless and woefully inadequate while your child lethargically lies in bed or on the couch with a constant fever hovering in the 100-102 degree range.”