Obama: No more debates before May 6th

[Ramo]

Let's also say that McCain has a friendly relationship with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber who regrest not setting more bombs.

Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since the year 2000 stems from an interview he gave to the New York Times on the occasion of its publication.[4] The reporter attributed several inflammatory assertions to him including: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." and "I don't want to discount the possibility." when asked if he would "do it all again". [3] Ayers protested the reporter's work in a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times published September 15: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."[5] In the ensuing years, he has repeatedly avowed that "no regrets" had been spoken in reference to his efforts to oppose the Vietnam War, and that "we didn't do enough" had been spoken in reference to his opinion that efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War were obviously inadequate as the war dragged on for a decade. Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to elide into a wish they had set more bombs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ayers

[DinoDoc]

Ramo: It's kinda hard to take a single sentence such as ''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. and put any sort of positive spin on it. Now if he never actually said that, a link to a lawsuit against the Times would be most helpful.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[Ramo]

1.

Ayers protested the reporter's work in a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times published September 15: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."

2. Ayers isn't running for President. Given the casualness of Obama's association with Ayers, regardless of what Ayers' deepest darkest feelings happen to be, there's no particular reason to think that Obama would be privy to them. This is a dumb, manufactured issue that real journalists should be ashamed of bringing up.

[Ramo]

It's almost, but not quite, as pathetic as the flag pin question...

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Ramo
This is a dumb, manufactured issue that real journalists should be ashamed of bringing up.

QFT

[asleepathewheel]

Obama should just come out and admit that he only met with Ayres because it would get him introduced to the local democrat machinery, in a way that wouldn't sound like a cynical typical calculating politician.

I think some people are perceiving his dodges, this one and the Wright one, as being dishonest. The issues don't matter so much as the way he is dealing with them.

He is a strikingly intelligent man who is trying to play the oblivious card. Unfortunately for him, he isn't considered a buffoon like GW.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by snoopy369
That's a really interesting issue right now - Capital gains taxes, up or not (or even down). The difference between fairness (as CG are generally only made by the rich, and are generally 'extra' income not needed to live) and economics (as encouraging investment is crucial to the economy, and during an economic downturn any increase in CG taxes will cause a lot of money to leave the investment pool).

More than likely the answer is to raise them, but not quite yet. Raise them once the economy has turned around (and not JUST after it has, but when it's back on the upswing or even into bubble territory) and enough to permanently shift the CG tax rate (so that you can lower it again later, when needed for economic reasons, and still be well above current levels).

Unfortunately, this is a relatively complex economic argument, and not one that will ever make it into the mainstream debate... thus it becomes 'rich versus poor' instead of the economic debate it needs to be.

Point being of course that Obama virtually conceded the point that Gibson/Step repeatedly made that historically every timethe governement lowered CG it increased governmental revenues. He hemmed and hawed saying it depended on the state of the economy (Now one can say he didn't want to go into the speficity of laffer curve theory for fear of losing the audience) but moreso he then lied that he always intended CG to be about social fairness not increasing governmental revenues. (patently & provably false.) Regardless it gives insight to the man that he feels taxation policy is moreso about social engineering than about maximizing the revenues to the state. Something I think deplorable.

[Ramo]

The thing is, any change in capital gains rates increases revenue in the short term. Cutting the rate encourages people to sell after the new rate is enforced; but raising the rate also encourages people to sell, except before the new rate is imposed. The long term impact on revenues is a much more complicated question. And needless to say, the idea that we're on the wrong side of the Laffer curve is a pretty marginal view point. In short, Charlie Gibson is a silly man who should be kept far away from potential Presidents.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The thing is any change upward in CG at this point in time i.e. pending a recession if not already in one is pure idiocy, cept of course if one is a populist driven panderer.

[Ramo]

That premise aside, any policy enacted by a new President would by definition not be at this point in time. The Bush tax cuts expire at 2010, and that's likely when any policy change would happen.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

At the height of a recession, since the cycles tend to be about 4 years in length. Kudos.

[Ramo]

You're saying that a 4 year recession is likely? And do you also do lotto numbers?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Lotto numbers, no. That's a tax on stupid people. But as far as recession goes, lots of big companies are bracing for bad times ahead figuring Bernacki is dead wrong that one time tax stimulus in May will do much of anything in the face of fuel costs and weakening $. Course I'm sure Barry gives 2 ****es since according to his own latest account (vs his previous BS) he simply wants to punish 'those people' all in the name of fairness according to the gospel of Barrack.

[Ramo]

You're dodging the question. I think you just claimed that there's going to be a 4 year recession. Is that correct?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
You're dodging the question. I think you just claimed that there's going to be a 4 year recession. Is that correct?

Average length of recession is 450 ish days. Cycle until gains net recession losses 4yrs. Recession is prolly not yet underway. 450 days from mid to late this year coupled with some real fundamental economic concerns make me think 450 days is indeed optimistic. Enough so to realize Obama is full of crap.