|
Mercnbeth -> RE: Obama likely to not repeal Bush Tax Cuts (11/24/2008 2:06:39 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SilverMark
Merc. don't you think that at this economic time that any tax break is better than repealing the ones in place? It isn't intimated that that he was foregoing his plan to give the middle class a further reduction, just that he would allow the tax breaks "as is" to expire. If anything I would think you, as myself, would look at this as a positive.
As for using people from the Clinton Administration, aren't those that know their way around the system best suited to "change" it? I would be a bit afraid if the Administration depended totally on new people inside of Washington. Even as the Democrat I am, I do not look back on the Carter years as a success and always felt that part of his problem in Washington was a bit too many of the Peanut Mafia trying to make headway in areas better suited for those who knew how to work the system. Somehow I always got the impression that Jimmy and his Georgia boys just weren't tough enough to get the job done, I do not have the same feeling with the people Obama is planning to use in the positions announced so far.
Mark,
Even if you don't remember, a cursory glance at any of my posts on the subject of tax increases and/or not repealing the Bush Tax cut would result in my consistent opinion that either activity would be counter productive to invigorating the economy. I had that opinion before the economy tanked completely as it has now - I'm not going to change that opinion today. Should I point out that I was right, or at least Obama's transition team now thinks that wasn't good for the economy either? Whoop-dee-do!
I will however add to that opinion and represent that it is PE Obama's position concerning increased taxes ands spending that caused the result; but that's up for discussion. It may have happened anyway due to the enabling lending practices encouraged by Congress and put in practice by the financial institutions; however that too is up for discussion.
The 'Four More Years' however wasn't expected, not even by me. Was it with you? Are the people fundamentally in line with the Democratic party who worked so hard for 'Change' to be defined as NOT including any Clinton or Clinton administrations pleased? Are those anti-PAC happy to see a major PAC organizer in a position of power in the upcoming Obama Administration?
A group so loathed and deemed a core problem, those making more than $250k income, was to be the sacrificial lamb slaughtered on the first day of the new administration or soon afterward. If the masses who put Obama in office can't expect that one 'easy' promise to be fulfilled you think they are wearing their Obama tee-shirts as proudly and confidently today?
Granted, it's easy to rationalize. Frankly I think it absurd to even spend a lot of time on what PE Obama is going to do. However, just about every decision coming out of his transition team speaks to 'Four More Years!'
Who knows, maybe after 4 years of President Obama; the 'Georgia Mafia' will be the comparison for another Administration who missed a window where positive change could have been implemented.
Mark, make no mistake, I'd much rather see a complete turn over and fundamental change in how this country is run. As much as I disagree on his methods, and his fundamental philosophy of redistributing wealth; I saw, and still see, PE Obama as, if nothing else, an opportunity for that fundamental change. More disturbing than the entitlement and socialist agenda that he champions is the fact that in light of recent events and press releases he represents no change whatsoever.
Did you ever expect to be defending, or even rationalizing, his 'status quo' resulting decisions regarding policy or personal?
|
|
|
|
