It’s official: Obama is an idiot.

Heard a campaign announcement today from the Obama campaign, in which Obama promised to, and get this…

~stimulate the economy by repealing corporate income tax breaks, thus paying for a middle-class tax cut

~repeal tax breaks on corporations moving overseas.  It’s ridiculous, and it’s got to stop

That’s right.  Obama is going to stimulate the economy by making it more expensive for corporations to produce goods and services.

I have a quick heads-up for Sen. Obama:  hey, dumbass, why do you think those corporations are leaving?  It’s because the US is no longer competitive on taxes.  Can you say Sarbanes-Oxley, kids?

Okay, so he’s not John “I piss on the Bill of Rights” McCain, and he’s not Hillary “we shall abolish the individual” Clinton… but I’m supposed to listen to this advertisement with a straight face?  Obama is spending money in order to discredit himself.

Advertisements
Leave a comment

21 Comments

  1. Alex

     /  February 14, 2008

    I agree with you on the 1st point, but not on the 2nd. Why should there be tax incentives for US companies to move offshore? In effect, you’re encouraging them to move their tax base elsewhere. Perhaps one may want to lessen it so they can invest here in the US (assuming they will indeed do so) but give them a tax credit for leaving us? That does make no sense, unless I’m missing a macro/microeconomic factor.

    Reply
  2. He’s decrying the offshoring of US companies at the same time as he states that he’s going to increase their tax burden.

    In other words, he’s a nimrod with no sense of cause and effect. Even if he’s elected, the Blue Dogs will have him for lunch.

    Reply
  3. celogo

     /  February 14, 2008

    I am stupid. Forgive me. There, I said it.

    I fail to see why anyone should get tax breaks! Companies that get tax breaks are the same folks who require hefty improvements to infrastructure.

    Our tax code looks like swiss cheese anyway.

    Companies are not leaving solely because of taxes. Employment costs less overseas.

    I am so freaking disillusioned with the political process!! And perhaps that is why I’d rather have an idiot for a president than those who will piss on our Rights and destroy the fundamental uniqueness of our citizens.

    All I really want is Ron Paul. After reading nearly every doc on his website, I can truly say there will never be another choice for me in this election. Damn.

    Reply
  4. celogo

     /  February 14, 2008

    Follow up… knowing Ron Paul will not get the nod, I refuse to vote Republican. I really hope Obama gets the Dem nod, because HillBilly does not deserve a 3rd term. My vote for Obama, in that case, would be a vote against McCain.

    Reply
  5. Alex

     /  February 15, 2008

    I agree with you celogo – companies are leaving because employment costs less overseas and why should a company get a tax break when they are using more than their fair share of the infrastructure without having to pay for it? As for why its cheaper overseas – that is a longer discussion but I would perhaps overly simplify it and say that it is because overseas you can take shortcuts (free to pollute, overwork labor, ignore regulations) and you don’t have to pay for it.

    Now assuming that a company would actually take some of its profits and invest it here in the US for making new jobs (something I only see with small and medium-sized businesses) then maybe their tax burden shouldn’t be as high because they are contributing to overall economic health which compensates for what they consume in infrastructure.

    Reply
  6. I still think a vote for Obama is a vote against Sharpton et. al., and compared to the other options, that’s good enough for me.

    Although, if Billary gets the nod, I’ll be swinging to McCain real quick.

    Reply
  7. celogo

     /  February 15, 2008

    Talk about holding your nose when you vote. When I read JimDesu’s comment, I immediately visualized an editorial type cartoon. A voter booth with a toilet, with a voter spilling her guts into it while reaching for the vote-a-tron.

    Reply
  8. That’s definitely it this year. I have serious problems with Ron Paul, while lamenting that none of the other candidates seem to care a squat about the Constitution…

    Reply
  9. Alex

     /  February 15, 2008

    Isn’t that what the last several elections have been about for many of us? Since I was first allowed to vote in a presidential election (1992) I have never felt completely good about the candidate I was voting for. It has always been a case of “which candidate do I hate less/can I tolerate more?”.

    Reply
  10. celogo

     /  February 15, 2008

    I can not image what serious concerns about Ron Paul you could have that his other serious, not imagined, virtues can not quell. Please share. What am I missing?

    Reply
  11. celogo

     /  February 15, 2008

    I never actually felt wretched when I voted. A little disheartened maybe… the feeling this year is one of pure, unadulterated disgust. It is literally making me sick.

    Makes me ever more aware that what is truly important is what happens within the perimeter of our property and to our neighbors and close friends.

    Reply
  12. Maybe one day we can find someone to vote FOR instead of doing mental gymnastics as to what’s less offensive, but it’s certainly status quo this year.

    I agree with Russ that Ron Paul (who’d I’d vote for) isn’t a good idea — zero leadership skills whatsoever. Heck, half of what he says is just parrotting of Lew Rockwell (not a bad thing in and of itself). Whenever I’ve seen him interviewed I’ve thought “this is not a guy I want negotiating against Putin”.

    Reply
  13. There is not much I can contribute to this conversation that has not already been said….EXCEPT:

    You might not like McCain, but how on earth is he not better than either Obama OR Hitlery?

    Do you really WANT a socialist agenda over a median Republican?

    Especially one that sees no reason to protect our nation?

    Reply
  14. Mike

     /  February 16, 2008

    You would think a situation like this would be a prefect opportunity to launch a third party that could get a broad appeal. Tons of domestic issues to play with, from individual rights (always a winner), to tax reform (can be a winner), to cutting pork (THAT would be a winner), and Congress full of people to stupid to make the peaunt gallery on Howdy Doody.

    There has to be a point in time where someone says “Everyone this is going to be painful, but we are going to split the Demo/Rep Party because they have gone off the deep end. We are going to either right this boat, or build our own, but we are going to damn well fix this. It may give our opposition 2 to 4 years in power, but since they are just as screwed as us, there will be a shift.”

    It is time for someone to stand up and do this. And its probably not going to happen. Who wants to pick up this headache? Its sad but we no longer have a Truman, or an Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt. Why? Who needs to have their life ruined by the press, or get piled on by everyone and their brother over every stupid little thing? Who actually is crazy enough to take on the beltway?

    *&^#^@. Now I am all depressed.

    Reply
  15. @James: McCain intentionally tried to trash the 1st Amendment. Therefore, he is not suited to put his hand on the bible and vow to protect the Constitution. The two Democrats aren’t going anywhere, because their own Blue Dogs are going to have them for lunch. No leadership skills from those two candidates at all.

    @Celogo: Paul has poor speaking skills, which is one of the primary things a President *must* possess in order to be effective. Plus, he’s anti NAFTA, etcetera, and I can understand why… but those agreements are doing more to create the middle-class environments elsewhere that we desperately need than any amount of aid packages. NAFTA and other free-trade agreements, even though deeply flawed, are stakes into the vampire hearts of tyrants. Look at Central and South America for numerous examples… hell, Mexico is even beginning to grow itself a middle class, after almost two hundred years…

    Reply
  16. Mike: the laws in this country are designed (or, perhaps the word “colluded” would be better) to prevent 3rd parties from getting elected. Republicans and Democrats are automagically allowed onto the ballot, but other candidates must amass large numbers of signatures by varying deadlines according to arbitrarily varying standards. No way a 3rd party can be sustained without taking on the ballot access laws in bajillions of counties across the country.

    Reply
  17. Russ: odd that NAFTA is the crown jewel of president Clinton’s achievements, but Lady Macbeth, who was all over it at the time, is trying to distance herself from it and convince people she was opposed to it all along.

    Reply
  18. Not odd at all, JimDesu: remember, Clinton ran on a program of reforming his own party. Just like Reagan, Clinton consistently bucked his own party’s folks. Lady MacBeth is actually a much more traditional Democrat than he is. The “third way” comparisons of Blair and Clinton were actually pretty fair… not that he wasn’t liberal… just not dogmatically leftist like his wife or many of the non-Blue-Dog democrats.

    Reply
  19. Mike

     /  February 17, 2008

    That was kinda my point. With all that crap to go through, who wants to try? Even though we desparately need something like that right now. Probably the only way this will happen is if a existing party splits over something. The Dems seem the best candiate for that right now, but neither fraction holds much attraction for me.

    Reply
  20. Yep… the fact that I know somebody running for office is about the only reason I’m going to vote this time around. My local congress-critter, Pete Sessions, is as Country-Club Republican as they come, so I could really care less whether he gets re-elected or not. Any Texas Democrat running in his district is likely to be a Blue Dog anyway… and frankly, right now I have more respect for the BDs.

    Reply
  21. Zathras

     /  February 18, 2008

    “… Pete Sessions is as Country-Club Republican as they come…”

    Not as much as a certain state representative from Denton County….
    http://www.tanparker.com/

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Featured Eyeballs

  • What’s today again?

    February 2008
    M T W T F S S
    « Jan   Mar »
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    2526272829  
  • Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 131,092 hits
  • Recent Comments

    Cults and Context |… on So, about that Bruce Jenner…
    Cults and Context |… on Yes, I AM, in fact, looking at…
    Cults and Context |… on How The Internet Says “D…
    Kat Laurange on Hungarian Military Sabre …
    Kat Laurange on Rose Garden! The Home Edi…
  • %d bloggers like this: