Posted on 10/15/2010 3:30:47 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In speech after speech lately, President Obama has vowed to oppose a Republican proposal “to cut education by 20 percent,” a cut that would “eliminate 200,000 children from Head Start programs” and “reduce financial aid for 8 million college students.”
Except that, strictly speaking, the Republicans have made no such proposal. The expansive but vague Pledge to America produced by House Republicans does promise deep cuts in domestic spending, but it gives no further detail about which programs would be slashed. So Mr. Obama has filled in his own details as if they were in the Republican plan.
With the mid-term congressional campaign heading into the home stretch, Mr. Obama is jetting around the country to warn voters about a Republican return to power, and the two sides are engaged in a profound debate about the proper size and scope of government. To many Democrats, the Republican platform is misleading in a fundamental sense, masking the depth of the spending cuts and applying a deficit-reduction philosophy to spending but not to the substantial tax cuts Republicans are backing for the wealthy.
But in making his case, the president at times has presented selective characterizations of Republican positions, according to a review of his campaign speeches.
On issues like taxes, Social Security, health care, economic stimulus and foreign campaign financing, Republicans say Mr. Obama and his team have distorted their ideas or the facts to scare voters. White House officials deny that, saying the Republicans have been inconsistent about their own proposals and that the president is merely pointing out the adverse consequences that Republicans are trying to avoid discussing.
“I think we’re 100 percent in the right here,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
NY Times: “Obama Sometimes Fills In Details in G.O.P. Plans”
Translation from Liberal Speak: “Obama Always Lies”
Is he stupid or evil or both?
Yes.
NY Times: “Obama Didn’t Give Us A Bailout And Now We’re Going To Have To Fire 50% Of Our Staff Before President Palin Takes Office...”
I know this is the NY Times, but for crying out loud, even they know better by now.
Tax cuts don't cost money; they increase revenue, because we are on the high side of the Laffer curve.
I'd like for the idiots at the NT Times to point out one "substantial" tax cut that did not raise overall tax revenues within a few years.
thats an odd picture. where is the stock of the gun?
I think by this point, considering all of the successful tax cuts Bush was able to have Congress pass back in 2001 and 2003, we are on the left side of the curve.
Hell, we are lower then what Reagan managed to cut taxes to. 15 percent on cap gains, 0 estate tax, a 10 percent bracket, 33 percent at the top end.
Its along the inside of her arm, you can see the corner of the butt plate under her elbow.
The Demercrats have to speak about everything but their record. They live in a fantasy world like none a drug addict has ever known.
1. You have to consider all taxes together, not just federal income taxes. Considering that, I am very skeptical that we are “on the left side of the curve.”
2. I argue that the curve itself is not static. At a time of economic stagnation, it seems likely that the curve peaks at a lower rate than during a time of strong growth. Across-the-board tax cuts now would almost certainly grown the economy, resulting in increased revenues. The rates could be revisited later, to move them in line with where the curve shifts.
Also, you must consider uncertainty and anticipation. Right now, the market anticipates higher tax rates and greater uncertainty, which stagnates economic activity and reduces tax revenues.
It would be nice if any of these allegations were true. The GOP has never cut spending on anything.
yeah i see it now, thanks
I 100 percent agree with uncertaintiy. It is KILLING the market. Business is frozen.
As for your previous post, I agree with your assertion about total taxes. However we are lucky in that we can move from a high tax state (NJ, Cali) to a low tax state (VA, FL), therefore negating the large impact of taxes on personal wealth.
The big big issue is the super rich (the Bill Gates of the world who call for higher income tax) make 99 percent of their money off wealth and capital, as opposed to income and labor. With income disparity so wide now, and super elite liberal rich not paying taxes at all, we are certainly on the left side.
If anything, I’d raise taxes on the super liberal rich (the Gates’, the Soros’, etc) and I would max taxes at 25 percent for anyone else.
My ideal world would include 10 percent up to 100k in earnings, 15 percent up to 250k, 25 percent from 250k to 1 m, and then 45-50 percent beyond 1m, seeing that the elite Wall St rich, and elite Hollywood rich continue to finance the campaigns of liberals such as Obama.
Most “rich” conservatives tend to fall in the 250k-1m range, because that is where small business is, the car dealerships, your local business etc.
Turn on the lights and cock roaches run away.
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.