Many years ago I knew a manager named Bob. Bob was a great talker and was well liked. He interviewed for a high level management job at another company and got that position. He got that position with his good interviewing skills, but his management skills were not as good as he sounded. After a short while it became clear to his new company that Bob was in over his head and they had to let him go.
President Obama is Bob and for the good of the country we need to “Let him go”. I think it is clear from some of the speakers at the DNC that they realize that independent people understand this. We heard several speakers, some that did give good speeches like Michelle Obama, that were trying convince us that despite his failure so far that President Obama can do this job. For an incumbent that whole nation knows, this should not be necessary. We did not learn anything useful from testimonies about his capabilities or testimonies of what a great guy he is. But the convention did show us a few things.
First we learned Democrats are hypocrites, they tried all kinds of contortions to push false claims Paul Ryan lied in his speech, at their convention they told constant lies that are not even close to correct. Just from the first day USA Today reports on eight big lies. (1) One obvious example the pay gap claims that they wanted to make seem way more extreme to build their case that women can’t do it on their own without them. Reality is they can and will do nothing useful about the issue. To them it is just tool in their create division and anger strategy.
Next we learned that Democrats viewpoint is that “we belong to government”. President Obama tried to distance himself from this, but the reason they did not catch this issue before the convention is it is their view and they did not see the problem with the statement. Conventions are carefully planned so it is impossible to believe that Obama’s staff did not check out the video. It clearly shows the difference in the view of the role of government. The GOP view is that the people are the boss of the government and that government is to provide infrastructure and defend liberty. The current group of Democrats view is that we need masterminds in government to every aspect of our lives to achieve their collective goal of a progressive utopia.
Another lesson came when Peter Schiff was asking the convention attendees if they would support Obama if he wanted to ban corporate profits. (2) I understand the actions or beliefs of a few people at either convention are not representative of the party in general. But what is scary is how many people supported banning profits or at least capping them. Clearly this would be terrible economic policy and I doubt most Democrat politicians would support these ideas. Despite that what it shows is that the current Democratic Party has a hatred for the private sector and businesses, a belief also held by President Obama. Given President Obama’s anti-business attitude it is ridiculous to expect him to do anything to improve the economy or jobs.
We also learned that God and Israel are not popular among the base of the Democratic Party as they were rejected three times in a voice vote.(3) We already have seen that Obama has issues with support for Israel when he proposed going back 1967 borders. As far as religion is concerned he has launched attacks on the freedom of religion with the fight to compel Catholic organizations pay for things that go against their standards.
Then we have Bill Clinton. The Democratic Party is trying to manufacture a war on women to distract from their failure and lack of serious ideas, but their most popular leader, and about the only one that had any success, is most remembered for having sexual relations with an intern. If he were a Republican he would likely have been forced to resign for sexual harassment. To top it off they had Monica Lewinski’s Rabbi give the prayer after Clinton’s speech. As Dick Morris said he was like a lawyer defending a guilty client.(4) Maybe when he was complaining about the issues Obama inherited and failed to address, he should have apologized for his role in the collapse. After all his changes to the CRA are at the root of the crash and he worked with Republicans to repeal Glass-Stegall. But then Democrats have poor memories and seem to forget they had a major role in creating the crisis, as much or more than the GOP.
Bottom line is they said nothing new and the plan is do more of the same failed ideas. Ideas like reduce oil dependency by having terrible economy and lower unemployment by getting people to give up looking for work. They will get a bounce in the polls from the rhetoric, but it will come back out quickly as reality sets in with things like August Jobs report disaster.(5) On a positive note over the next two months the mistakes of this convention will make some good advertisements for the GOP. So now we wait to see if anything big changes during the debates.
2) http://www.examiner.com/video/peter-schiff-2
3) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/05/jerusalem_and_god_get_booed_at_dem_convention.html
5) http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/why-drop-unemployment-rate-tragic-144809610.html
Looking at the positives, the economy has not crashed, quite a few investors have recouped losses; jobs have been saved and there are positive job postings. The job hemorrhages of 2009-2010 have been slowed. We need bipartisanship in Congress. We need to cut spending where it won't hurt low and middle income wage earners. We need to take a methodical, thoughtful approach over a number of years. This crisis took a generation to build, it's not going to be solved in 3.5 years. I believe Barack Obama should have the opportunity for a second term, because I appreciate what he's been able to do so far. Thanks,
The fact the President accomplished as much as he did with such obstructionist opposition is a testament to his abilities as a leader.
Obama wants to: Raise the marginal income tax rates by more than 20% across the board by allowing the Bush tax cuts to sunset on December 31 of this year. That means that starting next year, your federal income tax rate will go up by over 20%. Raise the short term cap gains/dividends/interest tax rate to 45%, and raise the long term rate from 15% to 39.6%. Nearly double the corporate income tax rate, despite the fact that we already have the highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world. Romney wants to: Cut the marginal income tax rates by 20% across the board and make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everybody. And eliminate the loopholes, exemptions, and deductions used by high-income earners. Thus if Romney wins, after your fed income taxes go up thanks to Obama, Romney will lower them again right away. Eliminate the cap gains/dividends/interest tax for everyone with an AGI of less than $200k/yr, and set a universal rate of 15% for those with an AGI of more than $200k/yr. Get rid of the federal death/estate tax. Lower the corporate income tax rate to make us competitive with the rest of the word and level the playing field by eliminating corporate loopholes, subsidies, and welfare. So, which tax plan is more favorable to the prosperity of everyone in your honest opinion?
The Bush tax cuts were Test III of trickle-down economics, proving 3:3 that this experiment does not achieve anticipated job creation goals. Therefore I see no need to continue them at this time. Concerning the federal/estate tax, there is none for FYs 2011 and 2012 in Wisconsin as a result of 2010 legislation with a 2013 sunset (if not renewed). (Link: http://www.revenue.wi.gov/taxpro/news/110112.html). The federal estate tax applies to estates valued at $5,000,000 or more but would drop to $1,000,000 if legislation is not renewed (unlikely). The number of estates actually generating that amount of revenue is very small--a few thousand out of perhaps a million deaths per year. Thus eliminating the estate tax benefits the very wealthiest only. Also, remember that the largest corporations already pay little or no tax. Smaller businesses get deductions too. Since you're asking, Obama's ideas make more fiscal sense to me. Here's a helpful article: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/estate/how-many.cfm
"doesn't most of the Obama proposed rates impact people making more than $250,000 per year?" No - they impact everyone equally. Obama's proposed increases to the cap gains / dividends / interest tax include no exemptions, therefore, if you invest in the financial markets, which I know you do from your past postings, your taxes on this income will go up just like it will for those making above $250k/yr. "I don't think there will be much impact seen unless one is making substantially more than a quarter million dollars/year in income" Obamacare alone represents a huge new tax on the middle class, as the poor are covered by Medicaid and the rich are already insured, so what class do you think will be most effected by the individual mandate/tax and increases in premiums that we've already been experiencing over the last 3 years? "Concerning the federal/estate tax, there is none for FYs 2011 and 2012 in Wisconsin as a result of 2010 legislation with a 2013 sunset." You start out talking about federal estate/death tax and then bring up and link to the state estate/death tax. Comparing apples to oranges again Bren? Let's stick to federal taxes, as last I checked, a President had no direct power or influence over state tax rates. Not only does the federal exemptible amount drop, but the rate increases under Obama to 45%.
Obama's business tax increases, in addition to Obamacare, impact small business the hardest. The only reason that you prefer Obama's plan is because you're ignoring reality and spinning the truth, as is standard practice for you.
Bottom line: We'll all see higher taxes.
She claimed the U.S. Israeli Ambassador, Michael Chen, called Republicans’ policies "dangerous" to Israel. "I categorically deny that I ever characterized Republican policies as harmful to Israel,” Ambassador Michael Oren said in a written statement. “Bipartisan support is a paramount national interest for Israel, and we have great friends on both sides of the aisle." Debbie then claimed that her comments were "Mis-Represented" byt the conservative Washington Examiner. Unfortunately for Debbie, the reporter had recorded the comment. She has yet to respond and none of the media has reported on it (except Fox). http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/04/israeli-ambassador-denies-reported-remarks-on-israel-while-dnc-chair-calls/
(1) liberals really hate God (2) don't know geography when it comes to the Middle East, (3) John Kerry is a comedian, (4) Sandra Fluke is a whore, (5) Tammy Baldwin, while a great lesbian, is still a terrible speaker, and (6) Bill Clinton was indeed a better president than Obama will ever be.
I actually have darkened the doors of higher learning. But why oh why wasn't I smart enough to take the name of a tv doctor as my user name? It would have given me so much more credibility here on Patch. ; )
Irregardless of who wins the election, Obama will still be President until January 20, 2013.
The Wisconsin Department of Revenue link was provided as it is relevant to Wisconsin residents; I apologize if that wasn't clear. In the second article I linked to please review the estimated number of estates potentially impacted by even a $1 million starting point and of those, which would actually pay. This really isn't an issue that impacts middle and moderate income estates. No one wants to pay higher taxes but sometimes it has to happen. I'd pay another thousand dollars or so in taxes to keep important social programs in place. Quality of life and social stability.
You're a unique thinker.
By failing to compromise with the Republicans and extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone, Obama and the Dems will effectively cause the tax rates of all income tax payers to increase, exactly as Jay Sykes has laid out above. Clearly, Obama is putting party and ideology ahead of country by causing the tax cuts to expire for everyone, as the hurt of those tax increases would be most felt by the middle class.
http://news.yahoo.com/why-elizabeth-warren-wants-repeal-part-obamacare-163219090--abc-news-politics.html
Any discussion about debt that does not include a conversation about revenue is fantasy. It is pure fiction. It isn't a legitimate conversation - period.
What are you talking about? The last bill that the Dems offered on extending the tax cuts was Reid's S.3412, which passed the Senate on July 25, 2012. The extension was for incomes below $250k, not $1M. And that vote was nothing more than a waste of time and money anyway, as tax bills must originate in the House. If the Dems really wanted to extend the middle class tax breaks, all they have to do is sign off on the extension for all taxpayers of the Bush tax cuts, which passed the House multiple times now. It's Obama and the Dems that are refusing to extend the middle class tax cuts, simply because they want to increase taxes on higher income earners. They are apparently willing to put their ideology and party ahead of the middle class and the country.