First off, those rough questions in the beginning just angered his
supporters to work harder for him.
Secondly, the rough questions made many people just switch to another
channel when they didn't like the debate was so dumb. But the second
half, the policy stuff, clearly showed Obama's inexperience with
economic principles and how his proposals will hurt the middle class
rather than help the middle class. Many people didn't watch that part
because they were just so angry by the first part. Here's an article
I found:
April 19, 2008
Why Not Blame Obama?
By Lawrence Kudlow
It's rather amusing watching the liberal media launch a full-scale
attack on George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, with General Tom
Shales of the Washington Post leading the charge. ABC's
Stephanopoulos and Gibson had the audacity to ask Obama some tough
questions during the Democratic debate Tuesday night. Challenge Obama
with well-informed questions on tax policy and politics? Wound the
media favorite? How dare they?
The fallout is fascinating. With members of the mainstream liberal
media lunging at each others throats, it's kind of like watching
Hillary and Obama go at it.
But here's the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on
tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my
liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy
has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.
First off, you don't raise taxes during a recession. That's a no-
brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect
Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund
managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and
they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget
revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate.
That's what history shows.
The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost
half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households
with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from
households earning less than $100,000.
Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that
will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges
tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax
hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap
on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By
eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops,
teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other
occupations.
In fact, in America's largest cities, a firefighter married to a
school teacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly. So not only
will each spouse separately pay more for Social Security and health
care under Obama's plan, together they'll also be slammed by Obama's
cap-gains tax increase.
This is more than just a failure to understand the Laffer curve. It's
another cultural misstep by Obama. I can't help but wonder if the
senator knows any cops or firemen. His appeal is to well-educated
latte liberals. That remark about middle-income folks having turned
to God, faith, and guns because of economic setbacks? Not only was it
ill-advised, it illustrates the wide cultural chasm that exists
between the candidate and the rest of America.
In effect, Obama's economics are bad and his social circle is very
limited. This is one of the many reasons why a quarter of the Hillary
Democrats are telling pollsters they'll likely move to John McCain in
the general election.
Obama's real agenda is far-liberal left. It's an ideology that places
income redistribution above economic growth. That's his real message.
And it's the same one that sunk Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and
Kerry. Bill Clinton? He was a growth Democrat. So he won twice. But
Obama is aligning himself with the Democratic losers. And that will
make him a loser as well.
The Gallup poll taken after the Democratic debate reveals that
Hillary's pit-bull routine may have worked. We'll learn more on that
front come Tuesday when Pennsylvanians head to the voting booths. But
that's a different issue. What I'm saying is that liberals need to
quit blaming Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for Obama's
shortcomings. Instead, they need to blame Obama for failing to grasp
how tax penalties on upward mobility will hurt the very people he
thinks he's going to help.
Jack Kemp has effectively made the point that African American
communities desperately need capital in order to create new
businesses and jobs. Yet as Obama takes the capital out of
capitalism, all those who are not rich will be hurt when the rich
folks with capital have less of it -- after tax -- to invest in those
new businesses and new jobs.
That's exactly why wealth-redistribution plans always backfire.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a surefire economic loser. So is putting
government in charge of the economy, which is what Mr. Obama is
proselytizing.
This marks the third mistake for the Illinois senator. Not only does
he not understand economics; not only is he set apart from middle-
class values and beliefs; he apparently hasn't read much history
either.
Did someone say inexperience?
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Dems2008-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Dems2008-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Dems2008-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder