AND EACH AND EVERY DAY, THEY GIVE AMERICA MORE UPDATES ON HIS SEX-REHAB STAY, HIS WIFE'S PLANS FOR DIVORCE, AND THE DATES AND TOURNAMENTS HE WILL PLAY IN
OBAMA HAS BEEN IN OFFICE FOR OVER A YEAR NOW, AND THIS SAME PRESS STILL CANNOT FIND ANY OF HIS CHILDHOOD FRIENDS OR NEIGHBORS
OR LOCATE ANY OF OBAMA'S COLLEGE PAPERS OR GRADES
OR HOW HE PAID FOR A HARVARD EDUCATION OR WHICH COUNTRY ISSUED HIS VISA TO TRAVEL TO PAKISTAN IN THE 1980'S OR BARRY SORETORO OR EVEN MICHELLE OBAMA'S PRINCETON THESIS ON RACIST, THEY JUST CAN'T SEEM TO FIND THEM.
YET THE PUBLIC STILL TRUSTS THAT SAME PRESS TO GIVE THEM THE WHOLE TRUTH !
TRULY REMARKABLE !!!
I am sure the liberals on this blog will have some bullshit excuse on this one, just like they do on everything else
7 comments:
A rather paranoid post, doncha think?
I know you didn't vote for him, Al, but the people did by a comfortable margin. Chances are, they'll do it again in a couple of years...
how much do you want to loose on that bet...lets start with the gulf states...how do you think the black are feeling down there, and by the time they figure out the new tax structure in this country the man is toast...in regards to the post...sounds like it is right on target
We gotta bet!
Al of Rant has previously proposed a dinner where the Morning Coffee could break bread and spread the love.
Loser buys the first round?
Al - Obama will lose the gulf states in any event, save for Florida. In two years we will be able to ask Reagan's question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" and I expect the answer will be a resounding "Yes!" November 2008 comparisons are not tough to beat, nor is the Republican legacy in general. The Dems simply need to remind the electorate, which is famous for it's short memory.
Jim - Why do we have to wait two years for dinner? Lets get together this fall - I'll buy the first round having conceded that the Dems will lose seats in November (though not control of either chamber).
You truly think the American people will think they are better off in two years...do not think so...just look at all the tax's that are coming EVETONES way..middle class or any class is going to get hit with a lot of tax's...hard for me to believe that you or anyone can think you can spend or tax your way out of debt...been tried all over the world and does not work..Greese/Spain/Europe etc etc. when people have more money they will spend more money, and the government will have more revenue...smaller government and less spending is the answer along with lower tax rates. lower the corporate tax and you will have more corportations coming to this country to produce their goods, which will result in more jobs and lower employment rates...com'on Baxter you have to be able to see the light...let me give you this example. take 100 pennies and put them on a table. You want to tax at 60+% I want to tax at 25%...you get 40 pennies I get 75 pennies...so now who is going to be able to spend more money on things and produce more revenue for the government...take some time to think this over and you might get it right
Oh, I see Al! Thats why Bush and Reagan had those surpluses after their tax cuts and Clinton had those massive deficits after his 1993 tax hikes. Now I see!
Your supply side theory is completely discredited, Al. Pure garbage. As GHW Bush said, "Voodoo economics."
We need to reconcile our taxes (lowest in the western world) and spending. And we need to pay down a lot of debt. Simple as that. That will mean a lot higher taxes and significant, cost saving entitlement reform.
By the way, Al, your straw man argument of 60%+ tax rates is bumpkiss. We are merely returning to Clinton's top tax rate of 39.6%. Thats enough on the income tax side.
I advocate significant additional VAT and carbon taxes as expressed earlier. I would treat dividends as expenses for corporations, thus eliminating the double taxation of corporations and dividends. Thats about a $100B tax cut per year. FWIW the corporate taxes don't add up to much and thanks to their powerful lobbying, they pay about 75% less than they did as a percentage of GDP in the 1950's.
Post a Comment