Hot Air is debating whether Obama is a hypocrite or not as professed in a new McCain campaign ad. I think the statement can be read either way, but what about this statement from Obama?
As president I am going to eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups. That’s how we’ll grow our economy and create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.”
He's on record as supporting a Capital Gain's tax increase. Define small business, I suppose.
He went on to say: “I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent [the current level]. If it – and if it, you know – when I talk to people like Warren Buffet or others and I ask them, you know, what’s – how much of a difference is it going to be if it’s 20 or 25 percent, they say, look, if it’s within that range, then it’s not going to distort, I think, economic-decision making.”
I love how he makes these plans for our money and it's no problem for him to increase the rate.
Posted by: Marie LeVeau | Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 05:51 PM
What he meant was that for small businesses like lemonaide stands he would eliminate Capital Gains.
You should know by now that he is going to "cut" taxes for 95% of Americans..blah..blah and help "mainstreet not wallstreet"..blah..blah. Oh and Bush = McCain..blah..blah!
Posted by: SacTownMan | Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 05:56 PM
That ad is no more dishonest than The McCane Campaign's other assertions about Obama.
Posted by: Mr DeBakey | Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 06:35 PM
I am so fed up with trying to figure out what this guy's economic policy really is. We've taken to calling him "flip flop man" with his "flip flop economic policy". Wherever he goes, depending upon the economy, he changes his policy. I'm not the only one who sees this so if his trolls are going to come out and prove that this is not true, it won't matter. I'm a reasonably intelligent person with reasonably intelligent friends and that is what we are all thinking, so that means he has some how failed to make his economic agenda a reality to us, the voters.
Posted by: mary | Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 09:32 PM
Did I hear correctly? Did Newt Gingrich say on O'Reilly that Acorn received money in the housing bill?
I remember reading that Miss Nancy was beside herself cause the democrats didn't have money to give to candidates for their campaigns. Then I realized that I only saw that once. So now, I think I may have put two and two together when Newt said this tonight. What do you think?
Posted by: mary | Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 09:36 PM
NO obamanation!
Posted by: sand_dollar | Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Oh, that's rich. Obama asks the wealthiest guy in America whether a 20-25% range on capital gains taxes would distort economic decision making. Buffet could pay a 75% rate and still have enough money left over to buy Ecuador - which is one reason he's never been opposed to higher taxes (not that I ever heard of, anyway). Besides, Buffet's an Obama supporter, so just how good is his political judgment (as opposed to his investment judgment, which is undoubtedly good)?
Posted by: Paco | Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Investors are an odd bunch. When you ask them for advice you have to remember that buried within that advice is something that will benefit them. Buffet made his "investment" in GS assuming there would be a bailout bill. Was disappointed when I heard this. It would have been nice to have some of the uber wealthy step up and make investments like Buffet. Steve Wynn said this on Hannity. He, like many others, doesn't think the government should be involved in this "bailout" "rescue" at all.
Posted by: mary | Wednesday, October 01, 2008 at 02:28 AM
Mary, it was reported that there was money earmarked for Acorn and like organizations in at least one early version of the bill. Last I heard it was stricken. However, who ever put this in and who ever approved it should be named. But that won't happen in this Congress. Here's one reason why. The House leader is a shady character.
From the Washington Times:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm over the past decade, a practice of paying a spouse with political donations that she supported banning last year.
Financial Leasing Services Inc. (FLS), owned by Paul F. Pelosi, has received $99,000 in rent, utilities and accounting fees from the speaker's "PAC to the Future" over the PAC's nine-year history."
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Wednesday, October 01, 2008 at 09:46 AM