alexey Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Seriously, what kind of a talking point is that? It is vaguely defined and commie sounding. Fair? Share? What does that even mean? It means different things to different people... But not in a good way, not like those useful code words politicians use sometimes. I am really hoping they won't go into the elections with that weak sauce. It is not a good policy proposition or a campaign slogan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I agree. Pay what they did when we had our last surplus sounds better Though it won't really matter. The republicans have 4 unelectable candidates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 He could seriously come out and say "I'm a ****ing communist and am going to take all your money for the common good, no matter what your salary." And still get elected the way the Republicans are screwing this election up. ROYALLY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big#44 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I agree. Pay what they did when we had our last surplus sounds betterThough it won't really matter. The republicans have 4 unelectable candidates Versus and un-re-electable president. Its the battle of the stoppable force versus the move-able object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Versus and un-re-electable president. Its the battle of the stoppable force versus the move-able object. If you have 4 unelectable candidate that makes their opponent electable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I think the Republicans are going trhough currently what the Dems went through in 04 with Kerry. It was obvious Bush was failing as a President and his policies were harming us... who did we wind up sending against him? Possibly the only guys in America who couldn't beat him. I still like Obama though his weaknesses are bad ones. He can't build concensus and as good as he is at expressing a vision... he's terrible at making others roll up their sleeves and execute it. He's a great vision guy, but a poor plan guy. With an average to good Congress, he might be a great President, but with the irresponsible, corrupt, hyperpartisan and destructive Congress we have (and we had it even when the Dems had the super majority)... Obama has not been an effective President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I still like Obama though his weaknesses are bad ones. He can't build concensus and as good as he is at expressing a vision... he's terrible at making others roll up their sleeves and execute it. He's a great vision guy, but a poor plan guy. With an average to good Congress, he might be a great President, but with the irresponsible, corrupt, hyperpartisan and destructive Congress we have (and we had it even when the Dems had the super majority)... Obama has not been an effective President. Actually, the thought has occurred to me that what Obama really needs is a guy like Newt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Actually, the thought has occurred to me that what Obama really needs is a guy like Newt. Clinton had James Carville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 It's phrased poorly. Is this all that different from Teddy Roosevelt's "Square Deal" talking points? He did a lot of the same things.....went after companies....tried to protect workers....tried to put a system in place that gave American's who paid/did their fair share a fair shot. It's amazing that a guy who was actually running under a 3rd party 100 years ago to get the job he shouldn't have left (but did because he promised to) back, was able to explain it better. Obama should literally use word for word some of the TR platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Yeah - when talking about anyone's money you need to use specifics. Politicians aren't seen as trustworthy and so it's not for them to decide what's fair. Otherwise the family earning $50k, $75k, $150k or whatever amount who think they're neither rich nor poor might think that Obama is going to ask them to pay more. And while here are folks like Buffet who pay less percentage-wise than their secretaries, this is a fairly insignificant number. If he wants to talk about closing the "carried interest" loophole, then he should talk specifically about that. If Republicans want to fight him on that I don't think it will be a vote winner as supporting hedge fund managers in buying a second mega yacht won't get you many votes. If he's talking about an increase to tax rates for people over $250k or whatever the number is, he should specifically mention the number and talk about how such tax rates were the norm is great economic times of surplus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Yeah, there's certainly something to be said for actually being specific. (Although in politics, what's to be said about being specific is "it's a bad idea. Costs you votes.") Like, for example, back when everybody in the Republican Party was attacking Mitt Romney for not paying enough taxes, I was really hoping that Mitt would have had the guts, during one of the debates, to make a comment along the lines of "I'm the only person on this stage who hasn't promised to cut my taxes to zero. And you people have the ***** to stand here and attack me for not paying enough? Bunch of hypocrites. Every one of you." (Part of me says that if he'd done that, this nomination process would be over, today.) If he's talking about an increase to tax rates for people over $250k or whatever the number is, he should specifically mention the number and talk about how such tax rates were the norm is great economic times of surplus. Obama did that. How'd it work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted February 25, 2012 Author Share Posted February 25, 2012 Actually, the thought has occurred to me that what Obama really needs is a guy like Newt. He tried with Rahm, but it backfired. He ran on doing things one way, but tried doing them differently after the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Yeah - when talking about anyone's money you need to use specifics. Politicians aren't seen as trustworthy and so it's not for them to decide what's fair.Otherwise the family earning $50k, $75k, $150k or whatever amount who think they're neither rich nor poor might think that Obama is going to ask them to pay more. And while here are folks like Buffet who pay less percentage-wise than their secretaries, this is a fairly insignificant number. If he wants to talk about closing the "carried interest" loophole, then he should talk specifically about that. If Republicans want to fight him on that I don't think it will be a vote winner as supporting hedge fund managers in buying a second mega yacht won't get you many votes. If he's talking about an increase to tax rates for people over $250k or whatever the number is, he should specifically mention the number and talk about how such tax rates were the norm is great economic times of surplus. Specifics are too complicated. If you can't sum up your entire economic policy in 3 words the folks in Peoria are zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Sad but true. Better to dumb it down and run attack adds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 If we really want to talk "FAIR", we need to break it down to cost of living locations. Taxing 75k in Lincoln Ne should be the same as taxing 105k in Fairfax Fair is only fair when you pay attention to the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted February 25, 2012 Author Share Posted February 25, 2012 Specifics are too complicated. If you can't sum up your entire economic policy in 3 words the folks in Peoria are zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Sad but true. Better to dumb it down and run attack adds.He could communicate something along the lines of not discouraging work by taxing it more, or that a flat tax would be an improvement... I'm sure there are tons or more specific sounding approaches that would be better suited for our political environment. Call it a debt reduction tax, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 It is like what was said when trying to define porn, "I know it when I see it". Sure that's entirely subjective but only at the margins, when you compare the Venus de Milo to a photo of a nude sunbathing the differences are blurred, however when you compare the Mona Lisa to an menage a trois spread in Hustler magazine it is relatively simple to identify which one is porn. So when we compare someone paying 15% vs another paying 25% with pretty large differences in their annual income it isn't exactly clear which one is a fair share, however when you compare a 25% rate on someone making a 10th of the person paying 13.9% it is pretty easy to see which is pornographic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncr2h Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 "Fair share" = payment in exchange for the privilege of being American http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/geithner-privilege-being-american-why-rich-need-higher-taxes_631859.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I think he's going with "fair share" because it shifts the tax burden (in a speech anyway if not reality) from the middle class to the fat cats. Unfortunately it's just that, rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 It doesn't matter who the president is and which party. The problem is with Congress and all the internal agenda each congressman has and what they are willing to do not for the good of the country. We need to have term limits for these clowns. Each congressman person can only serve a max of 8 years while presidents should have only be able to do 1 6 year term with no reelection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Specifics are too complicated. If you can't sum up your entire economic policy in 3 words the folks in Peoria are zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Sad but true. Better to dumb it down and run attack adds. He should stick to attacking lawyers and the Irish. Everyone could get behind that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Specifics are too complicated. If you can't sum up your entire economic policy in 3 words the folks in Peoria are zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Sad but true. Better to dumb it down and run attack adds. I think you have it backwards. It's easier to run attack adds than it is to put forth your plan and actually engage in intellectual debate to show yours is the plan to be embraced. He can't sell his vision so it's best not to give any details. Par for the course in politics these days. Show as little as possible so as to give as little as possible for attack by the opposition. It's not about debating the merits any longer, it's about who can attack most effectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I think you have it backwards. It's easier to run attack adds than it is to put forth your plan and actually engage in intellectual debate to show yours is the plan to be embraced. He can't sell his vision so it's best not to give any details. Par for the course in politics these days. Show as little as possible so as to give as little as possible for attack by the opposition. It's not about debating the merits any longer, it's about who can attack most effectively. I formed a theory in high school that I still believe explains a lot. When a politician talks in platitudes, then everybody in the audience will assume that the politician agrees with them. Say "If elected, I'll make America glorious", and everybody cheers. Say "I'll make our trade policy more protectionist", and some of the people in the audience will say "Ewww, that's a terrible idea." And they'll walk away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarpon75 Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Rhetoric is Obama's strong point,there is no substanance.His vision is terrible,and he is a very bad leader. He had a majority Congress and Senate for 2 years and did very little with it.Burgold please stop making excuses for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Rhetoric is Obama's strong point,there is no substanance.His vision is terrible,and he is a very bad leader. He had a majority Congress and Senate for 2 years and did very little with it.Burgold please stop making excuses for him. I love it when I get criticized for being too positive based on a post that is being critical of the guy and mainly talking about his failings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarpon75 Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I love it when I get criticized for being too positive based on a post that is being critical of the guy and mainly talking about his failings. Sorry if I came off as being too critical of you,didn't mean it personally. I am just really unhappy with the overall state of political affairs in this nation,particularly the current Presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.