The Goat Pen

Just followed Reagan's example, who raised taxes in 1982, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87. The difference? Reagan didn't advertise it as a tax increase.

exactly. so why would you say he didnt know he would have to raise taxes when elected?

Because he didn't. He thought the economy and the deficit would get better faster than it actually did. Therefore he had to adjust. Which is what I expect all Presidents to do, adjust to the situation.

I'm not buying the adjust thing on Obama though - at least not for the wars and Gitmo

They got to Obama and told him what he was and wasn't going to do. Who "they" are is the profiteers of war.

Wars didn't end, Patriot Act stayed, Gitmo stayed, no one went to jail over Wall St

The presidency from Bush to Obama wasn't a regime change, it was a handoff.

In many ways that's very true.

Last night's debate went well for Ron Paul. He's moved away from crazy uncle status and thru sheer persistence has established himself as a viable option

You guys should watch a Paul's answers in the debate

[youtube]3QJL6IiNYo[/youtube]

Owlman wrote:Just followed Reagan's example, who raised taxes in 1982, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87. The difference? Reagan didn't advertise it as a tax increase.

In the tax reform Act of 1986 there was a drastic reduction in the tax rates, but alot of loopholes were closed. I don't know if I'd argue that folks paid more as a result.

eCat wrote:I'm not buying the adjust thing on Obama though - at least not for the wars and Gitmo

They got to Obama and told him what he was and wasn't going to do. Who "they" are is the profiteers of war.

Wars didn't end, Patriot Act stayed, Gitmo stayed, no one went to jail over Wall St

The presidency from Bush to Obama wasn't a regime change, it was a handoff.

hence my problem with obama for not going left enough. and a solid forearm shiver to the dumbasses who continue to think of Obama as a socialist. He's as much of a socialist as augie is a hippy.

sardis wrote:

Owlman wrote:Just followed Reagan's example, who raised taxes in 1982, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87. The difference? Reagan didn't advertise it as a tax increase.

In the tax reform Act of 1986 there was a drastic reduction in the tax rates, but alot of loopholes were closed. I don't know if I'd argue that folks paid more as a result.

I thought that at the time. Then in 1997, I took a joint Business School/Law School class taught by a former aide to Joe Biden and a former aide to Jesse Helms. It was fascinating to learn that at the time they passed it (and called it revenue neutral), they knew that there would be a net increase in taxes from the closure of the loopholes. It was illuminating to me.

Saint wrote: hence my problem with obama for not going left enough. and a solid forearm shiver to the dumbasses who continue to think of Obama as a socialist. He's as much of a socialist as augie is a hippy.

I keep pointing out to conservatives that many on the left are upset with Obama. That calling him the most liberal President we have ever had just isn't the case.

Narrative trumps reality every time. It makes sense for his opponents to push it.

Without making an indirect comment on liberals/democrats, the GOP is all about ideology.

Most just want to be able to pull the lever for whatever candidate has an "R" besides his name, hear the guy rant about not raising taxes (thanks to Grover Norquist) and then expect them to continue to maintain the status quo as it has been for the last decade.

Voting for the "R" candidate absolves them of all responsibility for actually expecting fiscal responsibility, so as long as they vote against the liberal ideology presented by the nominee who must be a conservative because he tells everyone he is, then they've done their job as a true American.

Look at the conflicts they have to smooth over - they claim to be freedom loving but demand the government legislate their view of morality on all people, they demand lower taxes AND fiscal responsibility while maintaining the same level of government they currently receive. One the bright side, they've totally given up trying to defend the constitution versus pre-emptive strike and wars. They're totally comfortable now in saying they'll choose security over any legal or value system instilled by founding fathers.

and on the Grover Norquist crack,

I'm 100% in favor of not raising taxes and believe we are overtaxed, however I don't like the idea of any group holding an elected official hostage to a pledge or re-election as opposed to them doing what needs to be done for the greater good of the country.

Norquist announced last week that voting against continuing payroll tax cut (There have been net tax cuts under the Obama administration), is not a vote to increase taxes so Republicans who made the pledge should are free to vote against it continuing.

How convenient. Of course, not voting to continue the Bush taxes (even if just for the top 1%) is a vote to increase taxes. Again, convenient

Owlman wrote:Norquist announced last week that voting against continuing payroll tax cut (There have been net tax cuts under the Obama administration), is not a vote to increase taxes so Republicans who made the pledge should are free to vote against it continuing.

How convenient. Of course, not voting to continue the Bush taxes (even if just for the top 1%) is a vote to increase taxes. Again, convenient

That is surprising and sad.

He is a worthless fuck

He is a worthless fuck

No, he is just a Republican first. We seem to have lost all of the moderates in the Republican party, and most in the Democratic party. The art of compromise is an issue. Compromise to move your point of view forward is now punished by the voters in the protected districts. The YOU PROMISED thing, although most of a condidates statements are not in the form of a promise.

[youtube]b6kgS_AwuH0[/youtube]

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=AkG2Du8G7gHSv ... 24872.html

I'm assuming this contract is void if she gets sick

only if she signs the yellow legal notepad

Score one for the Republicans

"The White House said Tuesday it will veto a payroll tax cut extension being prepared by House Republicans, with President Obama insisting the bill also must raise taxes on the wealthy rather than cut government spending.

In a statement of policy, the White House said the bill, which the House will vote on later Tuesday, is a Republican effort at politics rather than a compromise deal.

"This debate should not be about scoring political points. This debate should be about cutting taxes for the middle class," the statement said.

Republicans say they have given Mr. Obama everything he wants in the bill, including an extension of this year's payroll tax cut, additional limited unemployment benefits and a continuation of full payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients.

But rather than imposing a tax increase to offset the costs, as Democrats wanted, the Republican proposed a freeze on spending for federal salaries."

When you rely too much on the rich for tax revenue, you put yourself at danger of steep reductions during a recession. A broader tax base with lower and middle also paying is more stable.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45650569