Novak: Ask Obama to define “loophole”
posted at 9:00 am on October 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Robert Novak makes a mockery of his retirement — thankfully — with an observation about Barack Obama and his populist rhetoric on tax policy. When John McCain pressed Obama to explain how he would pay for the hundreds of billions in new spending Obama proposes without raising taxes broadly, Obama said he would “close loopholes” to recover the revenue. Novak doesn’t think Obama can define “loophole”, at least not broadly enough to find over $300 billion a year in revenues:
How would Barack Obama pay for the $800 billion that John McCain claimed in the first presidential debate Sept. 26 in Oxford, Miss., that his Democratic opponent would spend if he were elected president? Obama replied, by “closing tax loopholes.”
Obama was no more specific in the debate, and tax experts doubt that structural changes without increasing taxes can raise anything close to that amount of money. …
Obama has made clear that he would try to roll back President Bush’s tax cuts, but that does not come under the definition of a “loophole.” A loophole consists of a conniving tax attorney discovering a weakness in the Internal Revenue Code or such a weakness intentionally legislated by Congress under the instigation of crafty lobbyists. The only specific tax legislation contained in Obama’s paper would raise the capital gains rate for most shareholders, restore taxation on dividend income to pre-Bush standards and restore the full estate tax.
In other words, Obama doesn’t have a clue what “loophole” means. When he talks about closing loopholes, what he really means is that he will impose higher taxes on investments and savings as a means to soak the rich. Obama isn’t interested in closing gaps in the tax code, but in hiking the rates demanded by the code. It’s redistributionism, the kind of populist pap that won him the nomination, and which Obama hopes will win him the White House.
If Obama really wanted to end loopholes, he could have supported one of two tax plans: the Fair Tax and the Flat Tax. Both would eliminate Congress-mandated exemptions in the tax code by replacing current code altogether. The Fair Tax would eliminate income tax and replace it with a consumption tax, which would “soak the rich” as they spend their money. The Flat Tax would have everyone pay the same percentage of tax across the board, with no exemptions or deductions at all. Regardless of their other merits or deficiencies, these are the only two tax plans that eliminate actual loopholes.
Obama insists that his tax plans would only affect 5% of the electorate, but that doesn’t add up to the amount of money he wants to spend as President. The taxes on investments will hit broadly across the entire investor community, which includes 70% of American families now thanks to IRAs, 401(k)s, and such. The capital-gains tax hike Obama envisions will also hit indirectly at American families as investors will stop turning over assets in order to raise cash for new ventures — which will slow the growth of new jobs and keep more Americans unemployed. Payroll tax increases will keep businesses from expanding. The money Obama sucks out of the capital markets will go to massively inefficient government bureaucracies, rather than in efficient private-enterprise entrepeneurial pursuits.
Obama’s tax policies are a recipe for disaster, especially in an economy already teetering on the brink of a hard recession thanks to disastrous government intervention in the lending markets. Novak’s question would reveal the lack of depth Obama brings to economic policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Any tax that is less than 100% is a loophole.
/sarc
MarkTheGreat on October 2, 2008 at 9:02 AM
Loophole is defined as the hole left by Bambi’s Gold Boot Brigades beating your skull in…..
Bambi has not had to endure one hard and roughly delivered question on where his magic funding will come from.
Why start now?
sven10077 on October 2, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Nice post, Ed.
As far as people’s reaction to Obama’s higher taxes,
what I get from liberals I talk to is that “things were good under Clinton, and we had higher taxes then” and “how are those tax cuts working out now?”
Of course, when you try to persuade them otherwise, it’s a brick wall…
hippie_chucker on October 2, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Good question. Either he dodges or every example costs him votes.
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Off topic. Saw this on a PUMA site. Can anyone verify the below?
BERG vs Obama
luckybogey on October 2, 2008 at 9:06 AM
“Loophole” is the answer used by a panderer.
TwinkietheKid on October 2, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Hit him hard in the domestic policy debate, Mac!
JAM on October 2, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Obama can be caught on the horns of
Right_of_Attila on October 2, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Obama can be caught on the horns of a dilemma on how to fund his promises.
Run him through to create a loophole.
Right_of_Attila on October 2, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Here’s one loophole he understands: since donations over $200 have to be reported, get your contributors to make hundreds of smaller donations. Then they can give thousands of dolllrs anonymously, even if they are foreigners. He understands all that. McCain does too, since he reports the sources of all donations under $200 even though it isn’t necessary.
Akzed on October 2, 2008 at 9:11 AM
“Loophole” is a B.S. term anyway. McCain, Obama and Biden are all from the legislative branch of our government. Who writes the tax code? The legislative branch of our government.
If there’s a loophole, you put it there and made it law, either on purpose or through incompetence; likely the latter.
saint kansas on October 2, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Greg Mankiw computed what the marginal tax rate would be under Obama’s plan versus McCain’s plan. What he found is completely unsurprising – yup, Obama would raise your taxes.
Slublog on October 2, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Unfortunately, McCain’s campaign has absolutely no intellectual horsepower to identify and communicate these kinds of points.
McCain was on both F&F and Morning Joe this morning. He was pathetic on F&F; he was okay on Morning Joe. Among too many things McCain can do, I have no idea why he is not practicing his spiel that highlights how he saw the crisis coming in 2005 and identifies the Democratic criminals. Voters enraged and McCain needs to harness that rage. Voters in swing states can’t vote out Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and other Fannie and Freddie enablers, but a vote for McCain puts up a defense against them. But on Morning Joe, Scarborough had to pull McCain’s teeth to get him to talk about this. Turn the topic to earmarks, and you can’t shut McCain up–but no one cares.
OT: MSNBC is playing Palin’s response on Supreme Court decisions just about every hour.
BuckeyeSam on October 2, 2008 at 9:15 AM
…any actions by the administration of El Maximo Lider will turn out to be societal, economic and civil rights disasters…Obama is Darth Vader without the snappy threads….
Not only does he not have any bloody idea what he’s going to do or how he’s going to do it, aside from mustering Hell and Hollywood to get elected — you know, another Clinton administration — he’s convinced fair numbers of automatons to follow him, come what may. Lincoln was right at least once…you can fool some of the people all of the time.
…all he’s got are populist promises, feel-good slogans, smoke, mirrors, and Yankee fascism…centralize, centralize, recruit “experts” to do the planning, and for God’s sake keep the democracy to a minimum…don’t want the peasants having any say in their futures….
…in that last vein, one of his acolytes and crypto-fascist scribblers over on the HuffPo wrote this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/sarah-six-pack-needs-to-p_b_130977.html
…in which he contends that Gov. Palin, in her own words sort of representing “Joe Six-pack”, is a George Bush re-do…and that Joe Six-pack needs to butt out of governance. Yet again, the technocrats and Yankee fascists want to keep the “masses” on the “safe” side of the alter rail as they do service to their secular gods. We’re not worthy….
Puritan1648 on October 2, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Fixed that per the Obama campaign
cntrlfrk on October 2, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Can we count on Mr. Good Will to keep his donations going? That could cover a lot!
JamesLee on October 2, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Obama’s been allowed to run a bumper sticker campaign, as no one tries to pin him down about ‘loopholes’ or anything else.
As Rush says, Obama = squirrel.
petefrt on October 2, 2008 at 9:17 AM
The birth certificate nonsense? C’mon.
BuckeyeSam on October 2, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Go to the website..obamacrimes.com. There you will find all info on this lawsuit…which is true, as far as I can see.
becki51758 on October 2, 2008 at 9:18 AM
You think congress hasn’t already tried to close, or closed all these so-called loopholes?
lodge on October 2, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Asking Obama to define “loophole” would mean McCain will have to squeeze it in during one of the last two debates — Barack’s not going on Fox, and therefore, unless his staff slips up and lets a local reporter not in the tank for Obama ask the question during a campaign stop, he won’t have to revise and extend his definition before election day.
jon1979 on October 2, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Maverick!
Thay have to pander to the 25 moonbats who actually watch that network
ManlyRash on October 2, 2008 at 9:21 AM
He needs to close the loophole between his ears.
patrick neid on October 2, 2008 at 9:21 AM
The Tax Code itself is one giant loophole that Obiffy plans on altering in any way he sees fit.
What a disaster that guy would be as POTUS, and we seem to be sleep-walking our way right over the cliff.
Bishop on October 2, 2008 at 9:21 AM
RE: “In other words, Obama doesn’t have a clue what “loophole” means.”
You are correct, but more troubling is why McCain has missed another opportunity to whack Obama.
albill on October 2, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Ed, the second to last paragraph needs to be repeated by McCain verbatim at the next debate. He also needs to lay out how taxing the “rich” makes them save money elsewhere by not hiring anymore or moving operations overseas.
Kafir on October 2, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Especially when they so desperately want to be fooled.
MarkTheGreat on October 2, 2008 at 9:23 AM
The loophole I am more concerned about ism the one between Obama’s ears. Lemmings Unite.
volsense on October 2, 2008 at 9:24 AM
I think a question McCain has to ask the One is whether or not Obama would have supported John Kennedy’s tax cuts…then ask how Reagan’s were any different.
The followup question is how raising taxes during an almost certain recession is going to help…
hippie_chucker on October 2, 2008 at 9:24 AM
But that would violate the spirit of brotherliness that all Senators are supposed to maintain towards each other.
/sarc
MarkTheGreat on October 2, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Anyone who thinks Obama isn’t going to raise their taxes has their head in the sand. Anyone who tells you Obama won’t raise your taxes is naive or being dishonest to try and get your vote.
On a side note, Obama was just on M&M on ESPNradio (they had McCain on 2 weeks ago) and he did very well. It was obviously a very easy interview, but Obama is sounding very, very confident these days and had a bunch of facts ready to go. McCain is going to need a big October surprise if he doesn’t step up his game.
BadgerHawk on October 2, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Ed
Turn your Demcrat Handbook to chapter 21, paragraph 3
Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe, for they shall see the closing of loophole at the end of every pay period
EricPWJohnson on October 2, 2008 at 9:25 AM
…and also he needs to question why Obama took every single deduction on his tax returns he could, and how does he square that with his loophole meme?
hippie_chucker on October 2, 2008 at 9:26 AM
…I’ve been trying to remember to make this point, but I keep getting caught in my own lame attempts at eloquence to do it….
The Obama campaign is evidently in the hands of frat-boys….
…these post-pubescent scamps are all on fire that they may get the keys to the government…a government they plan to drive like a rental car.
What got me thinking this is the appearance of Obama’s “national spokesperson”, some ham-faced article called Bill Something-Beginning-With-A-”B”, who looks for all the world as if he ought to be wearing a toga and singing “Shout”…off key and off beat…he keeps repeating boilerplate campaign talking points, even when the questions change, doesn’t look to have intellect enough to tie his own tie (clip-on?), and doesn’t send a jolt up my leg when I hear him defend El Maximo Lider…
…my legs and Chris Matthews’ must be wired differently, I expect…for one thing, my leg-wires have to circle around a large utility pole on the way to their place of service…this must prevent power spikes…Matthews must not have this problem….
…anyway, we’re faced with the prospects of Obama running for office for the next four years should he win, and then a further four after that…his guys seem able to get him up there in the polls, and may yet pull off a win….
…but, as with the Clintons, that’s all they’ll ever prove to be good at: running for office. We’ll have more “perpetual campaigning”…eight years under Clinton, various losers positioning themselves as their party campaigns for office while the the Republicans actually have the seat, and back to more Clintonian grasping, campaigning, polling…and ultimately guessing what to do.
Fratboy fascism…at least we’ll have something to blog about….
Puritan1648 on October 2, 2008 at 9:26 AM
OT – Wizbang is reporting the the McCain campaign (finally) kicked Maureen Dowd off their campaign plane.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Actually, I think I know exactly what Obama’s “loophole” is.
He intends to raise social security taxes, claiming it will “strengthen the program”.
In reality, we all know that SS taxes don’t go into some lockbox. They end up in the general budget. Obama knows all that money will be available to pay for his programs. All Social Security will get with is even more Congressional IOU’s than it has now.
And all the while the MSM will credit him with saving Social Security.
jeanneb on October 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM
It’s about time.
BadgerHawk on October 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM
…no one is so blind as he who will not see….
…and no one is so much a slave as he who worships his chains….
Puritan1648 on October 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM
Riddled with brain cancer, Novak can still understand Obama’s lack of experience better than most and it hasn’t affected his vision, like it has the Democrats.
originalpechanga on October 2, 2008 at 9:30 AM
What a loophole.
Dan Collins on October 2, 2008 at 9:31 AM
thanks
luckybogey on October 2, 2008 at 9:32 AM
…Obama’s flying monkeys are out early this morning…you’d think that they’d at least stop over to Starbucks to recharge their little bladders…all the better to p*ss all over logic….
Puritan1648 on October 2, 2008 at 9:33 AM
When will we start playing hardball with Obama? When he is asked a tough question we let him pass with some weak answer. When McCain or Palin are asked, its like the Spanish Inquisition. Curic plays “I got her now” when she interviews Palin and the View Harpies are ready to stick a hot poker up McCain’s ass. I am sick and tired of these koolade drinkers praising this Chicago Thug.
mindhacker on October 2, 2008 at 9:33 AM
The suit is for real. But don’t expect to hear anything about it. Phil Berg is legit, but he’s always been kind of a gadfly type, which reduces his credibility.
either orr on October 2, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Yeah, but according to Allahpundit, that’s not the issue at all. The whole thing is just to be able to spin like crazy, so stupid people are fooled into thinking that you do know what you’re talking about.
That’s what makes good government!
Jaibones on October 2, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Obama knows LOOPHOLES, it’s LOOPHOLES his campaign is using to skirt the campaign contributions laws so he can take money from out of the country. CLOSE that LOOPHOLE, Obama.
It’s a LOOPHOLE, Obama to let DEAD PEOPLE vote.
originalpechanga on October 2, 2008 at 9:37 AM
Thank you for contacting my office. Your comments and suggestions are very
important to me and are extremely helpful as I work with my colleagues to
effectively administer and enforce the federal campaign finance statutes.
Unfortunately, due to the volume of email my office receives, we are unable
to respond to each message individually.
The mission of the Federal Election Commission is to prevent corruption in
the federal campaign process by administering, enforcing, and formulating
policy with respect to campaign finance statutes. I believe this mission
is vital to ensuring that Americans can put their trust in the credibility
and accountability of our election system.
Please note that the FEC has jurisdiction over campaign finance issues.
Issues with respect to voting matters may be within the jurisdiction of the
Election Assistance Commission or your state Secretary of State Office or
local Election Board.
If you are contacting me regarding a potential compliance matter, please
note that the Commission can only accept complaints that are properly
filed. Facsimile or e-mail transmissions are not acceptable. For
additional information, please go to:
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/complain.shtml
I appreciate your interest in the Federal Election Commission and thank you
for your email.
Sincerely,
Commissioner Cynthia L. Bauerly
OSUBuciz1 on October 2, 2008 at 9:37 AM
The current Democrat plan (HR3970) authored by Charlie Rangel mirrors Obama’s rhetoric, and it includes a provision to “close a loophole” that would cost me thousands of $ per year. In short, it extends the application the full 15.3% “self-employment tax” to all S-corp income rather than to wages only. It’ll be a killer for thousands of self-employed/small businesses – including me.
Oh, and did I mention I make less than $250k per year?
forest on October 2, 2008 at 9:40 AM
I question his patriotism, as does Biden.
saint kansas on October 2, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Raising taxes now, especially capital gains, would be like gut-shooting the economy.
It’s about the dumbest possible thing you could do short of spontaneously declaring war on China.
Merovign on October 2, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Like I said above, “loophole” itself is a joke. I forget who said it, but one way to look at it is, there are no “side effects.” Here, this pill cures baldness, but it has the unfortunate side effect of causing explosive diarrhea. Well, more accurately, then, it’s a pill you can take to grow hair and cause explosive diarrhea. Or, it’s a bill that funds wool research and bails out the banks.
These clowns write the law. The “loopholes” couldn’t exist if they didn’t create them first.
saint kansas on October 2, 2008 at 9:48 AM
I loved the comment complaining that he waited until it was on the ground. LOL
fossten on October 2, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Question to Senator Obama. You stated that you would pay for your proposed increases in spending by closing Loopholes. Name one loophole that you would close???
**Crickets**
PappaMac on October 2, 2008 at 9:57 AM
One of the bigger jokes of this campaign is that Obama is “better on the economy.” Look at Obama’s tax returns dating back to 2000. From 2000 through 2004, he and his wife never made less than $207K a year, but in only two of those years did they have any investment income (interest of $38 in 2000 and interest of $34 in 2002). That’s some keen personal financial planning. After taking a net short-term capital loss of about $12,500 on two stocks in 2005, they apparently were so spooked about equities that their 2007 return shows taxable interest of $1,442, tax-exempt interest of $45,851, and no dividends. They’re in their 40s for crying out loud, yet they invest like an 80-year old couple living in Miami Beach. Heck, McCain’s wife knows more about the economy than Obama.
Does anyone remember how poorly he did with Charlie Gibson’s tax questions in the debate with Hillary before the PA primary? Nothing against liberal arts majors, but Obama has no knowledge of commercial activity. For crying out loud, why isn’t McCain’s campaign screaming about Obama’s waste of a $100M (that’s million) grant to improve Chicago schools?
And when the subject of affordable housing comes up again, McCain and Palin need to ask Obama to share with the country how it is that he was able to negotiate a $300K reduction in the $1.65M asking price of his current home from the seller in a seller’s market. Now, that’s information that we’d all like to know.
The attacks are endless. If McCain’s fricking campaign had any brains, by now they’d have Obama looking like Pfc. Louden Downey on the witness stand in A Few Good Men chattering nonsensically about a blowout. Obama is nothing but a cleaned-up version of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They’re all grievance merchants who extort others for money that they then waste on nonsense.
Paging McCain and his campaign.
BuckeyeSam on October 2, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Loophole or not, if Barry made a hard left he would be snapping quite a few necks, these zombies especially the media are so far up his butt.
I truly despise this person.
Robyn S on October 2, 2008 at 10:06 AM
The chances of any reporter asking that question is only slightly above the chance that Obama would answer it.
He’d turn on his heel and leave the room. That’s what he does anytime he’s asked a tough question.
And as far as “loopholes”, I’m sure the loopholes that allow anti-American foreigners to donate to the Obama campaign will remain open and that the IRS will always have better things to do than to investigate buddies of Obama.
Obama will consider donations to his campaign, as a substiute for taxes.
Who’s going to do anything about it? The IRS, when Congress is in Democrat hands? Please.
And if Republicans raise objections? The media will refuse to report it.
NoDonkey on October 2, 2008 at 10:06 AM
I thought I had heard that the suit was dismissed for want of plaintiff’s standing. Is this a review that reinstates it? The case made by the plaintiff is pretty damning. Does anyone have authoritative information about the status of the case at this point?
And if Obambi were disqualified, what would the Democrats do? Run Biden?
MrLynn on October 2, 2008 at 10:07 AM
I didn’t realize this. That is a big fricking deal. That seems to put S corp shareholders on par with general partners in partnerships and members of limited liability companies. Those partners and members, however, effectively pay only 12.4% (I think) self-employment tax, rather than 15.3% FICA tax. I wonder if Rangel has that factored in.
BuckeyeSam on October 2, 2008 at 10:07 AM
You know that old saying about you become what you hate?
Dems for 8 years have said that that they hate being ruled by an idiot.
So now they are promoting their own.
See you Nov 5 with a big grin on my face.
Doug on October 2, 2008 at 10:08 AM
That sucks. Call your friends and tell them to vote McCain.
BadgerHawk on October 2, 2008 at 10:16 AM
That’s the whole problem, I’m starting to get the feeling it matters not one bit what McCain and Palin do at this point. The media has already elected Obama and spread so many lies about Palin and McCain I’m not sure if the damage can be undone.
4shoes on October 2, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Damn, sounds like I’ll be working for free.
4shoes on October 2, 2008 at 10:27 AM
You are likely correct on the exact percentages, but what I know for sure is that my SS tax on company income is going to double to match my salary rate. Taxes are already brutal enough on the self-emplyed, and this is going tom make it much worse.
And what really gets me is that they’re passing it off as “closing loopholes on corporations” to make it sound like only big “evil” companies like Exxon will be affected.
And then all these Obama surrogates and pudits keep saying I’m going to get a tax cut, when I know I’m very likely to get a big increase. If one more person tries tell me I’m going to get a tax cut under the Democrats, I’m liable to start throwing punches.
forest on October 2, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Per Becki’s link to Obamacrimes:
On Mr. Berg’s behalf, I am posting this to state clearly the Court has not yet ruled on the Motion to Dismiss in Berg v. Obama.
Here’s the status:
1. Last week Senator Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a Motion to Dismiss the Berg v. Obama lawsuit.
2. On Monday, Mr. Berg filed an answer requesting that the suit not be dismissed and that the Court order production of documents proving Senator Obama’s consitutional qualifications to serve as President of The United States.
3. As of 1 AM EST today, October 2nd, 2008, the Court has not ruled on the Motion for Dismissal in Berg v. Obama.
luckybogey on October 2, 2008 at 10:31 AM
I’m working on it, and most of them are. My wife’s dad has an s-corp too, and I filled him in on the changes. But you know, he just shot a moose in Montana, so I think he was already on board with McCain-Palin.
I have one family member who’s drinking the Kool Aid though. I told her my taxes would go up about $4000-$5000 per year under Rangel’s plan and she said it would be worth it to her to pay that much extra to have the Messiah. But you know, her husband makes alot of money, so she can afford to throw away $20,000 and cast a white guilt vote. Liberal elite.
A sobering reminder: Charlie Rangel is the one writing the tax legislation now. Charlie Rangel calling the shots on how much we get taxed and Obama rubber stamping it. How do you think that’s gonna turn out? Any productive person who believes their taxes will go down in that scenario is insane.
forest on October 2, 2008 at 10:40 AM
An interesting example of insufficient greed. Clearly problematic.
Count to 10 on October 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM
I agree completely. One huge big lie is the “tax cut for big oil.” In truth, it’s an across-the-board reduction in the top tax rate for all large corporations. Period. But McCain’s campaign is not making the point that reducing that top rate from 35% to 25% will keep large companies from sending operations overseas. What does Obama expect that corporations will do with the extra 10%? Pay more in salaries (which generates tax revenue), increase benefits (maybe), increase domestic investment, employ more people, increase dividends (which generates tax revenue). Corporations will do something productive with it, not use it to finance poverty merchants.
McCain’s campaign is either sleepwalking or on life support. It’s in a horrible position of having to look to Palin to try to resurrect the campaign. But she doesn’t have ER paddles big enough to revive McCain. He’s doing horribly in swing-states, and he shows no signs of an improved message.
BuckeyeSam on October 2, 2008 at 10:46 AM
I wonder if he would be interested in closing the loopholes in the nomination process that allowed an empty suit like him get on the ballot in November.
backwoods conservative on October 2, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Biden would call her very “patriotic”. I think she’s deranged.
forest on October 2, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Liberal Dem gets a pass. We’re surprised? Time to get back to find out what magazines Sarah reads. Let’s hammer that point home a few more weeks and see if we can’t wrap up “The Coronation of Barack Obama.”
Mr_Magoo on October 2, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Oh no no, you’ll still make enough to pay your taxes.
So you’re not really working for “free”, in that you are going to fulfill your debt to the Democrat Party.
If you’re lucky, they’ll occasionally parcel out a bowl of gruel and give you a shelter you can huddle in, while being harranged by Red Guard re-education specialists.
Brave New World, brought to you by the absolutely worthless, corrupt, traitorous and incomptetent, Democrat Party.
NoDonkey on October 2, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Don’t forget the 6 month wait for shoddy “universal” “free” health care.
forest on October 2, 2008 at 11:08 AM
I would think somebody in the federal government would be REQUIRED to certify that someone running for president is qualified under the US Constitution. It should never even come to the point where a citizen has to demand this be done. And if Obama had to sign something saying he was eligible, and then his half-sister and grandmother say something different, I’d think that would demand an investigation into fraud charges for Obama.
Considering that this is a lawyer who would be in big trouble for falsifying the legal facts, I would think this HAS to be investigated.
If it turns out to be nothing, what is lost for having investigated? If anything that would help build confidence in our elections. But to not even investigate….how are we supposed to know that due process is being used in the nominating procedure?
If a citizen doesn’t have standing to find out whether elections officers registering candidates for nomination are following the Constituton, then how is ANYTHING in government accountable to its citizens?
Wonder how soon it will be decided if an investigation will be launched.
justincase on October 2, 2008 at 11:10 AM
I agree 100%. We should never have gotten to this point. I suppose that becuase Obama is a Senator already people think this process has been completed. I have followed the birth certificate thing, and it is entertaining. I really don’t see why Obama did not just kill that rumor with the truth at the beginning instead of letting it get this far- unless he has something to hide. I don’t know what that would be though.
I did read most all of the filings avaliable in the Berg v. Obama case, and Mr. Berg’s case does not really stand upon the fact or fiction of the birth certificate itself, but upon the law about people becoming citizens of other countries and what that does to their US citizen status. Berg makes a darn good argument in his filing about Obama’s move to Indonesia and the trip to Pakistan, and the effect that has, and I have to agree that at this point his request for discovery is reasonable. Obama should be forced to provide the documents requested. As for Mr. Berg’s standing to file this complaint, that part is airtight in my opinion. Read his support for his standing and see if you disagree…
virology76 on October 2, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Obama got his first congressional job on a loophole.
WoosterOh on October 2, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Novak is completely right and I’ve been making similar comments in other threads here at Hotair.
The easiest way for McCain to score points is simply to press Obama to backup some of his statements with specific details. The worst questions to ask Obama are “What do you plan to do about X?” because he’s got a laundry list of things he wants to do and knows it like the back of his hand. What McCain needs to do is dig a little deeper and challenge Obama on the assumptions that form the basis of Obama’s policy prescriptions. If McCain can successfully attack the foundation, then he can spend less time comparing what he and Obama will do, which is likely a losing proposition, since Obama’s programs just come across as sounding more “kind” and “fair” to anyone who doesn’t give them much thought.
As Novak points out, ask questions like, “Can you explain which loopholes you would close?” or “Explain how the deregulation passed in 1999 and signed off on by Schumer, Biden and signed by President Clinton cause the financial crisis?” All McCain needs to do is ask for specific details and I think we’d see a very different Obama on stage. The media is not asking (and probably won’t before the election) him these questions so it’s up to McCain to do it in the debates.
McCain needs a new phrase. I’ve gotten tired of “my friends”. I think the new phrase for McCain to over-use should be “Senator Obama, can you explain specifically…”.
kgs_mvs on October 2, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Gee, I don’t know. I think I’ll vote for Barry because Sarah Palin said FDR went on TV and not radio to tell the American people how the great depression happened. I like that re-distribution of wealth thing and have liked it since I first heard about it in high school. Pass me some more of that Kool-aid and I’ll help BO close those loopholes.
Christine on October 2, 2008 at 12:28 PM
The coffers of HOPE offer a neverending source of revenue.
America needs to close the loopholes in HOPE!! CHANGE is leaking out of the HOPE loopholes and spilling on to rich, hopeless people.
29Victor on October 2, 2008 at 1:56 PM
With amnesty and increased welfare here, the government wants to grow the deadhead sheeple into a majority so they can take over the US first, and then the world.
Thinking people just get in the way.
saiga on October 2, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Crap now the democrats are going to have to rewrite all the dictionaries too as well as all the history books. This is going to get real expensive before it’s over.
Buzzy on October 2, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Get with the program
peoplecomrades.Vote Communist!
Vote Obama 08′!
neal7 on October 2, 2008 at 3:27 PM
we rally in Texas…
sven10077 on October 2, 2008 at 3:45 PM
The loophole Obama imagines closing looks suspiciously like a noose.
moxie_neanderthal on October 2, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Look at this video: Understanding Obama -the Making of a Fuehrer –
http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html
moonlighter on October 2, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Comment pages: