TCS Daily


Mac Must Make the Investor Case Now

By Larry Kudlow - October 29, 2008 12:00 AM

John McCain is gaining traction on the tax issue as he aggressively makes the case that Obama the Redistributor will take your money and give it to someone else, while he, McCain, will create more economic opportunity by growing the pie for everyone.

Key polls — like Rasmussen, Gallup, Battleground, and IBD — show a narrowing of the race to 2 or 3 percentage points just in recent days. This is in part because Joe the Plumber has crystallized McCain's campaign message to a pro-growth tax-cut recovery plan that reaches out to investors all across the country. Now the big question is whether McCain will stay on message and keep hammering these points home.

Two days ago in Ohio, McCain argued: "We will cut the capital-gains tax. And we will cut business taxes to help create jobs, and keep American businesses in America." It's the first time he referred explicitly to his capital-gains tax cut, which would take the investment rate to 7.5 percent from current law of 15 percent.

Against the backdrop of plunging stocks and deflating home prices, that means asset buyers would keep 92.5 cents of every additional dollar of profit from the purchase of underwater stocks, houses, or any other asset. Current law will let you keep 85 cents on the extra dollar. So McCain's plan is a 9 percent incentive reward to invest and take risks.

Now contrast that with Obama's capital-gains tax hike to a 20 percent marginal rate (at least). That means you keep 80 cents of the extra dollar of invested profit instead of today's rate of 85 cents. In other words, that's a 6 percent penalty compared with current law.

Adding up McCain's 9 percent reward and Obama's 6 percent penalty, we're talking about a 15 percent swing in the after-tax cost of capital and reward for investment. Stocks have already fallen 40 percent from last October's peak. So the 15 percent differential between the Obama and McCain plans makes a very big difference to the 100 million investors who comprise nearly two of every three votes in presidential elections.

Additionally, McCain would provide a $15,000 capital-loss tax deduction and would lower the tax rate on retired investors who redeem their 401(k)s or IRAs to a rock-bottom 10 percent. Plus, McCain would drop the corporate tax — a big boon to consumers who actually pay the tax — and would keep income-tax rates at present levels.

Obviously, there's a very significant difference between the Democratic and Republican plans. If only Mac hammers this home in the final days of the election. Sure, folks have a strong dislike for redistribution. They prefer opportunity. They want to grow the pie larger. And they don't want left-wing activist Supreme Court judges to take away even more of their economic rights. Hence McCain's case grows even stronger — if he pounds away and makes it. But yesterday on CNBC John McCain never mentioned capital-gains or investors. That's not the way to do it.

The latest IBD/TIPP poll shows a 46-46 toss-up among investors. That's not good. What I'm saying here is that while the redistribution argument is working, it needs to be bolstered by a strong case to investors, who are usually the very base of the GOP.

The opportunity is there for Sen. McCain. But he must have a disciplined investor message in the remaining days.

Categories:

32 Comments

Whom to energize, and how
McCain needs more than just the base. He has to reach out to everyone who has a 401K, who has a pension plan that may be in jeopardy, who has read of disciplined investors who quietly built fortunes.

Poppycock
If Mac is making gains with Kudlow's point, its because the fear message is working. Redistribution is what happens with every tax that is paid and every expenditure of government. Is ALL redistribution. So to nail one candidate for it is simply misleading, but, if it works it works. Fear is a good motivator for politicians. Middle class people are stupid to be scared by the term redistribution as its being used by Republicans. Joe the Plumber is an idiot. But thats who Republicans depend on.

Its a minority of Americans who pay capital gains tax. Kudlow's argument is just "more for the rich" and hope it trickles down.

I hadn't heard McCain's idea to reduce taxes when retirees cash out their 401k's - now thats a good idea.

"Plus, McCain would drop the corporate tax — a big boon to consumers who actually pay the tax — and would keep income-tax rates at present levels."

Thats BS too. Consumers would see no benefit from a reduced corporate tax. We would only pay more if the corporate tax goes up. It doesn't work both ways. It would just give more to the rich, again.

McCain should stick to his fear messsage. He already has the rich in his corner.

Dem Poppycock
"Redistribution is what happens with every tax that is paid and every expenditure of government. Is ALL redistribution."

BS. You are deliberately mixing appropriation for spending on the common good (bridges, roads, legal system, defense) with robbing Peter to pay Jose, which are not the same thing.

At least with the first, we get economic outputs (however inefficiently) for our inputs. Redistributing to others for nothing in return gets us...nothing. It sure does buy a lot of votes, though.

And the Dems' plan of TAKING people's 401(k)s is grand larceny, pure and simple. That's like levying a massively retroactive income tax going back DECADES on a huge scale.

As things stand now, I predict that McCain is going to win. The 'massive youth' vote that Obama and the media CLAIMS WILL BE THERE has failed to materialize so far and at least 3/4 of the undecided votes will go McCain's way -- they are already starting to move in that direction.

" Consumers would see no benefit from a reduced corporate tax"

Once again, your War on Economic Reality shows why we are doomed if the Obamacrats seizes power.

Too Late, I'm Afraid
>"Mac Must Make the Investor Case Now"

With only four more days to go before the election? Are you kidding me? He should have been making the case LONG before now. Attempting to get such a message out now will simply fall on deaf ears.

Wish You Were Right
>"As things stand now, I predict that McCain is going to win."

From your lips, Zyn . . .

Unfortunately, I don't have your confidence. The political stars are simply lining up for a Dem takeover. Electoral politics is reactionary -- the electorate tends to attribute (however rightfully or wrongfully) the overall perceived condition of the country to the administration (and its Party) in power. As it is, combine an unpopular war with an economic downturn and you'll get a reactionary populace "voting out the bums" whom they perceive as singularly responsible for everything that's happening. Add to that factor a young, smooth, popular, hip-ly multi-ethnic "rock star" competing against a crusty old white guy and, well, the superficiality that drives so much of the electoral process (think back to your high school presidency race) dictates an outcome I'm not looking forward to.

2010
Whether McCain wins or looses I suspect the dems won't be able to control the crazy socialists among them, they will show their true colors, and conservatives will retake Congress.

Counter arguments
Yes, voters are definitely reactionary, as you say.

What do voters do when they are scared? They vote for the 'safe' candidate. They did that with Bush in 2004 (the Muslims are going to get us! the Muslims are going to get us!). They only go with a riskier one when they feel it is safe to do so -- like at the end of the Cold War when they felt they could fool around with Ross Perot (who got 19% of the vote in 1992) and didn't mind (at least initially) that Clinton took office.

And to many voters, taking a chance on Obama would be an exercise in social & historical experimentation even in the best of times, too.

I submit the possibility that had the Soviets still been a going concern in 1992, then Perot would have not have shown up in the limelight at all or just got 5% of the vote. Either case, No 19% Perot = No Clinton.

But mostly, I attribute my prediction on the crappy polling and media coverage. It is a huge systemic problem. For the media coverage, I don't think I need to go there to much.

For Polling...
This is where your 'hip guy' theory matters...just not quite the way you think it does. It matters in that people don't want to admit that they are not voting for the 'hip guy' but very much intend to do just that. For proof of this, look at the effectiveness of (and Obama's reaction to) McCain's ad lambasting Obama's rock star BS (the one with Paris Hilton in it).

Another bit of polling with regards to recent (last two years) history involving two black Republicans and two black Democrats running for office. In ALL cases -- including the black candidate that won -- 3 out of 4 of the undecided voters went with the white candidate. But, Harold Ford only got 1 in 5 undecided votes. And Ford, like Obama, was definitely the more hip of the two candidates in that race.

If that holds now...and it is starting to look that way since undecideds are starting to 'decide', then Obama needs to clear 50% of the vote in the battleground states at least. Otherwise, McCain will win. Up until a couple of days ago, the undecideds comprised over 10% of the polling samples, more or less. So, 3/4 of them would be 7 percentage points that can go to McCain.

Now, even if you don't think that will be the case in this election, there is increasing evidence that the polling in general is even more unreliable than ever before. 80% of people asked to be polled refuse and for conservatives that figure is in the high 90s. So, that leaves the enthusiastic crowd. The narcissists or border-line narcissists. That's hardly a decent polling sample, don't you think.

And don't get me started on how the media 'pads' the polling results to match their propaganda line. The professional polling firms (Gallup, Rassmussen, Zogby, TIPP,etc.) also engage in it but only to cover there political correctness asses. That is why you see Gallup, for example, offer up 'expanded' as well as 'traditional' polling results.

Last, just watch what the Obmatons are actually doing and compare it to what they are saying/acting like they are doing. If Obama -- who has been outspending McCain 10-1 -- has it in the bag, then why is he still hardcharging it in Iowa and other key battlground states? Why are leaks from his own campaign staff depicting potential ruin unless Obama clears at least 10 points in some states?

And WHY are some of the more responsible news folks starting to cover their butts by at least 'reporting' on how the race is tightening and that McCain is catching up?

Also, forget about the 'Youth Vote'. Every four years we hear about it (mostly from the eventual loser's campaign staff) and every four years it doesn't materialize. Young people consistently make appointments with their drug dealers with far more reliability than they do with the voting booth. Early voting data collected so far clearly show that is the case now, as well.

McCain can still lose. Factors like the massive voter fraud as well as the margin of error in the closeness of the very few tracking polls I consider semi-reliable certainly point to that.

But they said that Kerry was winning by 15 points against Bush as I left work the night of the 2004 election too. My Bush-hating liberal co-workers were already giving me a hard time. I felt like Scully the Cat in the movie 'Willard'. Then, the next day I cam in to work and nobody was willing to make eye contact with me. The rats were neutered. That experience is still burned in my mind.

It's not over until the Socialist DOES actually steal the election, StinkHammer. Just keep that in mind is all I ask.

Also...
...if McCain wins, then the Libs will go nuclear.
Totally, absolutely nuclear.
Sales of the "We're all DailyKOS wackos now!" bumper stickers will be doing well, shall we say.

That means that Pelosi will have a real hard time keeping the Kucinich camp's Bush impeachment articles from reaching a floor vote between Nov 5 and January when this current Congress' term expires.

Yes, I am saying that there is a very real possibility that Bush will get impeached out of shear spite if McCain wins.

He's already been doing it...
..with Joe the Plumber, as Kudlow said.

And it has been effective. I wouldn't say it is too little too late, either.

The battle is for the late-deciders who are only now doing their homework (if at all).

For those of you worried about McCain...
...just remember: There are others equally worried, too. Only, they aren't getting reported on.

Like this guy:
http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/30/media-liberal-polls-oped-cx_pr_1031robinson_print.html

It will be really fun to watch them go more insane than they are.
If they are impeaching, they are not taxing.

Danger of entitlelment mentality
If BHO looses, his supporters will feel cheated as they 'feel' they are entitled.

BHO beat Hillary. He raised more money. He went to a better school. It is the democrats turn. He reads a speech well. He is black. The media loves him. The world loves him. Why bother with an election? The polls say he has already won. McCain should concede now.

Who cares what BHO's policies are?

That's why...
...I have no less that five bets placed that riots will break out provided Obama loses.

I'm out $100 ($20 each) if Obama loses but the Obamatons behave.

Fat chance of them doing that, as Marjon says. Hey, did you see the interview of that Obama supporter who says she expects the taxpayer to cover her gas tank and mortgages if Obama is elected? She'll be really, really pissed if McCain wins.

Latest news that backs me up (so far)
ZOGBY SATURDAY: Republican John McCain has pulled back within the margin of error... The three-day average holds steady, but McCain outpolled Obama 48% to 47% in Friday, one day, polling. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all...

Larry..
You said "So McCain's plan is a 9 percent incentive reward to invest and take risks...Obama's capital-gains tax hike [is] a 6 percent penalty compared with current law...we're talking about a 15 percent swing in the after-tax cost of capital..."

In the first place "cost of capital" is always a before-tax burden on an investment...assuming you are using leverage. If you are not investing borrowed funds to invest then your cost of capital is the rate of return you would enjoy by simply holding the cash. Very low number today. Alternative investments compete...but they don't really count because higher return options always factor in risk and inflation...so that part of your decision all balances out in a perfect world.

The higher the return on such an investment would be the less significant your 15% of profit becomes. If I make 18% on something risky and now only get to keep 15%...I'm very happy with that move. I would make it again. If I only make 6% on something safe but get to keep 5%...still OK. My fund manager keeps more than that. And it beats holding the cash. This marginal cost penalty when I make a profit should not impact my rational investment decisions at all. I might not like it...but I'll still invest. What choice do I have? Stay in cash?

You said "Stocks have already fallen 40 percent from last October's peak. So the 15 percent differential between the Obama and McCain plans makes a very big difference..."

No it doesn't. You don't pay capital gains on losses. Those losses, if you book them, simply shelter your taxable income elsewhere. If you hold and your equities rebound then, once again, your decision to invest was not based on the tax rate at all. This is especially true for your "100 million investors who comprise nearly two of every three votes in presidential elections."

Emotional politics are very different from investment decisions. Such tax rates are only a factor to the very largest financial institutions who shave fractions off immense plays and look around for hedge opportunities. Something for nothing as long as the system holds up. Well it broke. And those are the bums who got us into this mess. Encouraging them further seems self-defeating. Nationalize such people and everyone who looks like them. Where is our Gulag when we need one?


Now it looks like the Commie will win...
...it will be a very interesting two years at least.

So why does capital investment drop when those taxes are raised?
...and the number of IPOs drop?

...and Zyndryl was wrong
What an historic election! We elected a commie and Zyndryl was completely wrong. You get an A for effort though, you were rationalizing your delusions right up to the last minute.

Looks like I was right and you were wrong. Americans aren't closet racists like you theorized. Just the south and a swath of hillbilly lands up through the Midwest, just like I said. Actually, I gave more credit to Nebraska, but rural people tend to vote Republican despite it hurts their own interests. Thats a hillbilly for you.

"Now, even if you don't think that will be the case in this election, there is increasing evidence that the polling in general is even more unreliable than ever before. 80% of people asked to be polled refuse and for conservatives that figure is in the high 90s. So, that leaves the enthusiastic crowd. The narcissists or border-line narcissists. That's hardly a decent polling sample, don't you think."

You have any proof of this? 80% refusal rates, high 90's among conservatives?? I've worked in market research for a decade and never experienced or heard of refusal rates anywhere close to 80%. I laughed out loud when I read this from you, you have to provide some proof, its such a ridiculous claim.


I was right and you were wrong Zyndryl, on almost every point you made about this election. We have definitive proof on this one - finally! You can't rationalize yourself out of this one. How many other things are you dead wrong about and I am right. Don't fret, Obama doesn't care how much of an idiot you choose to be, he will reach out to you, even if you don't know any better to accept it. But for sure, its not your fault, its never your fault. Just keep repeating that to yourself, it makes Bush feel better too.

Enjoy it while it lasts, Bob
Yes, I was wrong. I put too much faith in the American people. Definitely my bad.

"Americans aren't closet racists like you theorized."

That's still to be proven...especially given all the voter fraud that obviously stole this election. Or, given all the promises to rob Peter to pay Paul. I guess that IS a hopeful sign: racists can be bought off if the price is right. Congrats Bob! You win that round.

"rural people tend to vote Republican despite it hurts their own interests"

How is it against the interests of rural people to vote against politicians who take their money to buy off the votes of inner city trash?

"You have any proof of this? 80% refusal rates, high 90's among conservatives??"

No, but Gallup and Rassmussen and all the other polling firms apparently do. They are the ones who say this, not I.

Conservatives trust pollsters/media about as much as minorities trust the police.

"I was right and you were wrong Zyndryl, on almost every point you made about this election. We have definitive proof on this one - finally!"

No, you weren't. Or rather, you can't prove it. The only proof we have is that Obama and the Dems got lucky from a protest vote by voters who have no clue what they've done. The ones who put Obama over the tope did not vote for the reasons YOU said they would. Or rather, you can't prove that is the case.

"Obama..he will reach out to you"

Yeah, like that Black Panther at the Philly voting station with the nightstick did to white voters, I bet.
But so far, he's reaching out for my wallet only. If I don't pay up, then I guess the Black Panther (new officer of the Civilian Gestapo Force) will pay me a visit?

"it makes Bush feel better too"

Again, what does Bush have to do with this? He's ancient history. But you always have to bash him. Now that Palin isn't a viable target (for now) you go back to bashing him. Tell me, 3 years from now are you going to keep blaming him for Obama's f*ck-ups as well? Karl Rove? Who are you going to direct your anger and rage at, Bob? It's now ALL Democrats, ALL the time, on EVERY channel.

For what it is worth, I'll make some more predictions. For all but the last one, I am using conditional statements ('likely', 'probably' and 'might', for example) so that Bob can't claim later that I was 'wrong' but try to pin the reasons why incorrectly in order to push his own propaganda agenda:

1) The Dems will most likely TRY to govern from just slightly right of Joe Stalin and Robert Mugabe, but far more to the left than FDR or LBJ. There will be no 'centrist' governing with these Dems -- except in name only and propagandized by the press. How much the Reps in the Senate can get their act together to stand firm on filibusters is the only limiting factor, really. There are too many 'moderate' Rep Senators though that can be bought off to cross the aisle and break the filibuster. Then there is the total disdain Obama has for the Constitution itself, so why bother with the legislature anyway? Either way, there's little to stop the Dems from doing what they want and they are not interested in 'governing from the middle'.

The vast majority of voters who had no clue about this are in for a rude shock. Serves them right, too.

2) Israel might attack Iran between now and when Obama is sworn in. The Israelis have warned that they would if Obama wins. Their states reasons (unreported in the US press, btw) are that they figure Obama will sell them out and so need to do what they feel they have to before Obama is in a position to oppose them. Another possibility: they blackmail Bush to do it for them. But then they will be dependent upon Obama to finish the job, so that is unlikely.

3) Millions of Iraqis -- predominantly Sunnis -- will probably be slaughtered as we 'cut & run' from Iraq. If so, the 'Sunni Genocide' will be Obama's Bay of Pigs. I wonder if we'll see news footage of the helicopters fleeing from the rooftop of our embassy in Baghdad, a la the Fall of Saigon.

4) Tens of millions of illegal aliens will most likely be 'legalized'. Hell, they might just be granted outright citizenship. Thus further packing the voter rolls with good little redistributionist foot soldiers. That would, ate least, take care of the problem of Obama's aunt.

5) The '95%' middle class income tax cut promise will probably be the first Obama Promise to be broken. Oh, the de facto welfare 'tax credit' checks will still be sent from those who actually pay income taxes to those who don't. But, it will be the middle class who will be paying for it and not getting much in return.

6) Regardless of whatever the Dems and Obama do, when it blows up in their faces they WILL DEFINITELY blame it on Bush, Karl Rove, **** Cheney, the Republicans -In-General and even Sarah Palin (who is not in the federal government nor ever has been) no matter how many years have passed. The media will jump on that bandwagon also. We will be like African nations that blame all their present day ills on the actions of their colonial masters decades past, in that respect. Whether the voters buy that crap I don't know. FDR and the New Dealers were able to blame Hoover and the Republicans for their failed policies for over 10 years of an economic depression, so it is possible it might work.

But I could be 'wrong'. Yes, Bob. I could be 'wrong'. Make you feel better now?

Who are they going to hate now?
Anger & rage doesn't just dissipate. Who are they going to re-direct it to? Karl Rove? Sarah Palin? George Bush? **** Cheney? Maybe for the first year...but after that, its ALL Democrats and ALL Obama 24/7, baby.

So, where are they going to direct their rage? I don't think the occasional Republican filibuster will cut the mustard as a decent target, do you?

You are talking about Wall Street...
Of course, in the financial world...as I said...tax rates are significant because institutional players routinely live and die with margins that are less than 1%. But this is just the big boys fooling around with wealth-creating entities that are already very well established and doing super...public companies and those that are ready to IPO.

The rapidly growing economy of much smaller companies we are really interested in promoting are not very interested in how corporate tax rates will impact them if they ever do well enough to make a profit. Furthermore, insofar as these companies are not public there is no good reason for them to ever show much of a profit and pay corporate taxes...because those earnings should be plowed right back onto the Balance Sheet along with all the bank leverage the owners can borrow...assuming there are appropriate business opportunities for them. If not or if the entrepreneurs have grown tired...then we should tax them. What good are they to us anymore if they won't work...but rather want to just go sit on their yachts?

Conservatives did not loose.
Homosexual marriage was stopped in FL and CA.

Too bad no conservatives had the guts to run this year.

BTW, is Tom McClintock in office in CA?

Landlord's taxes
I heard a landlord Rush's show, who rents a few houses, state how he will have to raise his rents when his taxes go up if he doesn't want to loose his income and keep up his properties.

Higher taxes hurt EVERYONE.

Its a time to celebrate, but the hard work is ahead
You know, reading your last post made me realize something. You see things through a prizm of a mirror. So much of your negative comments about others are so much a reflection of your own views, just applied in another direction. It’s a scary conundrum that you don’t recognize that truth can change if you change perspective. For example, you say Obama has a disdain for the Constitution, yet for 8 years we’ve had an Administration that demonstrably has a deep disdain for the Constitution, strong-armed Congress repeatedly and downright violated laws. Just because the Bush Administration acted this way doesn’t mean an Obama Administration will. In fact, this is one big reason Obama will be our President – CHANGE. Not that you’ll understand this, it was just an epiphany I had in trying to understand how you can be so wrong yet so defiant about it so often. It’s too bad, but not everyone can be blessed with the ability to use their God given intelligence.

I don’t feel better to read such bias-induced ignorance from you Zyndryl. It’s disappointing I do what I can to educate you but you never learn. Like every other whiny conservative, you blame the teacher. Like I said before, it’s not your fault, it never is. I give you props for actually admitting you were wrong, that’s surprising enough, but it’s rather hollow given you put the blame on voters who weren’t racist enough to satisfy you.

“Yes, I was wrong. I put too much faith in the American people.”
So you put too much faith in them to be racist. Super. It’s good news, on so many levels, they disappointed you. You can't possibly understand that, you're just a cheerleader.

“That's still to be proven...especially given all the voter fraud that obviously stole this election.”

Do tell, to what voter fraud do you refer? Let me guess, the same voter fraud you whine about in every election? Well, somebody is to blame, huh? Is there any proof of voter fraud taking place? Until then your statement is just crybaby finger pointing. Don't fret, I cried in 2004 (and every day since), and I pointed the finger where it belonged and gave credit where it was due. I'm not a cheerleader like you.

“No (80% refusal rates, high 90's among conservatives), but Gallup and Rassmussen and all the other polling firms apparently do. They are the ones who say this, not I.”

You said it, you're the only one I've seen say it. I haven’t seen any polling firm say it. I searched for it online and couldn’t find it either. I did find one that says 26% refusal rate. So, unless you’re just talking out your ass AGAIN, please provide SOME kind of evidence to support your outlandish statement. It’s true only in your mind otherwise. But that’s nothing new.

Really, it doesn’t matter that you don’t think Obama will reach out to you too. And it doesn’t really matter that you won’t accept it. It may even be a good thing because it will speed your descent to irrelevancy. That is good for everyone. Your style of politics is dying, none too soon.

“Again, what does Bush have to do with this? He's ancient history. But you always have to bash him. Now that Palin isn't a viable target (for now) you go back to bashing him. Tell me, 3 years from now are you going to keep blaming him for Obama's f*ck-ups as well? Karl Rove? Who are you going to direct your anger and rage at, Bob? It's now ALL Democrats, ALL the time, on EVERY channel.”

The difference between you and me is I will hold Democrats fee to the fire. I will be critical if they don’t do a good job. You on the other hand are just a cheerleader. Obama hasn’t served a day in the oval office yet and you’re already criticizing things that haven’t happened. I don’t like one party controlling all 3 branches, but I voted for it this time because people with views like you must be flushed out and dropped in a bottomless hole. That’s an emotional way of saying: you suck and you should be irrelevant for the benefit of everyone.

Bush is not ancient history. We will indeed be suffering his policies and decisions for years to come. Tent trillion in debt won't disappear tomorrow. Naturally, Democrats will blame Bush for everything that goes bad in the next several years, regardless if it’s true or not for each circumstance. But no doubt we will continue to suffer because of his poor, poor performance and damage he has caused to our union.

It hasn’t been talked about much, if at all, but for 2 years now everything Democrats try to do has been required to overcome a filibuster. Funny, when Republicans had control they were always whining when Democrats would filibuster, and Democrats didn’t filibuster everything. We haven’t heard a peep from Democrats the last 2 years as Republicans filibuster EVERYTHING. It’s an interesting difference in the parties. One point of evidence why Republicans are whiners and hypocrites, and Democrats are less so.


Yeah, your predictions aren’t worth much. You’re better not offering them so we won’t be able to rub it in your face when time shows you to be so wrong. It’s not worth reviewing each one, they range from ridiculous to cheerleading BS. That covers about everything you say though. That makes me look like an idiot even reading it and responding. I’ll put my dunce cap on for the day. I’m a bully too, so I respond.

This is just the beginning. Obama will rule from the center-left. As such, it will be refreshing when he gets things done. Very well could serve to provide a Democratic majority for several elections to come. And with Republicans out there who maintain foolish cheerleader views like your own, it will help him not hurt him.

Do you see that up in the sky? It’s a ray of light breaking through the dark clouds. Finally! Ding dong, the Bush is dead. Two more months and we will finally be rid of him. I don't feel rage, that came when Bush actually did things. It’s a time to celebrate. America is back.

Good
And then your slumlord will lose his renters and his houses. Good. That will open the door for someone with a brain to do some business. The guy listens to Rush, you know he doesn't have a brain.

You're wrong marjon. Higher taxes do hurt everyone just like lower taxes do not benefit everyone. When did you remove supply and demand from economic equations?

Yes, McClintock is the sole beacon of sanity in CA
.

"This is just the beginning. Obama will rule from the center-left"
Total BS, as his Chief-of-Staff pick proves conclusively.

Nice blinders you have on, Bob.

P.S., Bush did not violate the Constitution. Prove that he did.

01/20/2013: An end of an error.
If BHO doesn't declare martial law.

I think they will begin to hate BHO.
I suspect BHO will be like Clinton and respond to daily polls, which will **** off his socialist supporters.

I don't believe BHO has the internal character, the courage of his convictions. He did not have the courage to leave a radical church because he did not dare alienate his local supporters.

He will do the same on the national stage when the center right majority opposes BHO socialism.

Where am I wrong?
High taxes do hurt all.

Low taxes benefit all by lifting the drag created by the inefficient government.

Just watch - center-left, bipartisan - he'll do things the right way - CHANGE
Rahm was ranked 128th most liberal Rep based on his voting record. Conservatives think thats important, we've seen it repeated ad nauseum that Obama was #1. That must mean its important to you too. So I guess you're wrong again.

I suppose I forgot, anything left of Rush Limbaugh is extremist liberal to you. So yes, Obama will be no different than Nancy Pelosi. Does that make you feel better? That was easy.

And yes, of course Boosh didn't violate the Constitution. He never lied either. He never broke the law and tried to hide it either. And on and on and on. I'm not going to waste my breath with you Zyndryl. You were alive, I assume you paid attention, you saw it too if thats the case, regardless of the fact you clearly can't handle the truth now. I'd give you 5 more years to come to your senses, if you can't in that time you're probably lost forever (in you're not already).

TCS Daily Archives