Payroll taxes: Is anyone actually listening to Obama?
I don’t mean that headline question glibly. What I mean is: Are people paying attention to the president’s words and thinking critically about them?
Obama’s remarks yesterday about extending the payroll-tax holiday enacted last year put the question in my mind. Once we get past the usual rhetoric about “doing everything that I can, every single day, to create jobs faster” and how members of the middle class can’t afford a $1,000 tax hike “right now” — remember, Obama’s benevolence always comes with an expiration date — we can see he’s making three main political points:
1. “I know many Republicans have sworn an oath never to raise taxes as long as they live. How could it be that the only time there’s a catch is when it comes to raising taxes on middle-class families?”
Obama comes to this alleged “catch” only after misrepresenting Republicans’ position. It’s true that they voted against his proposal to extend the payroll-tax holiday. But they have also been working on other bills to extend it. The president is counting on a lot of people catching a bit of his remarks today without having followed the issue very closely.
But what makes this part of his argument doubly perplexing is that he uses the “oath” — we can assume he’s referring to the Taxpayer Protection Pledge — as a club against the GOP for not supporting his bill, even though his bill would have raised taxes on those good ol’ “millionaires and billionaires.” He’s basically saying: Hey, Republicans, don’t violate your anti-tax-raising oath by opposing my bill, which raises taxes on some people!
Huh?
2. “Now, some Republicans who have pushed back against the idea of extending this payroll tax cut have said that we’ve got to pay for these tax cuts. And I’d just point out that they haven’t always felt that way. … Indeed, when the Republicans took over the House at the beginning of this year, they explicitly changed the rules to say that tax cuts don’t have to be paid for. So forgive me a little bit of confusion when I hear folks insisting on tax cuts being paid for.“
Is the president seriously chastising Republicans here for claiming to be more fiscally responsible than a) they used to be, and b) the rules of the House say they must be? I understand he’s trying to accuse them of hypocrisy, but isn’t it a little odd to accuse them of hypocrisy that makes them more responsible?
3. “I’m willing to work with Republicans to extend the payroll tax cut in a responsible way. What I’m not willing to do is to pay for the extension in a way that actually hurts the economy.”
As far as I can tell from the Congressional Budget Office’s scoring, the Senate Republican proposal of Nov. 30 proposes to “offset” the $119.6 billion in reduced payroll taxes during the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years with direct spending cuts during those years totaling …
… wait for it …
… $79 million.
That’s “million” with an “M.” The proposed direct spending “cuts” don’t surpass even $1 billion in any single year until 2020. Its net effect is to increase deficits by $110 billion between 2012 and 2021.
Even if you interpret the bill most charitably, and assume the proposed changes in spending caps will actually transpire, the GOP is talking about cutting spending by only $6.6 billion in 2012 and 2013, while revenues fall by nearly $120 billion.
Neither Obama’s jobs bill — which would lead to an increase in deficits of $285 billion — nor the GOP’s proposal can truly be described as “responsible.” But it strains credulity to suggest reducing federal spending by between one-hundredth of 1 percent and one-tenth of 1 percent of the expected spending during fiscal 2012 and 2013 — “hurts the economy” while it’s still fragile.
To be fair to the president, maybe I should rephrase my opening question. Rather than asking whether anyone is listening to him, let me ask: Can any taxpayer afford not to listen to him?
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
116 comments Add your comment
UGA 1999
December 6th, 2011
10:40 am
Is anyone responding to tm or are we ignoring him?
Dusty
December 6th, 2011
10:42 am
Voice of Reason,
I do believe your ID is correct. I really liked your sentence “any proposal the increases the deficit should be shot down”. Yes yes!
And…”I stand for limited government in all aspects”. Very good!
PLease reconsider your statement that you do not support Republican actions. You sound like a Republican to me. You cannot hide an independent spirit which is the life blood of Republicans.
Dusty
December 6th, 2011
10:47 am
Mark V,
My description is so accurate that it cannot be called anything but the truth.
Have you read the liberal comments here before you posted?
Bart Abel
December 6th, 2011
10:51 am
Kyle: I understand he’s trying to accuse them (Republicans) of hypocrisy, but isn’t it a little odd to accuse them of hypocrisy that makes them more responsible?
The answer to Kyle’s question is no. People should be aware of this hypocrisy the next time Republicans claim that tax cuts for the rich pay don’t have to be paid for…a claim that they’ll continue to repeat, despite the contradiction.
(Jon Kyle: “Tax cuts don’t have to be paid for.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zaQf9kl248)
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
December 6th, 2011
10:53 am
Why do you need to offset a tax cut with spending cuts? Don’t tax cuts increase revenue?
———
This one didn’t, nor did it create jobs, so you will surely agree that it should be allowed to expire.
Or are you more interested in playing politics than common-sense reforms?
Hillbilly D
December 6th, 2011
10:54 am
As long as there are people who go along with the Democrats/Republicans, just because of the party label, nothing is ever going to get solved. The primary objective of the people in Washington is to one-up the other side. If they happen to help the country fine, but that’s a secondary goal.
In my opinion, the D’s are stuck in the 1960’s and the R’s are stuck in the 1870’s. It’s time to figure out that those days are long gone.
UGA 1999
December 6th, 2011
10:58 am
Hillbilly…I would take 1960 or 1870 over 2011….ha.
1961_Xer
December 6th, 2011
10:58 am
I know that the payroll tax should continue again. But this past year I spent every single bit of that extra money just to live. As stimulus goes, the best stimulus is when MY money is used me and my family to make ends meet. I suspect that most people are using the money similarly… to get by in their daily lives. I hope it continues, though I know that it needs to stop at some point. It has been the difference between getting by and coming up short some months.
Raising Taxes on the Rich: Not Whether, but How – New York Times (blog) | financialsurvivalnews.com
December 6th, 2011
10:59 am
[...] percent surtax on millionaires garnered …Mitt Romney backs payroll tax cut extensionCBS NewsPayroll taxes: Is anyone actually listening to Obama?Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)Obama makes case for extending payroll tax [...]
MarkV
December 6th, 2011
11:00 am
Dusty @10:47 am: “ Have you read the liberal comments here before you posted?”
I have, and they are no worse “rants” than what I read from some conservatives here every day.
“My description is so accurate that it cannot be called anything but the truth. “
When you call those who disagree with you “brainwashed Democrats” and then you claim it was the truth, we realize you do not know the meaning of the word “truth.”
Kyle Wingfield
December 6th, 2011
11:01 am
C’mon, Bart. First, “Tax cuts don’t have to be paid for” is the Think Progress title for that clip, not an actual quote from Kyl. Second, if you actually listen to the clip, he is objecting to paying for tax cuts for some people by raising taxes on others, which is not a hypocritical position.
UGA 1999
December 6th, 2011
11:03 am
MarkV…..Truth – to be without dishonesty.
Bart Abel
December 6th, 2011
11:04 am
…it strains credulity to suggest reducing federal spending by between one-hundredth of 1 percent and one-tenth of 1 percent of the expected spending during fiscal 2012 and 2013 — “hurts the economy” while it’s still fragile.
It’s important to point out that most Senate Republicans voted against the Republican plan to extend the payroll tax cuts. These guys really only care about tax cuts for the rich. Public pressure is mounting, and many of them are beginning to realize that not extending these tax cuts for workers would expose their true agenda on behalf of the one percent. Therefore, some kind of payroll tax extension will probably be passed.
It’s still important to know that the Republican proposals to extend this tax cuts seeks to pay for them (remember, tax cuts for the rich don’t need to be paid for) with cuts directly affecting people in the middle class.
Jack
December 6th, 2011
11:04 am
My employees chose to have the $2.00 per hundred added to their fed w/h. Net stayed the same. No big deal.
UGA 1999
December 6th, 2011
11:05 am
Jack….Are you implying that you as their employer can modify the amount that your employees pay in taxes? HA!
Hillbilly D
December 6th, 2011
11:06 am
Off topic:
I’ve had trouble getting The Vent to load for the last several days. Somebody needs to feed the hamster that runs this site, maybe.
Dusty
December 6th, 2011
11:09 am
HillBilly D,
After 9/11, I realized that we were back at 1776 and our independence threatened. Most Americans felt the same thing and we worked together.
I don’t know what happened but I believe the unabated hate against Bush broke the country apart again. That was done by Democrats for eight years and still continues. I do not forgive Democrats for that. If they stopped doing it, I would.
Now both sides have forgotten to fight for the country and fight between themselves. Unless we get some outstanding leadership to pull us together, the future is not bright.
Obama cannot do it. He has already shown that. I hope the next president will surprise us all and come through like Truman. There’s always hope.
Hillbilly D
December 6th, 2011
11:10 am
People modify their withholdings all the time. When I was doing payrolls, lots of people chose to withhold more, if they thought they might owe money at the end. Of course, come year end, your total tax bill is still the same.
Voice of Reason
December 6th, 2011
11:10 am
Dusty, thank you.
In terms of supporting the Republicans, I support the theoretical Republican party; however, many so called Republicans push forth agendas that are in direct contradiction to their party’s ideology. While I agree with tax cuts, because I feel that the government has more than enough money to do its job, I do think that real spending cuts have to come first, or we will never make headway against the debt.
In summary, I agree more with the Libertarian party than any other, but I believe that a thrid party will never be successful in today’s world of mainstream media (left or right biased). I think that real change will be achieved by voters causing a paradigm shift within the Republican party towards truly limited government (as opposed to an administration such as Bush that expanded the government). Politicians such as Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky are an excellent start.
Bart Abel
December 6th, 2011
11:20 am
C’mon Kyle. Here’s an exact quote from Jon Kyle in the video in his response to Chris Wallace’s question specifically about how he would pay for extending the Bush tax rates for the rich: “…you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.”
Now, within months of making that statement, Kyle says the exact opposite about extending the payroll tax cuts. For the record, I don’t believe that Kyle is a hypocrite; I believe he’s a b.s. artist. He says whatever is convenient at a given point in time. Facts and consistency are mere annoyances to him.
Kyle Wingfield
December 6th, 2011
11:29 am
Bart @ 11:20: As I said at 11:01, you are deliberately leaving out the context. In that clip, Kyl is talking about offsetting the cost of tax cuts for some people by raising taxes on other people. Here is the entire quote:
“You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes. Surely, Congress has the authority, and it would be right to, if we decide to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increasing spending, and that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.”
Now, where has Kyl said “the exact opposite” of that — namely, that you should raise taxes in order to cut taxes?
JF McNamara
December 6th, 2011
11:34 am
Lil Barry,
I’m interested in the truth. If tax cuts don’t increase revenues all the time, then we need to be honest about when it works and when it doesn’t. We’ve used the argument about tax cuts increasing revenue to run up a huge deficit, and its still used to justify tax reform and the revenues in those plans (Paul Ryan).
Stop the propaganda and start making the right, responsible choices.
Original Thought Not Necessary
December 6th, 2011
11:37 am
Dusty,
It’s amazing this attitude.
Do you really view any opposition to the policies of a President hatred? Opposition to the policies of a President is not hatred, regardless of the President. It can stray into hatred of course, but to lay that at the feet of either party as if they are the only ones acting in that manner is intellectually dishonest and blind to reality.
As for leadership, the current political climate makes the leadership you purport to long for impossible. The “lack of leadership” you bemoan is actually lack of leadership in a manner you prefer. Should Harry Truman run in today’s political climate he would be getting the same treatment from the right as the current President for the simple reason that he is an evil Democrat and would not toe the ideological line of the GOP. The same could be said for Ronald Reagan who would be equally demonized by the left I have no doubt.
It’s pretty clear from your musings that rather than being part of any solution you are actually a major part of the problem. Rather than evaluate a President based on his policies or programs you seem content to look no further than the letter after his name.
Here’s a test. I can name a number of things I thought President Bush got right and by doing so he received my support irrespective of the fact that I did not vote for the man. Can you say the same of the current occupant of the White House?
Dusty
December 6th, 2011
11:41 am
Voice of Reason,
I like your voice but I do not feel that libertarians contribute much to our government. They usually split the vote which seems to me only gives us the one the majority did not want. Maybe not. Depends, etc.
Republicans are trying to remember that we must cut the deficit. Democrats do not seem to be trying but only adding. They seem to think that money is going to pop up in some unexplained fashion. Their concern for the poor is admirable but they never notice the dependency it sometimes creates. Nor do they seem to have any fear of socialism or even communism, not to mention bankruptcy.
As to Bush enlarging the government, I favor him because of one of the greatest attacks on our country happened under his watch. He did everything possible to keep us safe but it was costly. The war on Iraq was controversial but seem to have resulted in one of the few democratic governments in the MIddle East. We have yet to see if the Arab Spring is truly beneficial.
Anyway, keep Republicans in mind. We need people like you and your effectiveness will increase.
Logical Dude
December 6th, 2011
11:41 am
Kyle,
Either way, what are your opinions on the payroll tax? Should the cut be extended or should it be reverted back to the normal tax?
If reverted back to normal, do you think that the Bush/Obama tax cuts should expire as well, or be made permanent?
saywhat?
December 6th, 2011
11:42 am
Dusty
After 6 years of total republican US government control, and the resultant economic disaster that it caused, I realized that we were back at 1776 and our independence was threatened. Most Americans felt the same thing and we worked together.
I don’t know what happened but I believe the unabated hate against Obama broke the country apart again. That was done by Republicans for the past three years and still continues. I do not forgive Republicans for that. If they stopped doing it, America would be better off.
Bart Abel
December 6th, 2011
11:47 am
Nothing was taken out of context. To be clear, Jon Kyle didn’t just say that you don’t pay for one tax cut with a tax increase somewhere else. He added that you don’t have to pay for tax cuts at all: “…you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.”
Again, this was in response to a question about how to pay for extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Now, on the issue of tax cuts that mostly benefit the working poor and middle class, Jon Kyle insists that they should be paid for.
Here’s the link again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zaQf9kl248 Anybody who is doubt, should click the link, watch the entire video, and decide for themselves.
gm
December 6th, 2011
11:50 am
The reason most middle class rep rather have taxes go up and not have tax cuts because they listen to millionares like hannity, rush who no matter what the President does for middle call americans, they try to drown out the good things he does.
Fox news bent on destroying this President because the coke brothers rather keep these idiots middle calls rep as their puppets, spewing hate against the President so they can continue to steal and cheat on wall street, but at the end middle class rep lose and poor white who get expolited by these people will continue to blame Obama who has done everthing he could, but when you dont read and listen fox infformed what do you expect.
Newt said l poor children living in lower urban communities dont see people going to work” does that apply to whites who living in trailers park in rural Georgia?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
December 6th, 2011
11:58 am
JF McNamara: I’m interested in the truth. If tax cuts don’t increase revenues all the time, then we need to be honest about when it works and when it doesn’t.
———
The truth is that our President Bush’s tax cuts increased revenue and lowered unemployment. Obozo’s tax cuts failed to do either. The best thing Obozo did was extending our President Bush’s tax cuts–it’s likely that failing to do so would have cost jobs.
Voice of Reason
December 6th, 2011
11:58 am
Dusty, I agree that Libertarians don’t carry much clout, and I don’t vote for them often, and hardly ever on the national level. What I meant was that Libertarians need to ally themselves with the Republican party and push the establishment Republicans (i.e. RINOs) towards limited government.
As for Bush, I was behind the decision to go to war against Afghanistan, if not Iraq, and don’t lament the money lost to take down Bin Laden and his ilk. My problems with that administration stem from social programs like No Child Left Behind, bailouts, and other big government spending. The worst part was trying to get people who could afford a home into one anyway and the resulting foreclosures that tanked the economy. A true consevative has to be able to stand up and say “Sorry, not everyone can afford a home, some may have to rent” because it is the truth.
saywhat?
December 6th, 2011
12:05 pm
Kyle wrote
“I also think it’s interesting that, when the Senate Republicans voted against a plan that reportedly would have “paid for” extending the payroll tax holiday with cuts to food stamps and unemployment benefits, they are criticized for voting against a middle class tax cut, not for protecting food stamps and unemployment benefits. How do you think that one would have been played if the parties had been reversed?”
It is unconscionable in the first place that more Republicans voted for sticking it to the poor and unemployed rather than the nations’ most wealthy, who can best afford it. The cynic in me believes that the reason Republicans voted against their own proposal however, was not to protect the poor and unemployed, but to avoid benefitting the economy in hopes of gaining more power in 2012. We all know that the Republicans would have had a unanimous vote for their bill if it ONLY included cuts to food stamps and unemployment benifits, and no middle class tax cut.
Dusty
December 6th, 2011
12:09 pm
Original thought,
Perhaps you are right. But the hate against Bush was so obvious it reached the front page. There were people buying property in Crawford, Texas so they could build a place to demonize Bush on vacation. Cartoonists, like Luckovich, drew ugly animalistic pictures of Bush while they also demeaned the military because they did not like “Bush’s war”. Every move even of the Supreme Court, or poll officials, or hanging chads, or V. President Cheney were insulted at every level.
During that time, I started posting on Bookman’s blog. Some people there were enjoyable but the hate filled liberals moved in permanently. One was even known to be paid by Democrats during the last presidental election. NOt only did they hate Bush, they even made scatalogical type comments. That hate soon moved to Republicans in all form or shape.
No longer do I post at Bookman’s blog even though there are a few people there I enjoy. I felt that it left too many bad images and little to study. I realized that reading hate inspires hate. So I dislike seeing it pop up here.
I do not hate Obama. I do not see any improvements in our country that he has made. In fact, I think he has made it worse by poor judgment and broken promises. Perhaps no one else could have done better. But I am most willing to try someone else in the White House.
I shall try to be sweet and kind if you will too!! IN the meantime, try the Republican Party. They seem to have less of an ugly streak than Democrats! OKAY??
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
December 6th, 2011
12:11 pm
saywhat: Republicans voted against their own proposal however, was not to protect the poor and unemployed, but to avoid benefitting the economy
———-
Obozo’s payroll tax cuts failed. Why continue starving the social security trust fund of needed revenue? Are you trying to starve the elderly?
Finn McCool
December 6th, 2011
12:13 pm
I see Kyle is still cornfused about what fiscal responsibility really means.
If you have school loans debts at an interest rate of 4% but you are able to earn 10% on your money elsewhere (say in mutual funds), should that person be all consumed with paying off the school loan debt first? Sure, if by being in debt means you are fiscally irresponsible and, maybe, believe yourself to be a “bad person” for having that debt in the first place. This is the conservative take on fiscal responsibility.
Someone with a little more financial knowledge might understand that it would be fiscally responsible to pay just the minimum rate on those school loans and use the remaining dollars in your pocket to gain that 10% you can get elsewhere. With that 10%, you’er not only getting the 4% back to pay off the school loans, you are also getting an additional 6% put back in your pocket to pay off school loans down the road or whatever else you might have on your plate.
Finn McCool
December 6th, 2011
12:16 pm
I’m still trying to see where all this stimulus failure and payroll tax cut failure is evident? Is the economy not better than it was 4 years ago?
sorry cons, not all of us are the gullible Fox News watching types.
JF McNamara
December 6th, 2011
12:18 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
“The truth is that our President Bush’s tax cuts increased revenue and lowered unemployment. ”
This is completely false. Prove it. Bush ended his presidency amongst the greatest crisis since the depression with an enormous deficit. The Bush tax cut FAILED. Here’s proof to the contrary.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-the-root-of-our-fiscal-problem/
From the Article:
“According to a recent C.B.O. report, they [The Bush Tax Cuts] reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion.
Spending was $5.6 trillion higher than the C.B.O. anticipated for a total fiscal turnaround of $12 trillion. That is how a $6 trillion projected surplus turned into a cumulative deficit of $6 trillion.”
Finn McCool
December 6th, 2011
12:19 pm
they also demeaned the military because they did not like “Bush’s war”
BS. Democrats never demeaned the military. We did demean the elected officials and their non-military appointments (Rumsfeld) who were in charge of the military – we did a lot of that and some like me don’t regret a word of it.
Bart Abel
December 6th, 2011
12:21 pm
Voice of Reason,
I take issue with your comment that Libertarians should ally with the Republican Party. You seem to have bought into their rhetoric about limited government despite the evidence. Most libertarians I know want to decriminalize drugs, are pro-choice, support allowing gays to marry, want to reduce the size of our defense and reduce the number or American bases throughout the world, eliminate subsidies for large corporations, among other ideas. You’re likely to as much or more luck with the Democratic Party.
Remember it’s the Republicans who quadrupled earmarks after taking over the Congress in the 90s. It’s the Republicans who turned surpluses into deficits and more than doubled the national debt. It’s the Republicans who increased corporate subsides, expanded Medicare (while covering up the true cost) and started a war of choice in Iraq. It’s the Republicans who are now fighting against extending tax cuts and who recently voted against eliminating oil subsidies. It’s the Republicans who want the fed to ignore states’ rights via tort reform and other health care reform proposals that primarily benefit insurers. It’s the Republicans who supported Paul Ryan’s budget which would continue to INCREASE our national debt substantially: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/05/ryans-budget-spin/
With every example of Republicans supporting limited government there’s another example of Republicans supporting bigger government. With every example of Republicans supporting bigger government there’s an example of Democrats fighting for smaller government (it depends on the issue and the alternative solutions, if any).
Again, the assertion that Republicans support limited government is a marketing gimmick that has little to no basis in reality, and the idea that libertarians and Republicans are on the same page strikes me as odd.
Dumb and Dumber
December 6th, 2011
12:23 pm
Panties in a wad?
What a hateful, snarky little man you are Kyle.
I feel sorry for your children.
Dusty
December 6th, 2011
12:24 pm
Voice of Reason.
I enjoy your comments. Please keep writing. Some of Bush’s projects did not work well but he was ernest in his efforts to improve education.TARP etc. At least, I thought so.
I leave now for other things. Been fun..
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
December 6th, 2011
12:27 pm
JF McNamara: This is completely false. Prove it.
——–
Revenues went up and unemployment down after our President Bush’s tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003.
Simple facts. Do not be afraid.
Shine
December 6th, 2011
12:40 pm
Then quit whining and ditch the payroll and Bush tax cuts which were supposed to be temporary too when they passed years and years ago. Funny payroll taxes went up during Ronald Reagan but he is some supposed tax cutter to the gullible.
Shine
December 6th, 2011
12:42 pm
Yep Lil Berry, taxes can go down if deficits go up. Thanks Dubya.
Shine
December 6th, 2011
12:44 pm
Bush tax cuts failed. unemployment over 10%, stock market dive to 6800, trillions in deficits under Dubya….who is crazy enough to vote for more of that?
Original Thought Not Necessary
December 6th, 2011
12:45 pm
Dusty,
Unfortunately such hatred has become a part of our current political discourse on the part of both parties. As such it has become increasingly difficult to remain a true independent. I don’t want to come off as self-aggrandizing but I try very diligently to judge a candidate by policies that are important to me and make my decision on who to vote for based on that rather than party affiliation. The problem with that is that many, not all but many, on the right want to brand me a librul for not lockstepping into their ideology and the same is true of Democrats.
Criticism of a President by those in the media can go beyond the bounds of decency it is true and I do agree with you that the depictions of GWB as a monkey or pure insulting material were wrong on their face. Also, the kind of rhetoric you experienced at Bookman’s blog is unfortunate. But it takes only a minute here (Kyle’s blog) or there to see the current President called Obozo, Obummer, Marxist, Socialist and innumerable such epithets. At the same time a quick check of talk radio reveals people who would dare to think of voting for the President being branded as more dangerous than terrorists, ignorant, stupid, bought off by welfare, etc. The problem lies in the fact that, regardless of your position, fully half of the country disagrees with you and to use such pejorative language is offensive and disgusting no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. A vote for a Republican says no more about your intelligence, patriotism or love of God than does a vote for a Democrat.
I can see why many would be wishing for a new President in 2012 and I can understand equally a good number of people wanting four more years. Both points, while divergent, are valid. And one’s intelligence and patriotism should be based on one’s actions rather than the lever they pull in the ballot box. Last I checked there was one America and once flag to which we pledge.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
December 6th, 2011
12:55 pm
Shine, don’t go blaming the Dodd-Frank recession on our President Bush. He’s not the one who forced banks to loan to parasites and moochers who refused to pay their bills.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
December 6th, 2011
12:59 pm
I can understand equally a good number of people wanting four more years.
———-
The Taliban, al Qaeda, welfare hounds, global Eurotrash, Obozo’s Wall Street cronies, the Solyndras, and union thugs. But no Americans.
Original Thought Not Necessary
December 6th, 2011
1:02 pm
And Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward) proves my point.
Thank you.
Voice of Reason
December 6th, 2011
1:07 pm
Bart,
You are correct, Republicans are not on the same page as Libertarians, I’m saying their “stated” positions are similar. Republicans are awful about promoting bigger government when they say they want limited. That’s what Libertarians should try to do, bring more than just lip service to the idea of limited government.
“Most libertarians I know want to decriminalize drugs, are pro-choice, support allowing gays to marry, want to reduce the size of our defense and reduce the number or American bases throughout the world, eliminate subsidies for large corporations, among other ideas. You’re likely to as much or more luck with the Democratic Party.”
Yes and no. As far as social issues yes, I am with the Democrats on all of the above things. But I am vehemently against subsidies for small business, regulations (EPA, Department of Energy, etc), government investment in one industry or another (solar power), welfare, and stimulus. All of these things are core doctrines of the Democratic party, and things that I find totally unacceptable. Next to these problems, social issues have to take a back seat. The government needs to return to its Constitutionally mandated functions and leave the rest to the states and the private sector.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
December 6th, 2011
1:12 pm
OTNN, in your heart you know I’m right.