Nitro, you may impute any motive to me you like but you show no respect for your character or others by calling me a liar---one who says what he knows not to be true. Insults have no place on this board.
I explained it to you above, King. I posted the facts. I feel that I have given you all the "respect" that you deserve for your above post. It's real simple. Obama's tax message was NOT "right out of the Gipper's playbook". Reagan's tax policy was the opposite of Obama's, and the theories behind each have nothing in common whatsoever. The statements you made that I responded to in your post above are, factually, utterly false. You posted those statements as fact rather than speculation.
That left three possibilities:
1. You are too fundamentally ignorant of US tax policy - the subject on which you presumed to post comments as fact - to be making such comments, and are so uninformed that you don't know any better. Not a reflection on anyone, as our tax laws, the history of them, and the theories behind them are extremely complex. For the same reason, the information on the issue that you get from mainstream media is extremely unreliable. Most people simply don't have a clue.
2. Your statements were political dogma with no reference to fact, but falsely presented as based in fact.
3. You are well-informed on the issue, but chose to misrepresent the facts in order to fit your needs.
I didn't call you a liar, King. I said you lied. As I do Obama, I assume you to be a reasonably intelligent person, although in your case, perhaps, betrayed by altruism (which I don't believe Obama possesses). I didn't assume "1" above of a reasonably intelligent guy and journalist. If I made a mistake there, then indeed, I went too far, and apologize. For any other possibility, I stand by what I said.
You should be aware that McCain advocated a 4-per-cent tax cut for the rich
An intellectually and economically sound, proven, and apolitical policy. McCain watched Reagan's tax policies work, and believed in them.
and an 0.2-per-cent tax cut for the working poor, perceived as callous and gauche by many.
A fallacy invented by Obama's camp. Our working poor pay no income taxes now. How can you cut what is not there?
Obama promised tax cuts for 90 per cent of all American families. Obama adapted Reagan and Kennedy policies for himself:
Obama proposes a tax increase for the "rich" and a cut for the middle class and below. Once again, no trace of Reagan's policies in Obama's tax plan.
nonpartisan, nonideological, smart politics.
Intensely ideological, strictly social, and irresponsible promotion of class warfare when sound, proven economic policy is needed instead.
What's untruthful of Obama's message having a Reagan resonance---of Reagan's tapping into middle class dissatisfaction---and the debate over before it began?
There's nothing truthful about it whatsoever. Reagan's policies, and the theories and historical experiences behind them, have NOTHING in common with Obama's. Further, Reagan responded to overall dissatisfaction of the country, not middle class dissatisfaction.
Reagan's tax policies were so successful because he was able to grasp a basic, paradoxical, but now well known, truth - high tax rates on the rich REDUCE tax revenue from the rich. They simply "hibernate" in reaction to higher tax rates aimed at them, resulting in a stagnant economy and lower tax revenues.
I remember those days before the Reagan cuts very well. I remember the constant complaints from wealthy clients. "Gee, I'm already making $500,000 a year. If the government is going to take 50-70% of whatever extra I make, why should I take the risk, work the extra hours, and spend the money to open this new division? The headache isn't worth the reward." And so, they didn't. I watched this time after time.
Reagan was no orator, but they didn't call him the "Great Communicator" for nothing. Deeply convinced that he was right about tax policy, he was able to communicate that conviction, and sell it. His tax policy was highly successful, and I was in a good position to watch it work. Despite deep cuts in tax rates on the rich, tax revenues from the rich, if I remember correctly, had doubled by the time he left the White House.
Obama's "plan" is based on neither tax policy theory, nor tax policy reality. His tax message isn't even about economic policy. It's social policy alone, just tired collectivist dogma. "Times are bad, so it must be the rich exploiting the peasants again. Gotta to stay on message. No matter that I'll raise taxes in the segment that will do the most harm to the economy, ultimately shifting that burden to the middle class, I'll just blame it on Bush". Like I said, cynically stealing from their Lordships to buy votes from the peasants, with concern for neither the peasants nor the country as a whole.
As others pointed out here, given the average person's limited capacity to fret over the rich, McCain's drawing attention to Obama's proposed higher tax rates for wealthy Americans was an improbable strategy.
Not improbable at all. McCain adopted Reagan's strategy because it was proven, but had little gift as an orator, or salesman. Although unfortunately vacuous, Obama is a fine orator. So was Castro.
