"I understand him wanting to promote his wife's candidacy. She's got a record that she can run on. But I think it's important that we try to maintain some -- you know, level of honesty and candor during the course of the campaign. If we don't, then we feed the cynicism that has led so many Americans to be turned off to politics."
Link.
२१ जानेवारी, २००८
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२० टिप्पण्या:
He's correct.
The Dem nomination process has the potential to get really, really ugly, so much so that the Republicans will only have to repeat whatever the loser has already said.
I'm lovin' it already.
BO: a holier than thou Chicago pol.
Bouncing off Bob's comment I wonder if Hillary and Bill would rather no Democrat one the Presidency if Hillary can't win. If Obama wins a new generation is started. If a Republican wins, Hillary is going to go for 2012.
Are they that ruthless?
For lack of a better place to put this feedback, I will put it here.
Ann, when you argued over the economic stimulus with Ed Garvey on the radio last Friday you argued against his plan to target stimulus to lower and middle income folks, on the basis that he is generally for such policies.
That struck me as shallow analysis then and still does. But in a post today Paul Krugman adresses stimulus issues and shows why targeting them to lower income folk will make it more effective economic policy.
Short answer: because they'll spend it. He also suggests direct government spending is another way to infuse some money into the economy.
Yes, many of us liberals do argue Bush uses tax cuts for the wealthy as an answer to everything. But we also make substantive arguments why that's a bad idea. And why a progressive tax structure is better public policy.
Simply saying "oh, you always like that" is not even an argument. Just shallow word play.
Bill and Hillary care nothing about the Country or the Democratic Party. They care about themselves. That's it.
How can Democrats forget what Bill Clinton did to the Democratic Party? Remember 1994?
Sad to say, but the Clinton style of campaigning ---say and do anything (even LIE!)to win --works.
Obama is up against ruthlessness. He is too sane and moral to win against the Clintons. He will lose.
And thus, Obama shrewdly makes it white man vs black man rather than man vs woman.
Well played, team O.
AlphaLiberal,
Bush cut my taxes too and I am not wealthy.
And another shrewd move by team O.
Kirbyjon Caldwell is no Al Sharpton to say the least - he introduced Bush at the Republican National Convention and offered the official benediction at both Bush inaugurations - and having him by Obama's side will create confusion among the Christian right if Obama wins the nomination.
My respect for Obama and his campaign continues to grow.
Once again, a neophyte's mistake. (As so often has been the case in Obama's campaign.) It could have been different, but it hasn't been so far.
Over the weekend the press was stating that Bill is doing what Hillary the candidate cannot; dirty work. Bill will make the accusations and do the oblique name calling. Hillary will take the high road. One pundit even claimed that it was a tactic to make Hillary look better instead of good.
Bill will take the flak, the criticism, and the heat. He is too well liked for any of it to stick for long and that is what is being counted on.
It may or may not be a good tactic or right or wrong. All that remains to be seen is if it is effective.
Yes, many of us liberals do argue Bush uses tax cuts for the wealthy as an answer to everything.
I’m not wealthy but I still received a tax cut under the Bush program. Look at it from the standpoint of someone wealthy. Say he/she has a tax cut that is worth $100K. That $100K most likely will be infused back into the economy in the form of material purchases or investment into stock which in turn provides a corporation additional capital to be used for R&D, expansion & new hires. While my paltry by comparison tax cut will also most likely be put back into the economy, it’s pretty logical which one has the bigger bang for the buck. The flipside is the wealthy are also more likely to have their income structured in such a way as to shelter as much income as possible from taxes.
But we also make substantive arguments why that's a bad idea. And why a progressive tax structure is better public policy.
Actually what would be better for lower income people is to structure tax cuts which encourage savings and investment rather than simply spending it. The money provides business with necessary capital and additionally provides the lower income earner with the ability to start accumulating an asset portfolio.
Look at it from the standpoint of someone wealthy. Say he/she has a tax cut that is worth $100K. That $100K most likely will be infused back into the economy in the form of material purchases or investment into stock which in turn provides a corporation additional capital to be used for R&D, expansion & new hires.
True enough. Unfortunately that $100K most likely will be infused into the Chinese economy, not the U.S. economy. Nobody wants to pay what Americans need to live decently on.
That's an excellent principle. Maybe he should start applying it to himself.
AlphaLiberal said...
"Ann, when you argued over the economic stimulus with Ed Garvey on the radio last Friday you argued against his plan to target stimulus to lower and middle income folks, on the basis that he is generally for such policies. That struck me as shallow analysis then and still does."
When you tout the same solutions to every potential problem, it robs you of your ability to say that you're responding with a solution tailored to any particular problem. It's the same problem that those on the left face when the policy responses they urge with regard to climate change happen to line up perfectly with the same policies that you've been advancing for years and years: in both cases, to moderates, it just looks like you have a dogmatic solution that you'll seize on any problem to justify the imposition of.
True enough. Unfortunately that $100K most likely will be infused into the Chinese economy, not the U.S. economy. Nobody wants to pay what Americans need to live decently on.
Well from that standpoint, I would argue that the lower income folks will do more to bolster the Chinese economy than the rich will. Lower income folks tend to shop at the Wal Marts and Meijer box stores versus the well heeled who don't.
If you pay income tax, your taxes are lower thanks to the Bush tax cuts. Anyone who says anything else is ignorant or lying.
Note that only about half of all Americans pay income tax at all, so ANY tax reduction automatically becomes a 'tax cut for the rich'. If you pay any income tax at all, look in the mirror. A 'rich' person is looking back.
Even if you don't pay taxes, there is a good chance you received a larger 'refund' via EITC thanks to the Bush tax cuts.
The best thing about Campaign 2008 is that it is a lot easier to tell people Bill Clinton is a lying, egomaniacal, ill-tempered, self-promoter. In the 90's, I would be dismissed as a dittohead (eventhough I don't listen to Limbaugh). Now I can say I heard those things from Daily Kos, Sen. Obama, Katrina Vanden Heuvel and most of the diarists at Huffington Post.
I haven't seen a liberal talking point change so quickly since 2004 when Howard Dean said he was for the first Gulf War, and liberals forgot they used to call it "The War of Blood for Oil"
I hate to say Krugman is right, but in this case he is. The purpose is a "quick stimulus" to the economy. A lower income individual has a long list of wants which would quickly dispose of the check and send it back to the economy. Higher income individuals are not going to change their spending because of an $800.00 check. It won't afford them anything on their want lists, and they already have purchased everything they would want costing that much or less. If the money were still in their checking account later in the year, they might go to NYC for a weekend of shows, but they can already afford this also. The key is for the spending to happen now to interrupt the down part of the cycle. Ironically, the joke is on the wealthier people because they will ultimately be the ones to pay the 145B back.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा