Obama ad in Indiana, McCain general election ad - Page 3 - Political Forum

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-29-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by francois60

Clinton also cut spending by the same amount he raised taxes, and kept spending increases below the rate of economic growth for most of the rest of his Presidency. then he passed a tax cut which nearly erased the 1993 tax increase.

Your answer to my earlier question about Clinton tax increases seemed pretty solid, but now it seems that you've just refuted the facts that you listed with your comment above.

francois60 · 03-29-2008, 11:16 PM

Your answer to my earlier question about Clinton tax increases seemed pretty solid, but now it seems that you've just refuted the facts that you listed with your comment above.
__________________

In what way? If you are saying he fulfilled his promise to give a middle class tax cut, I'm not sure doing it in his second term really counts.

However, he did admit a few years later that he thought he raised taxes too much in 1993, which I think reflects well on him.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-29-2008, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by francois60

In what way? If you are saying he fulfilled his promise to give a middle class tax cut, I'm not sure doing it in his second term really counts.

However, he did admit a few years later that he thought he raised taxes too much in 1993, which I think reflects well on him.

If you can use a tax increase against him, then you have to use a tax cut for him. That's just being objective. Can't use proof only when it helps your case. One must use proof all the time, or not at all.

francois60 · 03-30-2008, 01:01 AM

Well, I'm very pro-Bill Clinton, so yes, I credit him with that tax cut. And I'm not even too hard on him over the tax increase because he combined it with spending cuts which reduced the tax burden over the long haul.

But keep in mind that Democrats usually run promising middle class tax relief and raising taxes only on the rich. Then they get into office and we find that rich people are anyone making over $30,000.

A link I posted earlier was a budget resolution that Obama voted for which rescinds all the Bush tax cuts except for the 10% bracket, the marriage penalty repeal, and the child tax credit.

That means that if you have more than $7000 in taxable income, you will see a tax increase.

His website says one thing, but his votes say another.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-30-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by francois60

Well, I'm very pro-Bill Clinton, so yes, I credit him with that tax cut. And I'm not even too hard on him over the tax increase because he combined it with spending cuts which reduced the tax burden over the long haul.

But keep in mind that Democrats usually run promising middle class tax relief and raising taxes only on the rich. Then they get into office and we find that rich people are anyone making over $30,000.

A link I posted earlier was a budget resolution that Obama voted for which rescinds all the Bush tax cuts except for the 10% bracket, the marriage penalty repeal, and the child tax credit.

That means that if you have more than $7000 in taxable income, you will see a tax increase.

His website says one thing, but his votes say another.

I've been checking out how much people save from the Bush tax cuts on this Bush tax cut calculator. The Bush Tax-Cut Worksheet (Tax Guide: Personal Finance) at SmartMoney.com

I'll take it as a fact that the Obama-endorsed plan does amount to a repeal of some Bush tax cuts that went to the middle class. However, I don't think Obama does propose a middle class tax cut: Obama tax plan: $80 billion in cuts, five-minute filings - CNN.com

However, he may want to take credit for it, and not let Bush have the credit with his tax cut. That's what he did with the ethics reform bill. He got the credit himself and did not let McCain get in on it. That's why McCain wrote him that nasty letter.

lol

francois60 · 03-30-2008, 01:07 PM

That was more a case of Obama failing to be a leader. He wanted to put his name on a Mccain bill like Feingold and Kennedy had done, but Harry Reid wanted a strictly Democratic bill so told Obama to back off. Obama dutifully did so, and I'm sure he'll do his best to avoid making waves as President. I don't think I've ever seen a more conflict-averse person run for President before, at least not since Jimmy Carter.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-30-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by francois60

That was more a case of Obama failing to be a leader. He wanted to put his name on a Mccain bill like Feingold and Kennedy had done, but Harry Reid wanted a strictly Democratic bill so told Obama to back off. Obama dutifully did so, and I'm sure he'll do his best to avoid making waves as President. I don't think I've ever seen a more conflict-averse person run for President before, at least not since Jimmy Carter.

I'd have to say that this is a pro-McCain biased comment. I don't see how one can fail to be a leader and get everything one wanted and needed to get (their name on a law, and the law passed).

francois60 · 03-30-2008, 02:32 PM

Of course it's pro-McCain. McCain has take far more risks, led on far more issues, and has a long history of being out in front of the major issues of our time. He's been a leader since he was in his 20s.

Obama is known for keeping his head down and not offending anyone. Is there anything he has ever led on or taken political risks for?

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-30-2008, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by francois60

Of course it's pro-McCain. McCain has take far more risks, led on far more issues, and has a long history of being out in front of the major issues of our time. He's been a leader since he was in his 20s.

Your comment was Pro-McCain biased. It's all good and well to justify a bias, but your comment about Obama passing ethics reform without McCain's involvement as being a failure of leadership remains biased and absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by francois60

Obama is known for keeping his head down and not offending anyone. Is there anything he has ever led on or taken political risks for?

Obama is known for being a senator for two years. He got his ethics reform passed, and worked on other commendable things in those years (improving care at military hospitals and funding initiatives to secure loose shoulder-fired missiles and loose nukes around the world). One would not expect an enormous amount of risk-taking in one's first two years in the Senate.

francois60 · 03-30-2008, 11:03 PM

Your comment was Pro-McCain biased. It's all good and well to justify a bias, but your comment about Obama passing ethics reform without McCain's involvement as being a failure of leadership remains biased and absurd.

Obama passed nothing. He joined his party and voted the way he was expected to. He took no risks, he didn't lead. He got in late, because the Democrats had already started to write the bill while he was playing footsie with McCain.

Obama is known for being a senator for two years. He got his ethics reform passed, and worked on other commendable things in those years (improving care at military hospitals and funding initiatives to secure loose shoulder-fired missiles and loose nukes around the world). One would not expect an enormous amount of risk-taking in one's first two years in the Senate.

One would expect it in a Presidential candidate, however. If he wanted to run for President, he should have an accomplishment or three to run on. All he has is a good speech.