Does Obama Really Want To Tax The Rich?

joeboosauce

joeboosauce

CAGiversary!
I think this is the serious issue that needs to be discussed and that is the empty "liberal" packaging of right-wing policies and candidates such as Obama. Obama doesn't want to tax the rich. He has said this much in terms of "I want to reduce taxes on corporations."

Now, here is where these mandates from the electorate come in handy for the Prez. He want's to gut entitlements such as Soc Sec and Medicaire/aid. Across party lines a majority do not want these touched! Check out the positions of his senior adviser talking about Republican "deficit reduction" which no sane country would do during any economic downturn. THIS is Obama's goal. And he does it in a liberal veneer so gullible liberals will lap up the gentle edging in of a totalitarian corporate state.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM-DIwYHrsY

"The only way that gets done is for Republicans again to step back and get mercilessly criticized by Grover Norquist and the Right, and it means that Democrats are going to have to do some tough things on spending and entitlements that means that they'll criticized on by their left," Plouffe said at his alma mater in conversation with former McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt."*
 
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Obama is a centrist that is actually fairly conservative. The only reason that ridiculously under educated people think otherwise is because he's a scary black dude with a terroristy sounding name.
 
[quote name='nasum']This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Obama is a centrist that is actually fairly conservative. The only reason that ridiculously under educated people think otherwise is because he's a scary black dude with a terroristy sounding name.[/QUOTE]

The power elite have done a pretty good job at convincing the plebians that the right wing in the US has remained consistent in terms of its principles over the last several decades instead of moving further and further to the right in a very dangerous way.

As many reasonably intelligent people have noted, Ronald Reagan would not make it past the primary stage in today's Republican party.

I wouldn't point to poor dumb people being dumb so much as I would that the right wing political machine is loud, consistent in its message, deliberate in its attempt to deceive and disrupt, and worst of all, is not called out for what it is by a silently complicit mainstream media.
 
The left is not just as loud, deceitful, and disruptful? For every Todd Akin, there's a Jesse Jackson Jr. I'm fine with you calling the Republicans out, but make sure the Democrats don't get a pass. Corruption is rampant in both parties.
 
sweet false equivalency. Who said anything about Todd Akin? I'm talking about FOX News, Rush, Hannity, Beck, Marc Levin, Neal Boortz, Breitbart, Drudge, Malkin, Coulter...shall I go on?

Great, you found Jesse Jackson. Start naming names of people on the left who are as open about who they are and pervasive in the media (and consistent in their message) as the people above. I'll get you started: Ed Schultz. You'll run out of names after 5 or 6, and you won't even *begin* to find people as remotely influential as those listed above.

I'm talking about the insincere, idiot right having deep representation in our media as we know it, and the legitimate media is too afraid to call bs on its face because it will show "bias."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']sweet false equivalency. Who said anything about Todd Akin? I'm talking about FOX News, Rush, Hannity, Beck, Marc Levin, Neal Boortz, Breitbart, Drudge, Malkin, Coulter...shall I go on?[/QUOTE]
You reject his false equivalency and substitute your own fallacy. You state that the Republican Party has shifted right while offering mostly media as evidence.

Reagan wouldn't make it out of the primaries when Mitt Romney did? You can do better than that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your logic evades me. Please explain how they are "insincere" and "open about who they are" at the same time? While also being "consistent in their message"? They use quotes out of context and have poor fact checking sometimes,....but guess what, so does MSNBC and any of the left radio shows I've heard. They actively edit video to suit their agenda. Media is biased, I'd never argue against that, but saying ONLY the "idiot" Right is deceptive is wrong.

And you are right, comparing Akin and Jackson is a false equivalency. Akin only said something stupid. Jackson appears to have embezzled, lied, and defrauded a lot of people. Yet he won re-election easily. Which side seems to be more full of idiots now?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']You reject his false equivalency and substitute your own fallacy. You state that the Republican Party has shifted right while offering mostly media as evidence.

Reagan wouldn't make it out of the primaries when Mitt Romney did? You can do better than that.[/QUOTE]

Reagan raised taxes and had an amnesty program. You obviously have issues with objectivity.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']You reject his false equivalency and substitute your own fallacy. You state that the Republican Party has shifted right while offering mostly media as evidence.[/quote]

- use of the filibuster
- unwillingness to negotiate
- blocking of judicial appointments
- "compromise" coming in the form of voting for cloture on a bill, then voting against the bill
- utter refusal to entertain any possible tax cuts
- demand for spending cuts, put forth plans including amount of spending cuts, take no effort to elaborate on spending cuts
- exaltation of global neoliberal agenda to the point of creating another robber baron era
- virtual exclusion of women from the Republican party via an anti-woman agenda (against Lily Ledbetter, invasive pre-abortion screenings, policies making abortions difficult if not impossible to obtain, being against abortion even in cases of rape and incest - also related, not standing up to remove legal custodial rights from the 'father' in cases of rape)
- and I haven't even brought up minorities. You can try to tell yourself "Marco Rubio," but you know it's a sham.

There's your equivalency.

Reagan wouldn't make it out of the primaries when Mitt Romney did? You can do better than that.
Click to expand...

Michele Bachmann
Hermann Cain
Rick Santorum
Rick Perry
Newt Gingrich
...are all out of their fucking minds and you should be ashamed that a party you identify with would allow them to campaign at all.

Ron Paul was, and will always be, the long shot.
John Huntsman was a great candidate, but unfortunately his intelligence is inversely related to his charisma - the latter being a necessity in this day and age.

Other than those two, Tim Pawlenty was perhaps the only reasonable candidate, but he dropped out super early because he couldn't raise funds. But he's also pretty moderate.

So, Romney won. Not because of his credentials (if you think that, you've recreated the history of the primaries in your mind), but because nobody there was electable in the slightest. Which is really only unfortunate in the case of Huntsman.

As for Reagan, if you get your panties in a wad over Fast and Furious, you'll *love* the prequel, Iran-Contra. He raised taxes, gave arms to terrorists, made illegals (almost) citizens, and bargained with Democrats. His legacy as the conservative god-king is great and all, but it's a total fabrication compared to what he did over 8 years. Also, he exploded the deficit in completely unprecedented ways. If memory serves, our national debt in 1980 was ~$200million. Million. Yeah.

You have two more snarky sentences and nothing of substance to offer in return, or are we going to have a real conversation here?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']As for Reagan, if you get your panties in a wad over Fast and Furious, you'll *love* the prequel, Iran-Contra. He raised taxes, gave arms to terrorists, made illegals (almost) citizens, and bargained with Democrats. His legacy as the conservative god-king is great and all, but it's a total fabrication compared to what he did over 8 years. Also, he exploded the deficit in completely unprecedented ways. If memory serves, our national debt in 1980 was ~$200million. Million. Yeah.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget Reagan worked tirelessly to cut our nuclear arsenal. And I offer this gem, from a speech he made in 84: "Church and state are, and must remain, separate. [...] Government should not make it more difficult for Christians, Jews, Muslims, or other believing people to practice their faith."

Make no mistake about it. The Gipper wouldn't stand a chance in the modern GOP.
 
Eh, I'm not sure Ronnie meant it in the way you're taking it. He obviously didn't want the government making it harder for anyone to practice their religion, but if you asked him whether his own faith influenced his governing, he probably would have said yes.

See that's the hypocrisy of the right, they don't want the government to make it harder for their christian base, but in every other way they don't really care. Let religion shape policy? Why sure. Make decisions based on "god told me"? Why not? Creationism in public schools? Sounds like a plan!
 
I think you meant tax increases Myke.

Pawlenty is only moderate when on the stage with the rest of that clown crew. In 8 years of bad haircuts here in MN, things only got worse under his lead. There's still a pending MN Supreme Court case against him based on illegal accounting activities made by the office of the gov when he "unalotted" payments to local schools. Basically, while complaining that the schools didn't have a balanced budget and were running on credit, he was forcing them to run on credit by not giving them any money.

As long as Huntsman didn't pull a McCain and undergo personality replacement after receiving the nod, I'd have voted for him in a heartbeat. Though I'd still make magic panties jokes about him too.
 
[quote name='egofed']Your logic evades me. Please explain how they are "insincere" and "open about who they are" at the same time? While also being "consistent in their message"? They use quotes out of context and have poor fact checking sometimes,....but guess what, so does MSNBC and any of the left radio shows I've heard. They actively edit video to suit their agenda. Media is biased, I'd never argue against that, but saying ONLY the "idiot" Right is deceptive is wrong.

And you are right, comparing Akin and Jackson is a false equivalency. Akin only said something stupid. Jackson appears to have embezzled, lied, and defrauded a lot of people. Yet he won re-election easily. Which side seems to be more full of idiots now?[/QUOTE]

Oh man where have you been?! Someone like me who believes in criticizing the Right as well as the Left especially when either side acts as hypocrites. The one allotment I'll give to the Left is there are some who will give criticism to their side when it's warranted after they criticized the Right for the same thing. Sadly, I've found NO ONE on the Right who will do the same thing. I've heard Savage will but if he is he's the rare exception.
As for Ed Schultz the Big Turd can go flush himself down a toilet where he belongs. I dislike the man as it's party line horseshit instead of sticking to an ideological Liberal or even more Left line. Then he took Lynn Samuel's slot on Sirius. Why the SOB couldn't have died instead of Lynn I'll never know. Lynn could still be doing a lot more good in this world. Opening up real dialogues between Liberals and Conservatives on a national stage. You see, people would actually listen to her as she was consistent in criticism on both sides. When the Democrats deserved it she'd rip Obama a new one and any others. Conservatives would listen to that consistence.
No one on the other side wants to listen to a bunch of bullshit talking points from some biased think tank. Their brain shuts off and they leave your channel because they know it's a lot of regurgitated bullshit.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']- use of the filibuster
- unwillingness to negotiate
- blocking of judicial appointments
[/quote]
You mean they adopted the actions of Democrats from 2001 to 2008?

The Christian Right did organize and advance their agenda through the Republican party but the shift right started a long time ago, back when Rockefeller Republicans were supplanted by former Southern Democrats. You don't need a bunch of commentators as evidence of that when you can easily rattle off a dozen batshit elected Republicans like Palin and Santorum.

Barry Goldwater, who was once the conservative would have difficulty in the primaries in today's climate, Ron Paul is evidence of that. But Ronald Reagan? He had more credibility with social conservatives than Romney and McCain combined, and they both finished ahead of Huckabee in the 08 primaries. He was never quite what he portrayed himself to be (though some of the things cited here came about because of a heavily Democratic Congress), but he was masterful at appealing to social conservatives. The myths that persist today are largely the myths he built up.

I liked Huntsman but thought he was soft on China and he had never really been on the national stage, wasn't a serious contender. Ron Paul would've been a breath of fresh air, would be nice if he were more of a pragmatist but the treatment of him as a goofy longshot candidate by the Republican establishment and the media became a self fulfilling prophecy.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']You mean they adopted the actions of Democrats from 2001 to 2008?[/quote]

The rate it has been used is the point.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']You mean they adopted the actions of Democrats from 2001 to 2008?[/quote]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html

EDIT:
2) http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/12/04/15675104-senate-gop-kills-disabilities-treaty

The Christian Right did organize and advance their agenda through the Republican party but the shift right started a long time ago, back when Rockefeller Republicans were supplanted by former Southern Democrats. You don't need a bunch of commentators as evidence of that when you can easily rattle off a dozen batshit elected Republicans like Palin and Santorum.

Barry Goldwater, who was once the conservative would have difficulty in the primaries in today's climate, Ron Paul is evidence of that. But Ronald Reagan? He had more credibility with social conservatives than Romney and McCain combined, and they both finished ahead of Huckabee in the 08 primaries. He was never quite what he portrayed himself to be (though some of the things cited here came about because of a heavily Democratic Congress), but he was masterful at appealing to social conservatives. The myths that persist today are largely the myths he built up.
Click to expand...

So we're actually in agreement, but the difference is you think the rightward shift started earlier.

I liked Huntsman but thought he was soft on China and he had never really been on the national stage, wasn't a serious contender. Ron Paul would've been a breath of fresh air, would be nice if he were more of a pragmatist but the treatment of him as a goofy longshot candidate by the Republican establishment and the media became a self fulfilling prophecy.
Click to expand...

Why would you say Huntsman wasn't serious? Can you say what about Huntsman made him "soft" on China? How would you compare that w/ Romney's extremist stance of putting us into economic and military ruin by trying to go to war with China?
 
soft because he didn't promote war profiteering. duh!

RE: The 2hr debate video
The first factoid already discredits itself. "How much is rich enough" is posed and then it is pointed out that an income of $380k per year puts you in the top 1% which pays 33% of all FIT. While factually correct, this is extraordinarily misleading. $380k isn't a whole lot compared to the 7 and 8 figure (single and tens of millions per year) salaries that actually pay that 33%. What's really fun is if you do a breakdown of the top 1% and see where those FIT really come from (moreover where they come from in terms of W2 or Schedule C/D/K). If "investment income" was taxed as income, the 1% goes from $380k to over 11x that amount. It's truly staggering.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Krugman has long maintained that the true threat is the top 0.1%, not the top 1%. Which, given concerns about inequality, gini coefficients examining economic trends, etc., seems about right.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html

EDIT:
2) http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/12/04/15675104-senate-gop-kills-disabilities-treaty[/quote]
You could just as easily argue that the Republicans during Bush's tenure were less likely to bring bills to the floor knowing they would be filibustered, the graph is meaningless. Not going to read Maddow.

What is really telling are the comments that people like Harry Reid made in that time, staunchly defending the filibuster as "the last check we have against abuse of power.” They had made the unprecedented move to block even his appellate court nominees. Republicans could have changed the rules themselves but much of the party did not support it.



[quote name='mykevermin']So we're actually in agreement, but the difference is you think the rightward shift started earlier.[/quote]
Largely, except for the timing and the hypothetical impact on Reagan. Their influence on the party peaked in the 90s after Pat Buchanan sank Bush Sr, and I don't believe they've moved further to the right since. Go back and watch Buchanan's speeches, you could never say those things today to a national audience.



[quote name='mykevermin']Why would you say Huntsman wasn't serious? Can you say what about Huntsman made him "soft" on China? How would you compare that w/ Romney's extremist stance of putting us into economic and military ruin by trying to go to war with China?[/QUOTE]
Huntsman was little known on the national stage, one of the least known in the field, and he never got any play in the media. He never really set himself apart from Romney.

At the time Huntsman struck me as more of an appeaser of China, even Obama recognizes the threat they pose and has taken the appropriate steps to counter it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dafoomie']You could just as easily argue that the Republicans during Bush's tenure were less likely to bring bills to the floor knowing they would be filibustered, the graph is meaningless.[/quote]

Then try to "argue" it.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Not going to read Maddow.[/QUOTE]

It's cool, I understand. She's the one who voted against the disabilities treaty on the Senate floor, after all.
 
That business with the treaty is mind blowing. You had some of the heaviest of the GOP heavyweights signed off on it, and they still couldn't get the knuckleheads in their own party to agree to vote for it.

It's the sheer mindset of the republican party that disgusts me.
 
it's not the mind*set*, it's the plumb fucking numbskullery of it all. They're voting against it because it's from the UN, and AGENDA 21 MEANS GIVING OUR CHILDREN UP TO THE MEN IN THE BLUE HELMETS.

I don't disagree with them on ideas (well, I do, but I enjoy that kind of vigorous debate). I disagree with them because they're a bunch of flat-earth dumbfucks. Two more steps backwards in their aversion to science and the empirical world and they'll propose bloodletting instead of hospitals and witch trials instead of court.
 
Oh, geesh.

We had to have this horrible health care insurance "reform" bill go though because all the Republicans are of collective mind (ignoring the fact that the Democrats couldn't agree on the details within their own party).

Now this.

"lolz."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Oh, geesh.

We had to have this horrible health care insurance "reform" bill go though because all the Republicans are of collective mind (ignoring the fact that the Democrats couldn't agree on the details within their own party).

Now this.

"lolz."[/QUOTE]

Well the brand of Republicans is at an all time low. People are starting to realize why companies like Costco are infinitely better for staff and customers then union-busting, illegal immigrant exploiting, parttime loophole abusing companies like Walmart.

Obama won, Dems got their health bill and now they are playing hardball to tax the rich and it's going to happen.

So lulz indeed. :D
 
We already have a national disability act. Tying us into a global treaty that will only be ignored by most other countries is redundant and unnecessarily complicating our own legislation. The UN is a joke that soaks up our money and resources. I dislike it as much as I dislike the Federal Reserve system.
 
[quote name='egofed']We already have a national disability act. Tying us into a global treaty that will only be ignored by most other countries is redundant and unnecessarily complicating our own legislation.[/QUOTE]

for instance?
 
I have to wonder what it feels like to be in such deep denial. To share so many opinions with a group of people, but steadfastly insist you aren't one of them. It'd be like a dog having all the characteristics of a dog, but insisting it was a cat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top