i think there are times i am going to regret agreeing to be attached to this blog. this is one of those times.
obama's name only appears in the title of that article. if you (and by you--i mean non-Obama supporters as a whole, not you--Connor) want to attack the man for his actual policies and plans, by all means have at it. but quit trying to tie him to things he has nothing to do with in an attempt to scare away voters.
I wasn't attempting to scare anyone away from *Obama*. I was simply bringing attention to one of the priorities on the Democrat agenda when they increase their majority in the Congress and have no fear of presidential veto.
After all, the president isn't a member of the legislature (despite what they might think, e.g., declaring war and writing law through executive orders)
But Buffet and anyone who is truly rich makes most of his money from capital gains (which are only taxed at 20%), so it's less surprising than you'd think that he's supporting someone that wants to increase the marginal *income* tax rate to 56%... and he's certainly not counting on his 401 K to make his retirement viable... But if having the support of a rich person is tantamount to a universal validation of a candidate's economic policies, I don't think anyone would argue that there are a fair number of wealthy individuals voting against Obama as well.
connor, that wasn't a jab at you, but at the writer of that article (pethokoukis). he throws obama's name in the title to draw in readers and imply that the policies discussed later are the policies obama supports. he then uses buffett's expertise and quotes to undermine the policies, all while ignoring the fact that buffett endorsed obama, which further proves my point that the attempt to tie obama to those policies is ridiculous and misinformed.
my intent in pointing out that buffett is supporting obama isn't to say that wealthy people like him, so he must be good on the economy, only to further undermine this guy's implications.
again, connor, comments are directed at the author of the article, not you.
alicia, you're an author. you're free to post an article pointing out the positive results of government seizure of your money (which Obama nad McCain both support, but Obama supports much more, not to mention the Democratic legislature which may have cloture in the Senate).
and connor: i think as long as the overall blog is about 75% sports, some politics or anything else is fine.
"The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America."
How much more evidence do we need against Keynesian economics before influential people who are uneducated on economics, such as Obama, will stop invoking this over-heralded and under-witted dead economist, John Maynard Keynes?
My bad, Alicia. To tell you the truth, I didn't read the full blog post. It was just the only thing I could find online that reported the event. After I saw that it met that minimum qualification, I linked it. I probably should have read the whole thing (in my defence, it was 3 AM).
8 comments:
Did anyone else see that one of Bill Ayers' books was dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, and that another is dedicated to a slew of cop killers?! WTF!
i think there are times i am going to regret agreeing to be attached to this blog. this is one of those times.
obama's name only appears in the title of that article. if you (and by you--i mean non-Obama supporters as a whole, not you--Connor) want to attack the man for his actual policies and plans, by all means have at it. but quit trying to tie him to things he has nothing to do with in an attempt to scare away voters.
and, ps--buffet has endorsed Obama.
I wasn't attempting to scare anyone away from *Obama*. I was simply bringing attention to one of the priorities on the Democrat agenda when they increase their majority in the Congress and have no fear of presidential veto.
After all, the president isn't a member of the legislature (despite what they might think, e.g., declaring war and writing law through executive orders)
But Buffet and anyone who is truly rich makes most of his money from capital gains (which are only taxed at 20%), so it's less surprising than you'd think that he's supporting someone that wants to increase the marginal *income* tax rate to 56%... and he's certainly not counting on his 401 K to make his retirement viable... But if having the support of a rich person is tantamount to a universal validation of a candidate's economic policies, I don't think anyone would argue that there are a fair number of wealthy individuals voting against Obama as well.
connor, that wasn't a jab at you, but at the writer of that article (pethokoukis). he throws obama's name in the title to draw in readers and imply that the policies discussed later are the policies obama supports. he then uses buffett's expertise and quotes to undermine the policies, all while ignoring the fact that buffett endorsed obama, which further proves my point that the attempt to tie obama to those policies is ridiculous and misinformed.
my intent in pointing out that buffett is supporting obama isn't to say that wealthy people like him, so he must be good on the economy, only to further undermine this guy's implications.
again, connor, comments are directed at the author of the article, not you.
alicia, you're an author. you're free to post an article pointing out the positive results of government seizure of your money (which Obama nad McCain both support, but Obama supports much more, not to mention the Democratic legislature which may have cloture in the Senate).
and connor: i think as long as the overall blog is about 75% sports, some politics or anything else is fine.
Obama quote (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html):
"The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America."
How much more evidence do we need against Keynesian economics before influential people who are uneducated on economics, such as Obama, will stop invoking this over-heralded and under-witted dead economist, John Maynard Keynes?
My bad, Alicia. To tell you the truth, I didn't read the full blog post. It was just the only thing I could find online that reported the event. After I saw that it met that minimum qualification, I linked it. I probably should have read the whole thing (in my defence, it was 3 AM).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyDqQW2adPk
Post a Comment