Monday, November 10, 2008

Reaganism Undead?

Rasmassun says Obama ran like Reagan on taxes.

It's pretty true. Now, does he have the sense to cut them for business and capital gains during a recession. Or will he raise them like Herbert Hoover?

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Surveys of what the average idiot thinks will stimulate the economy is no substitute for actual policy with the actual data.

Reagan cut taxes on the top bracket from 70% to 28%, but raised payroll taxes and the effective tax rate on the bottom 40%.

He cut social programs to the bone (and declared ketchup a vegetable for school lunch programs), and built up the military with massive deficit spending.

Fortunately, Obama is nothing like Reagan, except in his campaigning ability. In terms of policy, they will be polar opposites.

November 10, 2008 at 9:36 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

That's OK, Barry O will have our kindergarteners able to identify proper genital anatomy and define masturbation thanks to sweeping education reform - sounds about right with the ketchup comment - so your serve iano.

Yes, Obama wants to punish those who made the dream to balance out society. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't I see the same thing on a Seinfeld episode where Kramer was discussing communism?

Clinton? Cut the military, calling it a 'peace dividend'. Who knows how much we could have saved without it's implementation...

Let's all remember, the GDP is still growing much faster than the federal deficit. This this, my friends, is what truly counts.

November 10, 2008 at 3:33 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama will have the kids picking up trash, recycling and respecting the planet.

November 10, 2008 at 5:04 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Who else thinks it funny how the Left keeps grasping to validate Obama by comparing him to great leaders of the past? JFK… MLK… Reagan… Lol…
His Marxism and Socialism make him a whole lot more like some others than like these.

November 10, 2008 at 9:12 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Not my kid.

November 10, 2008 at 9:44 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how sad that you expect your kid to disrespect the planet and be a wasteful, selfish person. one would hope she'd turn out better than you (it is such a low bar to hurdle). maybe she will disappoint you after all by turning out to be a decent human being despite your efforts. maybe a little (hopefully a lot) of mrs. spencerblog will rub off on her instead.

November 10, 2008 at 11:43 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Not my kids either! Obama will also try to standardize thoughts and speech by outlawing controversial speech.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

November 11, 2008 at 6:04 AM 
Anonymous Roy said...

C Scott, it's hard to believe you actually are a lawyer with comments like this.

BTW, did you lose a bet? What's with the Obama sign in front of your office?

November 11, 2008 at 9:23 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's a big difference between "controversial" speech and "hate" speech. Unfortunately, the only thing "controversial" to you is keeping your hate speech to yourself as opposed to sharing it with a world that has moved past your discredited ideology.

Maybe your kids will turn out tolerant (and have just been rolling their eyes at your crazy rantings when you weren't looking).

We'll pray for them.

November 11, 2008 at 10:20 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Umm, Roy, Obama has a record of quashing speech with which he disagrees. As all Radical Liberals do.
The petty counter attacks on those who dare ask legitimate questions about Obama’s Marxism, as you display here, are a tired petty Lib ploy. The election is over, mkay. Obama’s a big boy, let him defend himself now.

November 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"let him defend himself now"?

how about waiting for him to make a mistake before attacking him?

November 11, 2008 at 1:25 PM 
Anonymous r said...

How about waiting for him to do something before blindly defending him?

November 12, 2008 at 11:39 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How about waiting for him to do something before blindly defending him?"

Huh? You're making even less sense than usual.

The defense was in response to an unwarranted attack. How could it precede a false attack for something he didn't do?

Of course, this is the same Bush/Cheney that got us to "defend" ourselves against a country that wasn't planning to attack us.

r, you are as sharp as a bowl of jello.

November 12, 2008 at 1:31 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home