Pawlenty Debuts New Term: Obamneycare
**Written by Doug Powers
Tomorrow is the GOP debate in New Hampshire, and GOP candidate Tim Pawlenty was on Fox News Sunday this morning using a word I’m guessing we’ll hear again Monday — Obamneycare:
Speaking of the debate, Newt Gingrich might show up a little late — he was taking a limo to catch his flight to New Hampshire, but halfway to the airport his driver resigned.
On another debate note, a McClatchy Newspapers story about tomorrow’s festivities includes this line that somehow leads me to believe the author is not a conservative:
The conservative crowd wants someone eager to fight for their beliefs, no matter what the more practical politicians say.
“Practical politicians” are why we’re in trouble.
By the way, do you think the DNC will buy time to air any “Thanks Mitt” ads on CNN around the time of the debate?
(h/t Politico’s Mike Allen via Twitter)
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
53 Comments
Stammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
Biden: Tea Party stopped us from growing the economy
May 23, 2012 01:55 PM by Doug Powers
44 Comments
Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Illinois Republicans flirting with cigarette tax hike for Obamacare — and a reminder about Orrin Hatch
May 21, 2012 11:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsA 2012 campaign must-read: The conservative survival guide to Mitt Romney
May 21, 2012 10:23 AM by Michelle Malkin
159 CommentsHigh school fined $15,000 for… selling soda pop during lunch
May 19, 2012 01:29 PM by Doug Powers
101 Comments
Categories: Barack Obama,Health care,Mitt Romney
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearRedstate
» Kimberlin’s Associates Caught on Tape?
Happyscrapper: That’s an interesting statement. What are you referring to?
Maybe you can use it in one of your greeting cards, Stacey!
Hahahaha! Or in my next kids’ book!
Isn’t this guy a fiscal conservative? Why did he leave his state in so much debt and leave it to dems to clean up?
Sorry I used the word “literally”. That was a bit too conspiratorial! I should not have said that.
It is speculation, but would not surprise me. A lot of fingers have pointed to it. http://freedomtorch.com/forums/topic/4828/mom-of-murdered-obama-gay-lover/view/post_id/44377
Tabloid journalism…to be sure!! But so was the Enquirer reports about John Edwards. I have heard rumblings before about Obama and Rahm and their “daliances”. Again, there is no proof, so accusing him is wrong and I shouldn’t have done that.
Someday, however, we will find out a LOT about this man and those around him…what they would do to make sure he became President and what they will do to KEEP him President. They don’t play nice.
Appreciate you clarifying. It would not be like me to miss something that big.
As far as your last comment, yes we might someday find out more smoking gun evidence on this guy, but I will never count on the media to dig it out. To the contrary, the media have actually done the dirty work for Maobama digging dirt about his opponents since he was a a local Illinois politician. This will continue.
I will say one thing: that if his college, law school records (essays, other written works) were ever released the world would see this man as the naked Marxist that he is. This is why those documents have been guarded like nuclear launch codes.
Yes, there is MUCH to find out about our dear POTUS. I hope I live long enough to get the answers, because it will be quite the show!! Talk about a popcorn eating marathon! Once it starts hitting the fan, the MSM will be trampling all over each other trying to be first with the news.
Here’s my word: Chutzpah (PDF)
Hey guys, so I’ve been thinking about the conversations about Democrats becoming more socialist/Marxist, so I was looking at the history of tax rates in the U.S.
But I’m confused. Taxes on the wealthiest Americans were 50% when Reagan was in office, and 90% (I can hardly believe this, but several sources confirm it) when Eisenhower was in office.
And I’m seeing that the taxes on the richest Americans are 39% now, up from 35% when George W. was in office.
And I’m middle-class, and I didn’t get a tax hike after Obama took office.
I must be missing something. Why is Obama and the Democratic party associated with high taxes, now more than ever? The numbers I’ve found so far don’t line up with the idea that the Democratic party is becoming more socialist. Are there other figures I should look at?
Just as many refused to accept that Obama was inexperienced, there are those that choose to accept that Obamacare and Romneycare are exactly the same. Not, as Romney points out, when it comes to states rights. This is something the state of Mass. wanted and they got it. Good idea to establish for the rest of the country? Absolutely not. But those that dislike Romney will choose to ignore that big glaring fact. As for the “lovefest” for Romney…in spite of all they choose to ignore, the media cannot ignore the polls right now. Romney is ahead (yes, name recognition goes a long way at this point) but much of the media insist he is a “soft” frontrunner.
Pawlenty needs a little more mojo to get my vote and he also needs to draw the independents the way Romney can.
Bachman has yet to impress me. Possibly Veep?
Cain has a great business history but has ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE about foreign issues or foreign policy. Wow, he has said a few off the wall things about the middle east. Another good Veep? After Biden, anyone with half a brain would make a better Veep.
He ducked the issue in 2007 by appointing a panel to study it. That is what you do when your position is unpopular with your constituents, and your principles prevent you from selling out to win their votes. You punt.
Think about it. Wouldn’t it have been better if Romney had appointed a commission to study the issue for several years?
If you condemn Pawlenty for smart politics, you will never vote for any person who will actually become President.
Taxes were sky high after the big spending during WWII, plus those high top tax rates back then went along with massive tax loopholes.
Democrats always fight to raise the tax rates and increase loopholes (done quietly as they demagogue them publicly). That gives them more power to order businesses about by screwing with the tax code.
Not buying it. Unpopular with the political establishment is simply not the same thing as unpopular with voters.
Exhibit A: Obamacare’s unpopularity.
Exhibit B: Massachusetts (of all places) saw a proposed constitutional amendment, submitted by a petition with the requisite number of signatures, that, if approved by the voters, would have esablished a universal health care system in the state. But the voters never got a chance to do so, because the thoroughly Democrat-owned state legislature took the nearly unprecedented (and later ruled unconstitutional when they tried to do it with the marriage amendment) step of refusing to hold a proper vote on it.
Two possible reasons for their refusal: 1. They genuinely were opposed to the idea of universal health care (not bloody likely). That leaves us with 2. They didn’t want the matter being decided by the people at all, because they were afraid (well-foundedly) it would fail. Their preferred approach therefore was to go the RomneyCare route: have the process be controlled by themselves, while the media create the illusion of popular support.
So all this shows is that Pawlenty’s simply a go-along-to-get-along type. He would have done the same thing as Romney if his legislature had been as packed with Democrats as the Massachusetts legislature, instead of being under Republican control.
I’m not too concerned about that. He’ll have good advisors. What matters is that he has the right attitude, has good executive experience (in particular, knows a thing or two about how to hire the right people), and his very diverse resume shows that he has a versatile and intelligent mind.
It appears what Pawlenty actually ended up signing into law from that commission was parsecs away from nationalized health care or ObamaCare or RomneyCare or any of the other Big Government medical care destroyers the blue voters in states like Minnesota keep trying to cram down all our throats, but it also looks like it was moving in that direction.
Just how bad what he signed is depends on just what a “Section 125 plan” is. I don’t like that it appears he was getting employers more involved instead of less.
Where do you live? You seem to not fully realize just how disconnected from reality the blue voters really are.
I’ve known a great many blue voters very well over the last 40 years, across many different economic and social strata, and they are all street rat crazy when it comes to “progressive” issues like universal medical care.
Massacusetts is every bit as bonkers as it seems. It’s the brief moments of apparent sanity that are the exception, not the Franks and Kennedys and Coakleys and so on and on and on. Those guys are “normal.”
Same thing in California. Putting Governor Moonbeam back in Sacramento was not an aberration at all.
I don’t know Minnesota quite as well, but I can see the color of the place. Bright blue.
On June 12th, 2011 at 11:22 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:
The only reason why Obama extended the Bush Tax Cuts is because that was a prerequisite to getting anything else accomplished during the lame duck session of the last Congress. There were too many things he wanted to push through while he still had a chance (i.e., still had control of both houses of Congress), but Republicans in the Senate stood strong and threatened to shut everything else down until the Bush Tax Cuts were extended for all Americans.
Now, Obama talks about wanting to raise taxes again.
On June 12th, 2011 at 11:22 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:
Cross-referencing a comment I made in a different thread, I was thinking that two examples of “Democrats of faith” who felt that the Democratic Party had left them are:
1) Zell Miller. A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat
and
2) Joe Lieberman. The far left basically told him that he’s no longer welcome in today’s Democrat[ic Socialist] party, by having a far-left radical defeat him in the Democratic primary. But Joe showed that the far left is not a majority, by running as an independent and winning – beating both a Republican and the far-left Democrat.
Wait, I misread one of the articles…they’re still at 35%, and Obama wants to raise them to 39%. Still 11% less than during the Reagan years,yes?
And I’m surprised taxes on the rich would be high in the Reagan years, because he cut so many programs. Where did all the money go to? Was it the arms race?
And I guess the 50% rate on rich people (which seems high to me) didn’t hurt the economy, since as I recall the economy and the jobs situation was really good in that era.
Sorry for so many questions. Taxes and economics are not my forte
That the “cafeteria plan” that most employers have that allows you medical, etc. to be paid with pre-taxed dollars.
StaceyOfLiberty,
I don’t have much time to write a lot right now, so I’ll just give you some links to what I’ve written on this topic in the past…
One more:
On June 12th, 2011 at 11:22 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:
Yes, you are confused. Reagan dropped the top tax rate from 70% (where it was under Carter) down to 28%.
For more, click the link in my last comment above.
From today’s Rasmussen Reports.
Strong Disapproval eased downward when:
Today is the first time the pResident’s Strong Disapproval rating has reached 40% since the killing of Osama bin Laden. If Obama starts talking about raising taxes again, you can count on that Strong Disapproval rising even higher.
The whole thing about raising taxes on the rich is really a message to the poor who haven’t a clue how the rich can play with money. It is a ruse to raise taxes on all. Bracket creep, AMT and inflation push people into higher bracket without them understanding the mechanism. Many people may believe that the rich have most of their income as a salary. I know some rich people who don’t pay a dime in income tax. When Buffet says he doesn’t pay enough income tax, does the public then learn why he doesn’t? No. Anyone wonder how much tax Soros pays? Most prople don’t understand the scope and depth of the taxes they pay because they are concealed in all sorts of ways. Still have a land line? Then you are paying a tax instituted to pay off the Spanish American War.
You’re still under the unsupportable impression that when they vote for someone they favor everything he stands for. In reality, they’ll vote based on personality, or on the basis of one or two issues (like education spending or something).
They voted for Romney for 3 reasons: He has a likeable personality, he has a very clean reputation, and he promised not to raise taxes. That’s it. He didn’t need to saddle them with an insurance mandate that they never asked for in the first place.
Pawlenty had even less of an excuse with his Republican-controlled legislature. The law he signed wasn’t about just studying the possibility of universal health care. It was about ensuring that the state adopted it. The “studying” was just about how, not whether.
Thank you for the links!
Re: taxation levels: I am actually finding completely different numbers on different sites, which is driving me crazy.
And on the issue of taxes, unbiased sources seem hard to come by.
On June 13th, 2011 at 2:15 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:
I guess many people have a narrative in mind, and will try to spin things as much as they can to fit their narrative.
In light of your dillemma, I did a Bing search on “Income Tax Rate History”, to see what I would find.
I think (but don’t know for sure) that the following source is legitimate and accurate:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Reviewing that for the Reagan years actualy shed some light on the different numbers. Reagan was in office January 1981 – January 1989. When Reagan took office, the tax rates were at the Carter levels… top tax rate 70%.
In 1981, the top tax rate was 70%.
Reagan actually lowered taxes three times…
In 1982, the top tax rate was lowered to 50%.
In 1987, the top tax rate was lowered to 38.5%.
In 1988, the top tax rate was lowered to 28%.
Personally, I think that the government should not be allowed to ask for more money than God instructs us to give to the church in tithes:
TEN PERCENT.
(with additional offerings above that as we feel led to give)
????
Where did you get that idea? My post was about my personal knowledge about how blue voters think gleened from decades of personal interaction including talking politics with them, with much of that anthropological adventure done while they, and even I, believed I was one of them.
They are not less nuts than their votes would indicate. They are more nuts. Their disconnection from reality is far greater than you seem to think.
That was the reason for my question about where you live. You don’t seem to actually know what we’re up against.
Yes, they were charmed by Romney and Pawlenty. They are, after all, blithering idiots who can be fooled by a smart politician.
But try to take away their moral high horse? Tell them guaranteeing poor children don’t starve or go without braces is something government should not do?
They turn on you like rabid weasels.
Oops, submitted that comment to the wrong thread…
Sorry you went to Karl Marx High School…..
I assume though you actually want to know.
When Reagan took office the highest marginal tax rate was 70%. Kemp-Roth dropped it to 50% though the Dems squealed like pigs that the world would end. Later he was able to cut the rate to 28% (and raise the lowest rate) while Dems cut themselves and burned witches at the stake and invoked Druidian-like chants to show that the world would end twice and then go to hell in a handbasket.
Oddly enough, the economy got better. People got jobs. Good times. People smiled.
Thank you, that really helps! Now I see why I’m getting different numbers in different places.
StaceyOfLiberty,
I’m happy that that helped you. Thanks for letting me know it helped.
From the fact that you listed a bunch of politicians’ names that they voted for as evidence in support of your position? I just followed your lead.
Anecdotal evidence can only get you so far. I prefer to look at things like ballot questions, as I did earlier. Here’s another one. There was a proposal to replace the state’s flat income tax (how ’bout THEM apples?) with a graduated income tax. It went down in a more than 2-1 landslide. So that “moral high horse” doesn’t appear to be quite as high as you seem to think.
That approach always fails the test of predicting what kind of politician they will vote into power.
For instance, when given the chance to vote on it, California voters vote by large majorities to bar gay marriage and stop welfare to illegal immigrants and end bilingual education and bilingual ballots, and they vote in favor of death penalty, but they also consistently elect candidates who solidly oppose all of those things, and they elect them by huge majorities.
First and foremost, blue voters want to feel good about their vote, just like our local 3rd Party promoters. To them the Feel Good factor is everything.
So the idiots have no problem at all voting for the death penalty against those horrible, murdering savages in the abstract ….. and then vote against the candidate his opponent accuses of having no compassion because he thinks we should execute the scumbag who’s been on death row for 20 years and now writes children’s books.
It is completely and utterly idiotic, but that is really how they think, and you should be able to tell it from their votes. My 40 years of anecdotal support for it is just support for it. You should be able to see their insanity anyway, without knowing them. Knowing them just helps to understand the madness you see in their voting patterns is real, not some kind of mistake.
What – I didn’t help?
(I actually missed Red Pill’s posting..)
AlohaGuy,
Your comment helped me!
I did not know the 1st round of cuts was called “Kemp-Roth” until I read your comment.
For what it’s worth, here’s what Wikipedia says: (I know, take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, but this into sounds like “just the facts”)
Self-Correction:
On June 13th, 2011 at 2:56 pm, I said:
Reagan lowered taxes twice, not three times. AlohaGuy was correct, I was incorrect. The 1987 and 1988 drops were not the result of two different tax cuts, but rather appear to be the phasing-in of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
Obama is a Keynesian.
And this video is a hoot!
(Hint: “Keynesian” does not equal “Kenyan”)
Consider that budgets and spending have to be passed by both parts of the Legislative branch (House and Senate) as well as by the the Executive branch (President).
Consider which party has controlled the majority of those three parts.
Since January 2007, Democrats have held the majority.
In 2007 & 2008, Democrats controlled 2 of the 3 (House and Senate)
In 2009 & 2010, Democrats controlled all 3 (House, Senate, and Presidency)
In 2011, Democrats control 2 of the 3 (Senate and Presidency)
Obama did not “inherit” this economy. He has been involved in creating it since 2005 when he entered the Senate.
This recession started, and has continued, under DEMOCRATIC control during the last 4 and a half years. They have controlled 2 and 3 of the 3 involved parts (House, Senate, and Presidency) for that entire time.
Credit where credit is due.
That doesn’t mean the same people who vote both those ways vote for those politicians because of their opposition to those things. When it’s not because of personalities (those Republicans are such “negative campaigners”, don’t you know) it’s because of some specific issue or two, usually having to do with how it directly affects them economically.