Posted on 11/03/2008 4:59:35 AM PST by DocT111
They were hammering Clare McCaskill (D-MO) defending Obama's comments - she was talking out of both sides of her mouth.
Totally funny - the next guest they had on for the economy totally debunked McCaskill on taxes. She said that under Obama plan the tax rate will be no higher than Regan's. The guest said that Reagan's rate was 28% - with Obama it's 43-45% (I can't remember the exact number)
EVERYTHING Obama says “taken out of context” according to his surrogates.
How dumb do they think people are?
That is what B Hussein is banking on.
i saw the coal hitting the fan...
That is because there is no context. He lives in a vaccuum and his past is a void.
Just to illustrate how “trickle-down misery” is the negative counterpart of Supply Side economics, look at the impact to just one related industry if Obama succeeds in killing the coal industry.
Coal is far and away the number one commodity moved by America’s railroads.
Under Obama we would see the following Doobie Brothers lyric come to pass “You see them long trains runnin’ And you watch them disappear”.
Have we already forgotten Biden’s comments that there will be NO coal plants here in America.
That we should be buying coal from China.
I wonder how the lower energy prices will playout with this debate. Wasn’t McCain supporting Cap and Trade bill?
The Heritage Foundation recently published an evaluation of the candidates’ tax plans. This analysis assumed the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 expired on schedule, or at the end of 2010, and that each tax plan reacted to what would be a very large tax increase if Congress and the president do nothing. John McCain’s tax plan, which makes all of the tax reductions permanent (among other things), produces more than twice as much economic activity as Barack Obama’s plan, which makes those tax reductions permanent only for taxpayers with incomes below $250,000.
The current law baseline that we used in this recently published analysis is not the only baseline that analysts employ to study the effects of policy change. Many, including other members of Heritage’s budget team (see JD Foster’s work here and here) and analysts on the Obama campaign staff, sometimes use a “current policy” baseline. That baseline assumes that current policies, like the Bush tax reductions, continue forward. Obama assumes “current policy” on spending and “current law” on tax policy.
Specifically, what would be the likely economic effects of Obama’s tax plan if one assumed the current policy baseline, or that the Bush tax reductions were made permanent, say this year?
For McCain, that alternative assumption means the principal remaining change to tax policy is his massive reduction in the corporate profits tax, from the current level of 35% to 25%. That tax reduction alone raises employment by an annual average of 182,000 and economic output by an average of $35 billion. However, the rest of his tax plan is, in fact, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, which the alternative scenario assumes that Congress already has done.
For Obama, however, the effects are quite different. Some of his current plan is covered under the alternative assumption: most of the Bush tax reductions are made permanent for taxpayers under $250,000. However, Obama raises ordinary income tax rates for taxpayers above $250,000 and also raises the tax rates on dividend and capital gains income as well as federal death taxes. In addition, he creates a number of new and expanded credits and deductions for taxpayers below that income level that are not contained in the Bush tax program. SNIP
60% of Americans would pay in federal income taxes under Obama's tax plan while the 5% of Americans who already pay 60% of the total tax bill would be squeezed hard to pay even more.
During Reagan's tenure, income tax rates of the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years,[9] while payroll taxes increased as well as the effective tax rates on the lower two income quintiles.[10][11] Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and grew during Reagan's remaining years in office at an annual rate of 3.4% per year,[12] slightly lower than the post-World War II average of 3.6%.[13] Unemployment peaked at over 10.7% percent in 1982 then dropped during the rest of Reagan's terms, and inflation significantly decreased.[14] A net job increase of about 16 million also occurred (about the rate of population growth).
I saw Fox for just a moment this morning, but the hosts were talking about something BO said about coal companies and the word “bankruptcy.” What was the gist of that? Has BO said he’s going to put the coal companies out of business?
Clare is fingernails on a blackboard every time she speaks.
Snip...Obama, an Illinois senator who is battling New York Senator Hillary Clinton to become their party's presidential nominee, said he would start developing the U.S. position on a pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol before the general election in November.
Snip..."The moment I secure the nomination, I want to bring together experts in this area to start putting together the U.S. position ... what we're going to be doing internally, what we can agree to with other countries," he said.
Of which we've heard not a peep.
Snip..."I know that my climate change plan is stronger than John McCain's," Obama said, citing his intention to make industrial polluters pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases.
Snip... Obama said his plan was superior to McCain's because it required companies to buy all of those permits up front -- a process known as auctioning.
"I've been very specific about proposing 100 percent auctioning, which makes an enormous difference in terms of how effective it's going to be," Obama said.
Is it going to bankrupt anybody wanting to build clean coal plants.
Yes.
Yesterday morning, a tape was uncovered and put up on youtube where Obambi stated (in January of this year) that through the carbon credit scheme he was proposing, it would be so expensive to build a coal-fired power plant that it would bankrupt the company trying to build it. It goes along with what Joe Biden said about having 'no more coal plants built in the US'.
Bottom line is that these two idiots will destroy the energy infrastructure of this country if elected.
Well, I am astonished. Coal provides America with nearly 55% of its energy.
That idea just doesn’t make sense.
But then, we are talking about BO here.
Wow - database glitch. The text to which I was responding is not the text that put at the top of my post. Maybe I forgot to copy before I pasted. ;-)
I hope that tape of Obama is going up on Mc Cain ads in Ohio, PA and VA today.
Once I built a railroad,
Made it run.
Made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad,
Now it’s done.
Brother, can you spare a dime?
Lawrence Eagleburger was on again this morning—WOW! I wish his words could be made into a commercial and played across the country. He blasted Barry calling him a charlatan, someone who is buying the election with dirty funds and using ACORN for voter fraud. Yesterday he said—God help this country if he is elected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.