PDA

View Full Version : Obama tracks to the right?


30ashopper
08-15-2008, 12:27 AM
If this guy tracks right a couple more steps, he'll have to change that little letter on the side of his name to an (R). :cool:


HONOLULU (Reuters) - Barack Obama's presidential campaign said on Thursday a potential hike in payroll taxes for wealthy Americans under an Obama administration would not occur for 10 years while taxes on dividends and capital gains would be capped at 20 percent.

The new details, laid out in an opinion piece by the Illinois senator's advisers and on a conference call with reporters, added specificity to a key economic policy area that has drawn criticism from Republican presidential rival John McCain and Wall Street.

Obama previously had not given a timeline for a plan he says he would consider to increase payroll taxes for people making $250,000 or more annually. The increase would be used to shore up the U.S. Social Security program.

McCain, an Arizona senator who promises to support lower taxes, says Obama would raise taxes to fund social programs he has promised to support during his campaign.

The Republican's advisers said Obama's new tax details represented one more in a series of policy shifts by the Democrat, while the Obama campaign said his plans would represent a net tax cut greater than that proposed by McCain.

"Sen. Obama believes that one of the principal problems facing the economy today is the lack of discretionary income for middle-class wage earners," Obama economic policy director Jason Furman and senior economic adviser Austan Goolsbee wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

"That's why his plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000 -- not income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend or payroll taxes."

Goolsbee and Furman said an increase in payroll taxes for wealthier Americans would be delayed for at least 10 years.

They also said the top capital-gains rate for Americans making over $250,000 a year would be 20 percent. Obama had said previously that dividend and capital-gains taxes could increase to as much as 28 percent.

SHIFT TO THE MIDDLE?

McCain's campaign said Obama's positions on taxes kept shifting over time and his past record was telling of what he would do as president.

"The reality of Barack Obama's record is the following: he has voted to raise taxes 94 times in his short time as a senator," said Carly Fiorina, the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard and a top economic adviser to McCain.
She said she was "mystified" at how the Obama campaign calculated he would lower taxes more than McCain.

"Barack Obama can say it, but it doesn't make it true."

Andrew Busch, a global foreign exchange strategist at BMO Capital in Chicago, said the new tax policy details reflected Obama's move to the political center after a rise in poll numbers for McCain helped boost U.S. stock markets, which he said were jittery about an Obama White House.

"The (opinion piece) that we saw today in the Wall Street Journal is part of a path that Obama's taking which takes him back more towards the middle, more towards McCain's policies," said Busch.

"We're pleased ... to see that because there is tremendous uncertainty over Obama's plans for the economy and for the stock market -- and for the markets overall."

Obama, who is currently on vacation in Hawaii, returns to the campaign trail this weekend.


Honestly, I think this is all bs, he's a liberal and will go back on this, but his spin is very good. The press is also doing their best to promote his "shift to the middle." :D

Miss Kitty
08-15-2008, 07:29 AM
It's like a dance class...one goes to the right and the other has to move further right. Does this surprise anyone? :idontno:This further explains why I have made no decision in this race. Way too early for me....lots to happen.

Smiling JOe
08-15-2008, 09:05 AM
I think you both nailed it, but Kitty, why is it too early? You probably knew much more about the real candidates before they starting all of this poliTRICKING. All you hear now are lies to get votes.

jdarg
08-15-2008, 09:41 AM
I think you both nailed it, but Kitty, why is it too early? You probably knew much more about the real candidates before they starting all of this poliTRICKING. All you hear now are lies to get votes.

You know, I think it is more of a function of each campaign having to react to criticisms from the other campaign, and having to adjust their platforms accordingly. Both sides do it - I don't think the candidates sit there and suddenly decide to change their platforms, but are almost forced by what the other side is saying/doing.

Miss Kitty
08-15-2008, 09:45 AM
I think you both nailed it, but Kitty, why is it too early? You probably knew much more about the real candidates before they starting all of this poliTRICKING. All you hear now are lies to get votes.

Just how I am rolling right now. :biggrin: I need to wait and see VP selections and all the swirling rumors of cabinent selections. IMO, the cabinent selections are the most important info for me and the country and as you know, those are announced way too late for voters to make a truly informed decision. Unless of course, you trust your POTUS candidate completely.

Smiling JOe
08-15-2008, 09:59 AM
jdarg, I fully agree with your above comment. That is poliTRICKS.

Andy A.
08-15-2008, 11:49 AM
Just how I am rolling right now. :biggrin: I need to wait and see VP selections and all the swirling rumors of cabinent selections. IMO, the cabinent selections are the most important info for me and the country and as you know, those are announced way too late for voters to make a truly informed decision. Unless of course, you trust your POTUS candidate completely.
Miss Kitty, you are right on. Cabinet selections are important but you left out the most important appointments, IMO. That of Supreme Court judges. While the Congress also plays a role in their appointment, the prime mover in the game is the President and it appears that possibly as many as three may be appointed in the next term. What type of judges will be appointed weighs heavily in my decision whom to vote for. Do I want a Supreme Court that follows, interprets and upholds the Constitution or do I want one who spins the wording and makes new law in the process. For me, it is a no brainer.

30ashopper
08-15-2008, 12:21 PM
Miss Kitty, you are right on. Cabinet selections are important but you left out the most important appointments, IMO. That of Supreme Court judges. While the Congress also plays a role in their appointment, the prime mover in the game is the President and it appears that possibly as many as three may be appointed in the next term. What type of judges will be appointed weighs heavily in my decision whom to vote for. Do I want a Supreme Court that follows, interprets and upholds the Constitution or do I want one who spins the wording and makes new law in the process. For me, it is a no brainer.

Am I crazy for thinking the Supreme Court is one of the few failings of our Constitution? An appointed for a lifetime court that has complete control over the meaning of our Constitution just doesn't seem very American or Democratic to me. I kinda wish we could re-work that part to eliminate the control they have, maybe by putting term limits on appointments.

hnooe
08-15-2008, 12:27 PM
Miss Kitty, you are right on. Cabinet selections are important but you left out the most important appointments, IMO. That of Supreme Court judges. While the Congress also plays a role in their appointment, the prime mover in the game is the President and it appears that possibly as many as three may be appointed in the next term. What type of judges will be appointed weighs heavily in my decision whom to vote for. Do I want a Supreme Court that follows, interprets and upholds the Constitution or do I want one who spins the wording and makes new law in the process. For me, it is a no brainer.

Fortunately, based on McCain's voting record, the 3 new justices it will probably end up being more in the middle that to the right (although that is a crap shoot in itself for any President) As far as 3 "future" Supreme Court justices, that should be the LEAST of our concerns at this point!

Smiling JOe
08-15-2008, 12:41 PM
With crap like the Patriot Act, I disagree that the nominations of the Supreme Court Justices should be the LEAST of our concerns. Worrying about day to day stuff is like trying to plug holes in the ship. If you maintain your ship properly, the holes will not sink the ship.

full time
08-15-2008, 01:23 PM
With crap like the Patriot Act, I disagree that the nominations of the Supreme Court Justices should be the LEAST of our concerns. Worrying about day to day stuff is like trying to plug holes in the ship. If you maintain your ship properly, the holes will not sink the ship.

Unless your ship gets torpedoed. A class in constitutional law would show that the Supreme Court is capable of torpedoing the nicest of ships. Ever heard of Dred Scott?

Andy A.
08-15-2008, 02:36 PM
Am I crazy for thinking the Supreme Court is one of the few failings of our Constitution? An appointed for a lifetime court that has complete control over the meaning of our Constitution just doesn't seem very American or Democratic to me. I kinda wish we could re-work that part to eliminate the control they have, maybe by putting term limits on appointments.
No, you're not crazy at all. And I also agree with you that appointments for life in almost any situation are not a good thing. But then with all the Congressional "safe districts" it is about the same situation for many of our elected representatives. We need term limits now but we will never get them until there is a voter revolt in this country and that's not going to happen.