Wednesday, October 08, 2008
The debate: Remember Bill Clinton's middle class tax cut?
Can we stop calling these things debates? Can we stop expecting one guy to knock out the other?
I've seen everyone of these debates since Carter-Ford in 1976. Most of them are very predictable. These debates don't usually feature a knockout punch.
For a little history, CSPAN was running a portion of the Bush-Clinton-Perot debate from 1992.
Why do the Dems always tell people what they want to hear?
Remember Bill Clinton's "middle class tax cut" from the 1992 campaign?
It was supposed to be a tax cut for the middle class.
It was supposed to correct all of the "social injustice" brought about by "the tax cuts for the rich" under Reagan-Bush. (Remember the last time a charismatic Democrat made such a promise?)
Tonight, we heard Obama say that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the taxpayers. How can any American be stupid enough to believe that?
What's wrong with Obama telling people what they want to hear?
First, and foremost, Obama is going to have break his promise shortly after the election. Here is the bottom line: We don't have the money to give anyone a tax cut, specially people who don't pay any taxes now.
Who needs a tax cut? People who create jobs or prosperity. Who doesn't need a tax cuts? People who don't pay taxes!
Second, what's all of this Obama nonsense about health care? We can't afford another entitlement. How can any voter be foolish enough to believe that the federal government can run another entitlement? Medicare and Social Security are a mess. Are we going to add another mess?
Today's WSJ nailed it: "One of Mr. Obama's gifts is his ability to glide over contradictions with the greatest of ease.
He spent minutes explaining that we spend "$10 billion a month" in Iraq that should be spent here in the U.S.
But a short time later he was promoting what sounded like a surge in Afghanistan, and vowing to spend even more money to assist "the economies" of Eastern Europe.
He also proposes to provide free health care while claiming he'd cut more spending from the overall budget than his new ideas would cost")
Obama is engaging in the worst kind of populist nonsense in recent memory.
Promises, promises, promises! It sounds great but he won't be able to keep them!
The debate questions were OK. Nothing great but OK!
Again, it's hard to believe that there weren't any questions about immigration or abortion.
Overall, I think that McCain did well, specially when he spoke about national security issues.
Speaking of foreign policy, does Obama understand how difficult a land war in Afghanistan will be? or in Pakistan?
I get the impression that Dems want to sound "tough" by calling for a larger presence in Afghanistan. My concern is that the Dems do not have the stomach to fight such a war.
Sadly, Obama did well by telling people what they wanted to hear.
If McCain wins, most people will get a president who makes tough decisions and has a realistic view of the world.
If Obama wins, look for lots of policy reversals. Again, remember Clinton's '92 tax cut?
We can't afford what Obama is proposing. I'm telling you now. Unfortunately, some of his supporters will find out about it after he is elected.
Again, remember Bill Clinton's middle class tax cuts?
P.S. What was the best question? I liked the one about the future. My guess is that the next presidency will be consumed with things that did not come up in this debate.
Can you say Afghanistan? Al Qaeda? Did any of that come up in the 2000 Gore-Bush debates?
LISTEN TO OUR RECENT SHOWS
Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Silvio Canto Jr on BlogTalkRadio