Its better to fight for a politically popular position at election time rather then 2 years before
Obama tax cuts
- Thread starter Mav88
- Start date
Its better to fight for a politically popular position at election time rather then 2 years before
The most politically popular position you can have is to have a growing economy and a shrinking deficit. Setting up strawmen is not a viable long term strategy.
I guess you libs don't really care about real results, just political power and emotional satisfaction.
btw, I thought the president's job was to actually do what is best now for the country and not what is best for elections in 2012.
I guess you libs don't really care about real results, just political power and emotional satisfaction.
btw, I thought the president's job was to actually do what is best now for the country and not what is best for elections in 2012.
The right wing white men are on the run...they are scared.
Why?
Because they are slowly losing their control of this country.
They are reactionary in nature, not progressive. So as the country progresses toward a melting pot in which the melted have more opportunity to have power...the white men freak out...because they know they may be under the thumb of minority influences.
Let the right wing white men move to Sweden...wait, Sweden is socialist...
LOL!!!
Why?
Because they are slowly losing their control of this country.
They are reactionary in nature, not progressive. So as the country progresses toward a melting pot in which the melted have more opportunity to have power...the white men freak out...because they know they may be under the thumb of minority influences.
Let the right wing white men move to Sweden...wait, Sweden is socialist...
LOL!!!
Odumbo is a huge violater of that concept... as was Bush.
It's like Odumbo wants to be president for (a) minorities and (b) Leftists... and TO HELL with the rest of the country.
Did you also think the congress's job was to do what was best for the country? Or is it just a rumor that their only goal is to have a republican president in 2012.
What you don't seem to grasp about politics, is that both sides think their way is best for the country...so Obama and the dems think that what is best for the country is Obama in 2012.
Is either side right? Nope, both sides are the the other side of the same coin.
At least Obama is actually making attempts at bipartisanship, something the dogmatic refuse to do...because they are convinced to a man that their way is the only way...and if they can't get their way, they will do whatever they can to obstruct progress.
The republican party is the regressive reactionary party. They think we can return to 100 years ago...you know, the good old days when white men were in full control.
That isn't a realistic vision, but that is their vision...
Most of the progress in this country has been at the hands of the progressives, not the regressives.
What you don't seem to grasp about politics, is that both sides think their way is best for the country...so Obama and the dems think that what is best for the country is Obama in 2012.
Is either side right? Nope, both sides are the the other side of the same coin.
At least Obama is actually making attempts at bipartisanship, something the dogmatic refuse to do...because they are convinced to a man that their way is the only way...and if they can't get their way, they will do whatever they can to obstruct progress.
The republican party is the regressive reactionary party. They think we can return to 100 years ago...you know, the good old days when white men were in full control.
That isn't a realistic vision, but that is their vision...
Most of the progress in this country has been at the hands of the progressives, not the regressives.
He did do what was best.It was best not to let the tax cuts expire on the middle class even if that meant extending the cuts for the rich temporarily
The Republicans were going to let the tax cuts expire for the middle class if the rich didn't get them.Thats playing games.
Speaking of games, here is a fine example at how taxing the rich solves the problems liberals claim:
Maryland's Mobile Millionaires
Income tax rates go up, rich taxpayers vanish.
MARCH 12, 2010
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn is the latest Democrat to demand a tax increase, this week proposing to raise the state's top marginal individual income tax rate to 4% from 3%. He'd better hope this works out better than it has for Maryland.
We reported in May that after passing a millionaire surtax nearly one-third of Maryland's millionaires had gone missing, thus contributing to a decline in state revenues. The politicians in Annapolis had said they'd collect $106 million by raising its income tax rate on millionaire households to 6.25% from 4.75%. In cities like Baltimore and Bethesda, which apply add-on income taxes, the top tax rate with the surcharge now reaches as high as 9.3%âfifth highest in the nation. Liberals said this was based on incomplete data and that rich Marylanders hadn't fled the state.
Well, the state comptroller's office now has the final tax return data for 2008, the first year that the higher tax rates applied. The number of millionaire tax returns fell sharply to 5,529 from 7,898 in 2007, a 30% tumble. The taxes paid by rich filers fell by 22%, and instead of their payments increasing by $106 million, they fell by some $257 million.
On the federal level there is no where to run to.Even if they leave the country they still have to pay US federal taxes for years