Comments on: Obama’s Problems

By: Gaius

Gaius — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:37:06 +0000

Sure you will, Yuri.

By: Mwalimu Daudi

Mwalimu Daudi — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:40:17 +0000

Yuri – you can always set a shining example by sending your 90% right now without waiting for the law. I am sure the government will not turn it down. And it will innoculate you against charges against being a "tax chickenhawk". Like Obama, I am here to offer salvation.

By: NortonPete

NortonPete — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:02:47 +0000

Charging higher taxes on the people in higher income levels is a form of Socialism.
A flat tax is the only democratic solution and should include lemonade stands and multi-national corporations.

By: Yuri

Yuri — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:58:10 +0000

Mwalimu Daudi: you don;t seem to believe me – but I promise you, I’ll pay 90% on my income in the highest bracket if that’s the law. I’ll also feel that it is fair.

By: martian

martian — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:03:54 +0000

Back on the Obama topic, every time I see him talk I keep thinking about the old saw – he’s all sizzle and no steak! Where is the substance? Chris Wallace interviewed President Bush on Fox New Sunday last week and one of his questions was (Not verbatim but as close as I can get) "Do you think Obama has to be more specific about the changes he keeps saying he represents?" President Bush’s answer was a classic, "Absolutley. After all what do we really know about him up to this point? That he wants to attack Pakistan and hug Ahmadinejahd! He hasn’t been specific about anything else." And as true as that is, that’s the trouble.
I keep thinking that people are going to wake up and ealize that, as Obama said himself the other day "It’s true, I give a good speech." But that’s all he does – talk. Where’s the beef, Barrie?!!!!!!

By: Mwalimu Daudi

Mwalimu Daudi — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:38:42 +0000

Yuri – just pay your 90%. You don’t want to be a "tax chickenhawk" – one who demands that others pay while avoiding it himself?

By: Yuri

Yuri — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:43:12 +0000

Mwalimu Daudi: sure, all of them (and hedge fund managers & all those). And me, for all income I make in excess of a million dollars . I was talking about the taxation rate in the top tax bracket, which was at 90% during Eisenhower presidency, you can look it up.

By: syn

syn — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:09:31 +0000

I’ll add billionaire Teresa Heinz Kerry who managed to pay only 12% of her wealth. How can the rich be taxed at 90% when they have the money to establish things like trusts to hide their wealth or hire high powered tax attorney /accountant to find way of avoiding taxation?
That said; by any standard we’re actually in an economic paradise because taxes were cut for all those who value hard work and hold decent work ethics regretfully the drum of depressing fake news is creating an atmosphere that we’re all on the brink of disaster.
It isn’t the rich who keep this country running it’s the bread and butter people.

By: Mwalimu Daudi

Mwalimu Daudi — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:58:57 +0000

Tax the rich at 90%? Like George Soros? And Ted Kennedy? And Hilly the Hun? And Ted Turner? And Michael Bloomberg? And Jay Rockefeller? And John Edwards? And Nancy Pelosi? And Harry Reid? And 99.99% of Hollywood? And 99.99% of the MSM airheads and executives? And any other rich liberal dolts that I have accidently left out?
I have a better idea. Anyone who calls for a 90% tax on "the rich" should themselves be taxed at 90%.

By: Yuri

Yuri — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:48:41 +0000

"bringing economic growth to a screeching halt? Or even send it reeling backwards."now that’s interesting. I though George W. just achieved that. We’re in recession or at least in the "screeching halt" phase, it seems. And no amount of tax cutting would help. What this country need, IMHO, is the population that does not feel entitled to good life (you have to earn it!) and large progressive taxes. Republicans like Eisenhower understood it and taxed the rich at 90%. The economic growth was just fine then. I think the brightest hope for this country is (these days mostly illegal Mexican) immigrants who seem to understand the value of hard manual labor and decent work ethics…

By: pst314

pst314 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:33:25 +0000

"To be for ‘change’ in general is childish. Everything depends on the details."–Thomas Sowell, in the essay collection "Ever Wonder Why".

By: K T Cat

K T Cat — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:33:56 +0000

Thanks for posting that link. I hadn’t seen it before. I keep thinking that McCain’s substance will triumph over Obama’s flash.

By: Gaius

Gaius — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:13:24 +0000

It’s an interesting article and really is something to think about.

By: Mwalimu Daudi

Mwalimu Daudi — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:58:19 +0000

Way off-topic(sorry, Gaius), but a tiny-bit related at least. Michael Makovsky at The Weekly Standard draws an interesting parallel between John McCain and Winston Churchill: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/739qqkcd.asp It may strike some as immodest to compare McCain to Churchill at this early point in time. Makovsky was not claiming that McCain was the next Churchill, but he was suggesting that McCain's steadfast devotion to national security is a major plus that should not be minimized. Given the determination of Obama and Hilly the Hun's single-minded devotion to carrying out al Qaeda's wishes in Iraq and elsewhere, I found it an interesting article to think about.