Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Govs to Obama: Let's Party Like It's 1999

The nation's governors, led by our own Ed Rendell, will meet with President Elect Barack Obama today to ask for federal help in supplying them with billions of dollars for infrastructure improvements and medicaid payments for the poor.

Just where will Obama get the money remains, well, pretty clear.

The governors are finding it hard to raise taxes in their states. It's hard, you know, politically and procedurally. But they want the money anyway so they beg Washington.

Instead of the governors asking their citizens to cough up for themselves and their neighbors, they want Obama and his Democratic friends in Washington to run up the federal deficit or raise taxes.

Obama's problem: You can't cut taxes for 95 percent of taxpaying Americans and spend the kind of money the governors are talking about without running huge deficits. Which means, Obama isn't going to actually cut taxes for 95 percent of taxpayers. He won't and he never meant to.

Four years from now some clever Republican is going to ask the voters if they got the tax break Obama promised them during the 2008 campaign and if they're better off than they four years ago.

But voters are a forgiving lot. They will look at Obama's kind eyes and confident smile and they will want to stay the course.


Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Obama's going to have it tough in his first year - EVERYONE will have a hand out (I've requested a $5 Billion Bailout as well).

I watched the Mayor Nutter speech about the budget cuts the other week. You can't blame Nutter for the budget deficits that carried over into the first 4-5 months of his administration, but to propose as a solution to "Go to the President-Elect and ask for help" as the answer was pathetic.

December 2, 2008 at 9:15 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Did anyone really believe that either Obama or McCain would lower taxes? Bush 1-Read my lips. No new taxes. Bush 2- we wont be into nation building. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that when politicians campaign, they tend to tell people what we want to hear. I didnt vote for Obama because I thought he would lower my taxes. Quite the opposite. I expect my taxes to rise. I voted for Obama because I think he will make better use of my tax dollars than the Republicans. Steve- good luck with your bailout. If you get it, drinks are on you.

December 2, 2008 at 9:50 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire, then implements the Obama tax cuts. The Obama cuts target the 95% instead of the top 5%. Without funding the wasteful war in Iraq, more money becomes available.

If McCain had been elected, he's be picking the architects of the current recession.

December 2, 2008 at 10:21 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Obama is going to make better use of your increased taxes? What does that mean? Obama wants people to believe that he can make us economically prosperous, however no government has ever created wealth. It is up to the people to drive the engine of the economy. You don't make poor people rich by making rich people poor.

Lastly Bob, why don't you just donate some of your money to the government since you believe that government is better able to spend your money than you.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

December 2, 2008 at 10:58 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

bob, how is raising taxes going to help at all? if the government is able to Spend $700B (and growing) on the banks, close to a trillion on Iraq, with plenty left over to contemplate bailing out other industires (e.g. Big three), what makes you think they need additional capital to foster spending? Let the President-Elect balance the book, strategically decide what kind of spending will foster growth and stability and be off with it.

Keep taxes low, that's how money reaches the people - let them spend or save. Odds are higher that they'll spend and, thus, the economic cycle continues. The government benefits in the long run from additional spending collecting into tax dollars.

December 2, 2008 at 11:55 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott & Steve - In case you havent heard the news, this country has a huge defecit. We borrowed money from China to help pay for Katrina. We are bailing out banks, credit card companys, mortgage companies, and probably the auto industry. States and cities are now asking for handouts. We are fighting wars on two fronts. You guys were big supporters of going into Iraq. Who do you think is going to pay for this mistake? You think its free?
In case you missed my POINT -It was this- Regardless of party, when a pol says he wont raise my taxes, I don't believe him! Do you disagree with that point? Either one of you? Because if you do, I have a bridge in Chester I'd like to sell you.

December 2, 2008 at 12:44 PM 
Anonymous r said...

The government benefits in the long run from additional spending collecting into tax dollars.

This is the principle difference in how Socialist Libs view taxation and finance as opposed to normal smart folks. See, the Libs want to take the money NOW for immediate gratification of wealth spreading –much like impatient children they are in this simplistic way- and don’t want to wait for proven free market factors to pay off.
The best thing they could do now in this environment would be to cut all taxes and freeze all spending. But that's not what they'll do and instead they will do the oposite, as Liberalism "solutions" are always exactly backwards.

December 2, 2008 at 1:13 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Bob and Anon:

First, both of you people are clueless about fiscal policy. Second, come out of the closet Anon and tell us who you are.

We absolutely have a spending problem in this country, and it is the result of the pols. President Bush was stupid for not putting an end to useless spending, but he, like Reagan, was forced to agree to pay for liberal social programs in exchange for getting funding for the Iraq war (just one example).

Now that the democrats control both house of Congress, it has only gotten worse, since as a matter of law, all revenue and spending (appropriation) bills come from the House, and the ones that come from the Senate are sent back (I think they call it blue slipping).

So now we have government taking over whole areas of the economy with our money, and we get to say nothing about it. I pray to God that this spending frenzy come to an end, but I think that we are out of miracles at this point.

Lastly, if Obama registers a lower approval rating than President Bush, will you be outraged?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

December 2, 2008 at 1:26 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I do, how much bigger is the GDP growing above the deficit?

December 2, 2008 at 3:00 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott- I admit Im not an expert on fiscal policy, but as usual, you avoid answering my questions. When a politician says he wont raise taxes, do you take him for his word? You dont have to be a genius or an expert on fiscal policy to know that when a president takes you into war, its going to be expensive, and someone has to pay for it. Simple as that.

December 2, 2008 at 3:36 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama is going to make better use of your increased taxes?"

Wrong again. He's replacing the Bush tax cuts that were targeted toward the rich, to tax cuts targeted to the middle class. For those of us making less than $200,000, there won't be a tax increase.

The problem with the spending policy is spending too much on useless war. Imagine the economic strength we would have without the war.

December 2, 2008 at 6:57 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Anon - You are basicaly making my point. That being, Obama will make better use of our tax money. I understand his promise of giving a tax cut to the middle class and upping taxes on the over $200,000 folks, but don't expect it to happen any time soon. He has already backed off removing the Bush tax breaks on the rich. He now is saying he might just let the time limits run out instead of an immediate change. And who can predict what the future might bring. What if theres another Katrina or 9/11? Unless a politician can predict the future, he can never say for sure that you wont pay more in taxes during his term.

December 3, 2008 at 7:59 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Oh, stop with the 'Obama tax cuts' BS. Only the mindless and children still believe that lie. His increased spending will outstrip any real tax cuts. All thinking people know this.

December 3, 2008 at 11:13 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...


Your economic plan is great. Increase the taxes on the people that make over $200,000.00 and you will stifle economic growth. Consider that the people he is targeting are people like me who employ others, and that if you keep raising my taxes something will have to go in terms of an employee or office equipment purchases, and lots of other stuff. The best way for government to increase tax revenues is to increase economic activity which can be achienved by reducing taxes and other costs of doing business. You know that there is another push to increase taxes on corporations, and those added costs get passed on to the end user of the product. Bad and short sighted economic policy.

Bob, did you know the following:

The top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of all income taxes (increase of 2%since Bush took office)

The top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes; and

The top 25% pay 86% of all income taxes (up from 84% when Bush took office)

Bob, is that fair? The bottom 40% of ALL wage earners pay nothing. It is a fact that reducing taxation increases revenue, and it is also a fact that wealthiest Americans pay the bulk of all income taxes. My point is that you will choke off any growth if you redistribute wealth. You can't make the poor rich by making the rich poor - remember that.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

December 3, 2008 at 4:34 PM 
Anonymous Aaron Proctor said...

I can't wait until January 20th when it's going to rain money from the air and gas will be 30 cents a gallon.


- AP

December 3, 2008 at 5:22 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Except in the universe where McCain/Palin got elected. On that Earth, the economy crashed to zero and every American killed themselves.

The only problem we have now in this universe, even bigger than the economy, is the witless whining of the losers.

December 3, 2008 at 7:50 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott - You're bringing tears to my eyes! Raise Scotts taxes and he'll have to cut back to buying only one assault weapon per month!
Hey, its Christmas! Maybe Gil can get the times to rerun your 2007 Christmas letter to the editor "Arm Yourself". Who knows. It could be the next "yes Virginia there is a Santa Clause" Or maybe you could get religion, and beat them swords into plow shares. Better yet, we keep taxes just the way they are now, and you sell your arsenal, and donate the money to faith based charities! Personally, I like the idea of giving a tax break to those who opposed the invasion of Iraq, and raising the taxes on the fools that supported the invasion.

Seriously though, I remember the point that Warren Buffet was trying to make - "Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent."
With Coporate avoidance of taxes, greedy CEO's, and slick accountants that know all the loopholes, I'm willing to bet that Buffet knows what he's talking about.

And remember Scott, we are our brothers keeper.

December 3, 2008 at 8:46 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, I bet Scott would shoot Santa coming down the chimney (as an intruder), then shoot the reindeer for the meat. Finally, he would keep all the violent toys in Santa's bag for himself and his kids (possession is 9/10 ths of the law), and sue the manufacturers of the non-violent toys for promoting pacifism.

December 3, 2008 at 11:02 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Personally, I like the idea of giving a tax break to those who oppose spreading the wealth to the lazy ingrates and raising the taxes of the fools that support such things.

December 4, 2008 at 1:23 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

personally, you want to reward the people that have been hoarding tax breaks while making people like you pay more. you must really be a masochist.

December 4, 2008 at 3:59 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Me? You’re the one who always votes against your own best interests by blindly pressing the Donkey button.

You’re just backwards like that. Try thinking for yourself sometime. I mean, who else would give Obama $250 more dollars that he didn’t need so late in the game? Lol…

December 4, 2008 at 5:24 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Anon: Hoarding tax breaks - what are you talking about? What about the 40% of Americans who don't pay taxes, are they hoarding the checks, from taxes I pay, that they get from our government? You are a dope, and sound alot like Dopey Diano.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

December 5, 2008 at 6:24 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...


Lost in the discussion about Buffett is that he is taxed on capital gains, and not income. There is a big difference. Don't let that fact get in the way of your lib talking points.

Also, although I don't remember the exact number, I do recall VP Cheney receiving a refund a couple of years ago for 2-3 million dollars. There was outrage amongst the ignorant masses concerning this because people believed that Cheney was getting something he wasn't entitled to. Left out of the discussion was that he and his Wife paid taxes on the book royalties that they donated to charity (about 7-8 million dollars), thus refunding him the taxes he had already paid, without interest. Cheney and his wife should be heralded as great Americans for their generosity.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

December 5, 2008 at 6:35 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The rich get deeper tax breaks than the poor. Those 40% are still paying sales taxes, real estate taxes, sewer taxes, school taxes, etc. NOBODY is paying zero taxes. If you think the poor have it so great, be more Christ-like and give away most of your possessions and live in poverty, and stop "suffering" with your wealth and tax burden.

The 15% capital gains tax rate is a disgraceful gift to the wealthy (any unintentional capital gains benefit to the middle class could be replaced by an equivalent benefit that was not geared to the rich).

December 5, 2008 at 11:22 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...


I will give up my wealth when you give up yours. People like me take risk, produce wealth, employ others, buy stuff, and pay a hell of alot more in taxes than people that pay NO income taxes. My illustration was INCOME taxes, which is what Hussein Obama said he was going to raise. As to the capital gains tax, it is not a disgrace because there is RISK that people take to realize capital gains. If Buffett wants to be patriotic like Biden, he can send extra money into the government, but he doesn't. I doubt you do either. In fact, democrats as a whole give far less than their conservative counterparts. I made that illustration too with the Cheney tax REFUND that outraged nitwits like you.

Keep spewing the lib talking points, as a society under Hussein Obama's vision is not a society that is free or prosperous. You can't make poor people rich by making rich people poor.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

December 5, 2008 at 12:23 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) You can make poor people poorer by making rich people richer.

2) You can make rich people richer without making poor people richer.

This Christmas Eve, pay attention when the three ghosts visit you and stop being Pro Scrooge.

"there is RISK that people take to realize capital gains" that is NOT available to poor people without investment income. The top 1% makes (and grows) their money through investments and capital gains (and tax accounts, shelters and dodges to avoid paying their share). Do you support a low tax rate for casino gamblers as well?

December 5, 2008 at 2:47 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Dave sure has been programmed to hate those evil rich folks. Envy is an ugly thing.

Those 40% are still paying sales taxes, real estate taxes, sewer taxes, school taxes, etc. NOBODY is paying zero taxes.

Right. And this is why Obama's lie about reducing taxes is, well, a lie. While income taxes may be reduced for some lazy folks, NOBODY is going to be paying less with a Socialist like him in office.

December 5, 2008 at 7:02 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Alright Anon:

What is the incentive to put your own money at risk if the government is going to take a much higher percentage of what you earn as compared to someone who doesn't take risk?

How much should government tax "rich" people to make you feel like they ar paying their fair share?

December 6, 2008 at 10:46 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whatever rate is needed to pay for stuff like the war in Iraq, roads, bridges, schools, etc.

The society we want/need requires some government budget, and for the citizens to contribute what they are able.

The rich have invested and made money in the past with higher tax rates, so there is no valid evidence that the rich will stop investing. The incentives are still there, and maybe they'll invest even more or just invest more wisely with the higher rate.

15% for the richest is not fair when most taxpayers are paying more than 25%. The rich don't have to worry about making their rent or feeding their kids or paying for insurance.
Ordinary taxpayers can't set up dummy shell companies in the Bahama's either to dodge their taxes.

December 7, 2008 at 12:49 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Scott - You said "What is the incentive to put your own money at risk if the government is going to take a much higher percentage of what you earn as compared to someone who doesn't take risk?" That's an easy one to answer. To make more money. More specificaly, to make more money without laboring for it. Why should that money be taxed at a lower rate than the money that I bust my a** for every day? How about the kid that inherits a ton of money and investments, and never has to work? His income comes from capital gains. Why should he pay 17% and a blue collar guy like me has to pay 30%. Is that fair?

The payoff for these people is that they dont have to work for the money. Why should they get a tax break in addition to that?

December 7, 2008 at 8:17 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

spread the wealth, why do I feel like I'm reading "Animal Farm" all over again?

December 8, 2008 at 4:06 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Steve - maybe you can answer my question. WHy should a working guy get taxed at 30% for his hard labor, and an investor get taxed only 17% because he made a good investment? Or like I said before, how about the rich guy that never had to work a day in his life because daddy left him a bunch of good investments. Wht should he pay a lower rate than me or you? Whats fair about that?

December 9, 2008 at 9:50 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Right, S.
The simple ones like Bob have been programmed to covet others' money as though they are entitled to it. They're not. And such envy is ugly. They have been brainwashed to see the "rich" -who drive this country, btw, as bad and they misplace their sympathies with the lazy eternally "needy" ingrates.

The truth is the "evil rich" already pay far more than their "fair share" while consuming the least sevices and programs.

December 9, 2008 at 11:28 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home