If I was a liberal journalist (forgive the redundancy!) inclined to support Mr. Obama’s candidacy, I certainly wouldn’t want anyone delving too deeply into any “tangential character issues” either. Between his spiritual advisor’s “God Damn America” Black Liberation theological bigotry, his wife’s god-awful arrogance and presumptuous sense of entitlement, his association with unapologetic domestic terrorists on the one hand, and the arguably most corrupt political machine in North America on the other, I can see why questions about Mr. Obama’s character, and his judgment, would be the last thing supporters would wish to have discussed.
But even here, the letter writers are being disingenuous, for it wasn’t the issue of character that called Obama’s candidacy into question, but probing questions about his stand on economic and tax issues, questions that clearly made him look petty, ignorant, and unsure of himself and his answers… in short, just another young, inexperienced liberal hack spewing class warfare rhetoric like so much progressive gospel.
Obama has been extraordinarily careful to portray himself and his candidacy in broad, platitudinous brushstrokes, while avoiding any hint of detail. But put on the spot, away from his cue cards and teleprompter, he is nowhere near as nimble as he would have us believe.
Rezko’s Rookie simply isn’t yet ready for prime time, and his supporters in the media know it.
Bat One - 11:04am on 04/19/2008
Along with the other expected drivel in this letter, is this bit of carefully parsed dishonesty:
Mr. Gibson’s claim that the government can raise revenues by cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe.
As has been discussed before, Mr. Gibson’s claim is correct. In each of the three times in the last half century when the capital gains tax rate was lowered, revenues received from that tax increased, and increased substantially beyond what had been forecast by CBO prior to the rate cut.
On the other hand, the one time the tax rate on capital gains was increased, the number and volume of transactions generating capital gains diminished, as did the revenues taken in by the federal government from that tax.
Predictably, the letter writers didn’t bother to specify just who their “tax experts” are, but the facts of each instance cited by Gibson are what they are in any case.
A quick look at the names of those who signed the letter reveals two fairly noteworthy economists: James K. Galbraith, the son of former Ambassador, economist, JFK confidante and frequent foil for William F. Buckley, Jr., John Kenneth Galbraith, is a progressive American economist who holds the Lloyd M. Bentsen Chair in Political Economics and Government at the LBJ School of Government at UT, Austin, while Brad DeLong, is an economist, who is known chiefly as the target of many splendid barbs and corrections from economist Don Luskin. Indeed, were it not for former Enron advisor and NYT columnist, Paul Krugman, DeLong would be in first place as Luskin’s primary target of opportunity.
In any event, the letter writers are wrong in their capital gains tax implication, and there is no reason to think anything else they charge is any more accurate.
Bat One - 01:04pm on 04/19/2008
Virtually all capital gains are tied to financial transactions. Low capital gains taxs encourages the consumer (us) to make more transactions therefore resulting in more tax money for the government. The opposite is true when capital gains taxes sre high. i.e. fewer transactions, less tax money
docdave - 01:04pm on 04/19/2008
Doc,
It is an article of liberal faith that cuts in marginal tax rates, mistakenly called “tax cuts”, invariably result in a loss of revenue to the government. That faith is, of course, misplaced.
But notice that of the 40 plus individuals who signed that letter, none challenged the erroneous contention about Mr. Gibson’s point about capital gains taxes. Which simply demonstrates once again both the ignorance and the leftist tilt of self-styled journalists. Like so many other areas of public policy, the “inconvenient” truth is over shadowed by liberal ideology.
Bat One - 04:04pm on 04/19/2008
excessive emphasis on tangential ‘character’ issues do not.”
These questions are legitimate ones. These liberals apparently believe that the American people do not deserve to know who the are voting for. Anyways, these people are just following Obama’s lead on the whining front. Obama is quickly becoming damaged goods.
dougee - 08:04pm on 04/19/2008
Hannitized, did these same individuals write a letter to the NYT when they aired a front page lie about John McCain having an affair with a lobbyist? I think not…
dougee - 08:04pm on 04/19/2008
Hannitized, did these same individuals write a letter to the NYT when they aired a front page lie about John McCain having an affair with a lobbyist? I think not…
I have no idea. But that logic is off the mark in two major ways.
1) These people are complaining about PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES. Not news stories.
Rob,
Can you please point out what in the letter expressed a Pro-Obama bias?
What makes you say such things?
The part where they whine about Obama being asked legitimate questions.
They’re calling them Whinocrats over at LGF!
If I was a liberal journalist (forgive the redundancy!) inclined to support Mr. Obama’s candidacy, I certainly wouldn’t want anyone delving too deeply into any “tangential character issues” either. Between his spiritual advisor’s “God Damn America” Black Liberation theological bigotry, his wife’s god-awful arrogance and presumptuous sense of entitlement, his association with unapologetic domestic terrorists on the one hand, and the arguably most corrupt political machine in North America on the other, I can see why questions about Mr. Obama’s character, and his judgment, would be the last thing supporters would wish to have discussed.
But even here, the letter writers are being disingenuous, for it wasn’t the issue of character that called Obama’s candidacy into question, but probing questions about his stand on economic and tax issues, questions that clearly made him look petty, ignorant, and unsure of himself and his answers… in short, just another young, inexperienced liberal hack spewing class warfare rhetoric like so much progressive gospel.
Obama has been extraordinarily careful to portray himself and his candidacy in broad, platitudinous brushstrokes, while avoiding any hint of detail. But put on the spot, away from his cue cards and teleprompter, he is nowhere near as nimble as he would have us believe.
Rezko’s Rookie simply isn’t yet ready for prime time, and his supporters in the media know it.
Along with the other expected drivel in this letter, is this bit of carefully parsed dishonesty:
As has been discussed before, Mr. Gibson’s claim is correct. In each of the three times in the last half century when the capital gains tax rate was lowered, revenues received from that tax increased, and increased substantially beyond what had been forecast by CBO prior to the rate cut.
On the other hand, the one time the tax rate on capital gains was increased, the number and volume of transactions generating capital gains diminished, as did the revenues taken in by the federal government from that tax.
Predictably, the letter writers didn’t bother to specify just who their “tax experts” are, but the facts of each instance cited by Gibson are what they are in any case.
A quick look at the names of those who signed the letter reveals two fairly noteworthy economists: James K. Galbraith, the son of former Ambassador, economist, JFK confidante and frequent foil for William F. Buckley, Jr., John Kenneth Galbraith, is a progressive American economist who holds the Lloyd M. Bentsen Chair in Political Economics and Government at the LBJ School of Government at UT, Austin, while Brad DeLong, is an economist, who is known chiefly as the target of many splendid barbs and corrections from economist Don Luskin. Indeed, were it not for former Enron advisor and NYT columnist, Paul Krugman, DeLong would be in first place as Luskin’s primary target of opportunity.
In any event, the letter writers are wrong in their capital gains tax implication, and there is no reason to think anything else they charge is any more accurate.
Virtually all capital gains are tied to financial transactions. Low capital gains taxs encourages the consumer (us) to make more transactions therefore resulting in more tax money for the government. The opposite is true when capital gains taxes sre high. i.e. fewer transactions, less tax money
Doc,
It is an article of liberal faith that cuts in marginal tax rates, mistakenly called “tax cuts”, invariably result in a loss of revenue to the government. That faith is, of course, misplaced.
But notice that of the 40 plus individuals who signed that letter, none challenged the erroneous contention about Mr. Gibson’s point about capital gains taxes. Which simply demonstrates once again both the ignorance and the leftist tilt of self-styled journalists. Like so many other areas of public policy, the “inconvenient” truth is over shadowed by liberal ideology.
These questions are legitimate ones. These liberals apparently believe that the American people do not deserve to know who the are voting for. Anyways, these people are just following Obama’s lead on the whining front. Obama is quickly becoming damaged goods.
Hannitized, did these same individuals write a letter to the NYT when they aired a front page lie about John McCain having an affair with a lobbyist? I think not…
I have no idea. But that logic is off the mark in two major ways.
1) These people are complaining about PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES. Not news stories.
2) That would make them pro-democrat at best.
You are stretching here.