I follow you, but I did not read the original article as suggesting that the tax proposal was in lieu of other things, only in addition to. If he wants to cut taxes on the income of affluent retirees, why would we complain about it? Help me out here.

If cutting the taxes of selected demographic groups results in Obama' election, then the price tag is way too high. If Obama singles me out to pay no federal income taxes, then I will still vote for McCain.

 

My vote is not for sale at any price and hopefully there are enough Americans still above bribery to keep Obama out of office. Besides, there is nothing to stop Obama from flip-flopping on this issue once he is elected, which is what happened to Bill Clinton's middle class tax cut promise in 1992.

If cutting the taxes of selected demographic groups results in Obama' election, then the price tag is way too high. If Obama singles me out to pay no federal income taxes, then I will still vote for McCain.

 

My vote is not for sale at any price and hopefully there are enough Americans still above bribery to keep Obama out of office. Besides, there is nothing to stop Obama from flip-flopping on this issue once he is elected, which is what happened to Bill Clinton's middle class tax cut promise in 1992.

 

 

Aces, We all get it. You are not for Obama. The notion that those of us who are for Obama have sold our votes is simplistic, insulting, lacking in proof, lacking in knowledge, lacking in logic and otherwise insulting. My vote is not for sale. My vote for Obama is because, in my opinion, he represents the better choice for the long term economic, security and public welfare interests of the United States. Modern conservatism seems to be taking an increasingly "know nothing" approach..

Aces, We all get it. You are not for Obama. The notion that those of us who are for Obama have sold our votes is simplistic, insulting, lacking in proof, lacking in knowledge, lacking in logic and otherwise insulting. My vote is not for sale. My vote for Obama is because, in my opinion, he represents the better choice for the long term economic, security and public welfare interests of the United States. Modern conservatism seems to be taking an increasingly "know nothing" approach..

 

I don't agree with that, either. Modern Republicanism may be taking a "know nothing" approach at times, but despite "neocon" labels, the idea of dislike for selective taxation is a classical conservative principle as old as the hills.

 

On the other hand, in this particular election, the only option I have may be seen as compromising. I am not a fan of John McCain. I am voting for him based upon some very nebulous character concepts, not because he is a policy wonk. When he was on the Gang of 14, I swore on my dead grandfather's grave that I would never vote him for dogcatcher, and now I am debasing my family lineage by flip-flopping. My vote cannot be seen as anything other than compromise, and the crumbs I am getting in this election, are, in fact, a purchase of my vote. Another classical conservative move is to know when to call a spade a spade.

On a side note: Do Dems really need to pander to "tree huggers?" Isn't that an automatic vote? It would be like saying the Republicans need to pander to NRA members.

I don't agree with that, either. Modern Republicanism may be taking a "know nothing" approach at times, but despite "neocon" labels, the idea of dislike for selective taxation is a classical conservative principle as old as the hills.

 

On the other hand, in this particular election, the only option I have may be seen as compromising. I am not a fan of John McCain. I am voting for him based upon some very nebulous character concepts, not because he is a policy wonk. When he was on the Gang of 14, I swore on my dead grandfather's grave that I would never vote him for dogcatcher, and now I am debasing my family lineage by flip-flopping. My vote cannot be seen as anything other than compromise, and the crumbs I am getting in this election, are, in fact, a purchase of my vote. Another classical conservative move is to know when to call a spade a spade.

 

 

Classic conservatism, in addition to calling for low taxes, also called for balanced budgets. That seems to be missing from modern conservatism, or at least the Republican Party version of conservatism. When I said that modern conservtism was moving toward know nothings, I wasn't really talking about tax policy. Let's look at the the know nothings. They were anti immigrant - seems to fit. They were anti Catholic - seems to fit at least a portion of the right. Most importantly, they used simplistic slogans, name calling and simplistic solutions for very complex issues and for political gain. That one fits best of all. And yes, I do get the irony.

Classic conservatism, in addition to calling for low taxes, also called for balanced budgets. That seems to be missing from modern conservatism, or at least the Republican Party version of conservatism. When I said that modern conservtism was moving toward know nothings, I wasn't really talking about tax policy. Let's look at the the know nothings. They were anti immigrant - seems to fit. They were anti Catholic - seems to fit at least a portion of the right. Most importantly, they used simplistic slogans, name calling and simplistic solutions for very complex issues and for political gain. That one fits best of all. And yes, I do get the irony.

 

I disagree with your entire post but for sake of argument, do you think the bolded part only applies to conservatives?

Classic conservatism, in addition to calling for low taxes, also called for balanced budgets. That seems to be missing from modern conservatism, or at least the Republican Party version of conservatism. When I said that modern conservtism was moving toward know nothings, I wasn't really talking about tax policy. Let's look at the the know nothings. They were anti immigrant - seems to fit. They were anti Catholic - seems to fit at least a portion of the right. Most importantly, they used simplistic slogans, name calling and simplistic solutions for very complex issues and for political gain. That one fits best of all. And yes, I do get the irony.

:lol: Surely you can dig up another tired old stereotype of conservatives - I am sure that you must have left a couple out of your tirade. What is ironic is that a supporter of a candidate whose based his entire campaign on simplistic, nonsensical slogans ("Hope" and "Change" - you can't get much simpler than that) is accusing conservatives who are attacking Obama on specific issues of speaking in simplistic slogans.

 

Now that Obama is being forced to speak in more specific terms, even Democrats are beginning to get worried about his inexperience and the shallowness of his positions.

 

BTW, I agree with you criticism of the Bush administration's pathetic track record on spending and the expansion of the federal government but replacing a fiscally liberal Republican with an extremely liberal Democrat is not the answer.

Aces, We all get it. You are not for Obama. The notion that those of us who are for Obama have sold our votes is simplistic, insulting, lacking in proof, lacking in knowledge, lacking in logic and otherwise insulting. My vote is not for sale. My vote for Obama is because, in my opinion, he represents the better choice for the long term economic, security and public welfare interests of the United States. Modern conservatism seems to be taking an increasingly "know nothing" approach..

I never said that all Obama voters will be selling their votes and if reread my posts carefully you will understand that fact. What I am saying that Obama is attempting to buy votes with his promised targeted tax cuts. Offering to make add a potential voter to the non-taxpayer list is a pretty generous offer Obama is making and he expects votes in return. Those who vote for Obama primarily because he promises them money (e.g., increased earned income tax credit) or targeted tax cuts will be selling their votes.

Classic conservatism, in addition to calling for low taxes, also called for balanced budgets. That seems to be missing from modern conservatism, or at least the Republican Party version of conservatism. When I said that modern conservtism was moving toward know nothings, I wasn't really talking about tax policy. Let's look at the the know nothings. They were anti immigrant - seems to fit. They were anti Catholic - seems to fit at least a portion of the right. Most importantly, they used simplistic slogans, name calling and simplistic solutions for very complex issues and for political gain. That one fits best of all. And yes, I do get the irony.

 

Didn't you intend to say anti-illegal immigrant because that's certainly the conservative position I see.