We (the Dems and the government) HAD BEEN ‘investing’ in the black community and creating more opportunitues for them for the past 4 decades! Only to have the ‘black leaders’ accusing their own of ‘acting white’ and rejecting the upward movement.

profitsbeard on July 8, 2008 at 9:58 PM

LOL. Good one.

People don’t make that kind of money working at Wal-Mart–they probably own a small business. So Obama takes an extra $116K from this family, and they lay off two employees they can no longer afford to pay, who are added to the welfare rolls. Multiply that by a million or so small-business owners at that income level, and Obama would throw millions of low- to middle-income people out of work. They might just get bitter about it, and not like Obama.

Oh, and another minor detail: Obama wants the Bush tax cuts to expire. The ones that changed a 15% tax bracket to 10% over $12,000 of income (for a married couple) at the low end, saving practically everyone $600. The ones that increased the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 per child. For a family of four, those two changes alone add up to $1,600 a year for almost everyone. So Obama would give back $1,042 after taking $1,600? Lots more bitter people who might prefer Bush’s tax code, especially those with several children, who will probably grow up to be Republicans.

And with all that extra money, Obama still can’t balance the budget. Pathetic!

What happens when the entire tax burden is paid by the wealthiest 10 percent? They will have no ability to have an impact on anything as their votes will matter not.

drjohn on July 9, 2008 at 8:29 AM

Firsly, it would be nice if Barry understood the difference between an EXPENSE and an INVESTMENT.

And although this has been posted many times before, it’s worth repeating:

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about “The Fall of The Athenian Republic” some 2,000 years prior.
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”
“The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”

Sorry Alphie:

President Clinton was on his way to a regular Democratic debacle until the Republicans toook over Congress. Only then did the situation improve.

The Tax Policy Center’s computations show stark differences between the Obama and McCain plans in their relative impact on middle-class and high-income taxpayers. A middle-class family making $66,000 a year would see their taxes drop by $319 a year under McCain’s proposal, while a wealthy family making $604,000 a year would see a cut of $45,000. By contrast, Obama offers the biggest breaks for taxpayers at the bottom and in the middle of the income spectrum, while imposing sizeable tax increases on some of the highest earners — those making more than $250,000 annually. Under Obama’s plan, the middle-income family would receive a tax break that is three times larger than McCain’s — $1,042. The wealthy family would see a tax increase of $116,000 a year.
- Justin Jouvenal

What happens when the entire tax burden is paid by the wealthiest 10 percent? They will have no ability to have an impact on anything as their votes will matter not.

Do they qualify as slaves?

You’re thinking of Bush.

This time, Obama won’t just execute a flip-flop for himself. He’s about to force the entire party to do a 180 on deficit spending. When do the backflips cease with Obama?

Obama’s back-flips, flip-flops, flip-flop-flips, and flim-flams will cease when he is elected President and has the opportunity to use what is expected to be a gigantic Senate advantage (maybe even 60 D seats!) to raise taxes, gut our intelligence and military (so we get attacked again), nationalize health care, and guarantee two chickens in every pot.

Barack is for reparations with a little spin. Rather than give money directly to Blacks he wants to direct it into the Black community through bogus grants and education. Let’s just call it the Guilt Trip program.
patrick neid on July 8, 2008 at 9:36 PM

I read an interview Barry gave a year or so ago (I’d provide the link but I don’t remember where I read it; may have been in an education journal). In response to the question about slave reparations, Obama said that he believes there are better ways to spend that money. (Apparently he believes there is a big pot of “slave reparations money” floating around out there somewhere). He talked about “investing” in the black community, and “creating more opportunities” in education and government contracts (i.e. racial quotas and preferences) for people of color. So Patrick is exactly right. Obama won’t admit that he supports reparations, but the truth is that he does — he just doesn’t want to call it that (sort of like McCain and amnesty), because that would hurt him politically with voters he needs to woo (e.g., working-class whites).

I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families …

Dem code for tax and spend.

Tony737 on July 8, 2008 at 8:35 PM

I was scared there for a minute. I thought Obama was referring to forced sterilization.

I love it when Democrats get all upset because rich people have a little bit less of their income stolen.

who votes for whom, and why.

Entelechy on July 8, 2008 at 9:13 PM

By and large, Americans want to be told what government will do for them — as individuals, families, consumers — and not what it will do for the country’s long-term well-being, especially if that imposes some immediate cost or inconvenience. Grasping this, our leading politicians engage in a consensual censorship to skip issues that involve distasteful choices or that require deferred gratification. They prefer to assign blame and promise benefits. So elections come and go, there are winners and losers — and our problems fester.
- Robert Samuelson

Not sure who’s the bigger joke. McCain is full of it- there’s no way to balance the budget in 4 years given the deficits massive size and the current tax rates. You can’t have it both ways- and no politician is brave enough to tell people the truth.

bayam on July 8, 2008 at 8:48 PM

Balancing the budget is not the same as eliminating the deficit. Think about the difference for a second and then realize Obama is saying we cant balance the budget in 4 years.

Resolute on July 8, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Resolute is right. You are making the same mistake many Clinton supporters make when talking about Bill’s ‘projcted budget surplus’ they somehow claim that the deficit was gone when they did that; it wasn’t.
You could basically present a balanced budget within the first 100 days of a McCain administration.

Obama blowing off the deficit to ‘help American families’ is disgusting since it will do little else but hurt. We are getting off oil in the next 3 years and an even weaker dollar (weakened by the growing deficit) will only drive prices and inflation higher. That’s going to hurt average Americans far more than balancing the budget (which will result in higher interest rates and in turn higher savings rates which I for one will welcome when my savings account makes closer to 5% again rather than the 1.5% or whatever crap it earns now)

Of course I’ll believe McCain’s promise when I see it since most politicians can’t seem to keep their hands off of the Chinese and Saudi credit card these days, but it’d be a welcome change.

When Kindergarten hours are over, we’ll talk maturely about who votes for whom, and why.

Entelechy on July 8, 2008 at 9:13 PM

This just could answer some of the who votes for whom, and why.

The most in-depth comparison to date of McCain and Barack Obama’s tax plans was performed by the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute that is nonetheless staffed by both Republicans and Democrats — co-director Eugene Steuerle was a deputy assistant secretary under Ronald Reagan — and is known for its methodological rigor. Its 38-page analysis found that McCain’s proposals would make the tax system even “more regressive” than permanently extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001 to 2006. McCain would accomplish this by following Bush’s blueprint and then supersizing it: providing “relatively little” tax relief to low- and middle-income earners, while giving “huge tax cuts” to the highest income brackets.

The Tax Policy Center’s computations show stark differences between the Obama and McCain plans in their relative impact on middle-class and high-income taxpayers. A middle-class family making $66,000 a year would see their taxes drop by $319 a year under McCain’s proposal, while a wealthy family making $604,000 a year would see a cut of $45,000. By contrast, Obama offers the biggest breaks for taxpayers at the bottom and in the middle of the income spectrum, while imposing sizeable tax increases on some of the highest earners — those making more than $250,000 annually. Under Obama’s plan, the middle-income family would receive a tax break that is three times larger than McCain’s — $1,042. The wealthy family would see a tax increase of $116,000 a year.
- Justin Jouvenal

Seven Percent Solution on July 8, 2008 at 9:33 PM

You must have an intelligent keyboard :)

Entelechy on July 8, 2008 at 10:07 PM

I do….. sometimes smarter than me, especially when toasting with Limerick…….

alphie….. alphie……… alphie on July 8, 2008 at 10:07 PM.

Since this is true, and it is, what happens to the liberal argument against going into Iraq, and every false story posted after that?

It was just a matter of time, the United States Military freed 50 million people between Iraq and Afghanistan, Lybia turned over it’s nukes program and fuel, Iran is feeling the pinch and there are hundreds of thousands of dead terrorists that won’t be planning to cut off your head…….

…… what’s your problem with Winning?

By Ed Morrissey 
HOT AIR – John McCain pledged yesterday to balance the budget by 2013.  Barack Obama responded by claiming that it can’t be balanced, and he can’t be bothered to try:

Not only does Obama say he won’t elimin…

Nothing they can do that cruise missiles can’t do better and cheaper.

Except turn on a dime and return to base in case of an immediate stand down order, nor can a cruise missile remain in the air for 24 hours or more and remain a credible threat without having to cause sh!tloads of damage while giving the diplomats on the ground enough time to come to their senses – before raining down sh!tloads of damage on their countries.

Fact is alphie, you are nearly as clueless as Clinton on matters military the uses for which the hardware is employed and anyone who qualifies Clinton’s “accomplishments” as a positive influence on our military (or our country) needs to be taken out back and smacked within an inch of his pathetic life.

P.S. Ya’ll should take a good look at market activity and a multitude of other factors before giving BJ Clinton credit for any economic expansion. Can you name one policy that led to the creation of those jobs other than the Asian Market Crisis? No, didn’t think so.

LOL. And it’s not like Clinton had to worry about a bunch of Republicans saying “wait for the wind”.

Thanks Dems.

LMAO. I think they quit reading Krugman and for good reason.

Bill Clinton created 22 million new American jobs in his 8 years in charge
alphie on July 8, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Wow. Where did he ever find the time to look over 22 million job application forms and hire all the people to fill the 22 million jobs he created.

Just think of all the interns he had to hire to help him with the paperwork.