In the 1992 vice-presidential debate, Quayle made one prediction, again and again: If elected, Bill Clinton would raise taxes, and not just on the wealthy.
Well, thank you, Senator Gore, for reminding me about my performance in the 1988 vice presidential debate. This is 1992, Bill Clinton is running against President George Bush. There are 2 things that I'm going to stress during this debate: one, Bill Clinton's economic plan and his agenda will make matters much, much worse -- he will raise your taxes, he will increase spending, he will make government bigger, jobs will be lost; second, Bill Clinton does not have the strength nor the character to be president of the US.
. . .
You ought to talk to the timber people in the northwest, where they say that -- well, we can only save the owl. Forget about jobs. You ought to talk to the coal miners. They're talking about putting a coal tax on. They're talking about a tax on utilities, a tax on gasoline and home heating oil -- all sorts of taxes.
. . .
What plan is that that's just going to raise taxes on those making over $200,000 a year? You may call that your plan, but everyone knows that you simply can't get $150 billion in new taxes by raising the marginal tax rate to a top rate of 36 % and only tax those making $200,000 a year. It's absolutely ridiculous. The top 2 % which you refer to, that gets you down to $64,000; then you have about a $40-billion shortfall -- that gets you down to $36,000 a year. Everybody making more than $36,000 a year will have their taxes increased if Bill Clinton is president of the US.
Quayle was ridiculed for his prediction at the time, but he was right.
In 1992, Vice President Dan Quayle suggested Bill Clinton would raise taxes on the middle class - that everyone making over $36,000 could face a tax hike. Media "experts" accused the him of mangling "facts." Clinton was elected - and passed the largest tax increase in US history, right down to the middle class.
"It was Quayle who repeatedly twisted and misstated the facts," CNN reporter Brooks Jackson pronounced after the vice-presidential debate. On ABC, Jeff Green-field proclaimed: "Independent examination of this charge by, for example, press organizations, has found it, to say the least, misleading."
Cut to Feb. 18, 1993, when USA Today admitted: "Looks like Dan Quayle was right. Last year's vice-presidential debate . . . produced an accurate prediction from Quayle about the Clinton budget plan . . . The final plan, according to Clinton officials, will hit those making $30,000 and above."
In 1992, Clinton promised a middle-class tax cut. But he reversed himself just weeks after taking office. The reversal was so fast that I think it is fair to conclude that Clinton never intended to keep his promise to cut taxes for the middle class.
This year, Barack Obama is promising a tax cut for 95 percent of the people. (Which is a good trick, considering that about 40 percent of the people do not pay federal income taxes. As far as I know, Obama has not promised to cut federal taxes on gasoline, tobacco, or alcohol, which would help many poorer people.)
Should we believe Obama? Not if we have learned from 1992. And not if we remember what Obama said several years after he got all his Illinois senate opponents thrown off the ballot: "If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people's business." (Some will doubt that he ever got around to that last part.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(We can even predict some of the taxes that Obama will propose; like Al Gore, he will favor increases in energy taxes, which will hit the poor, especially the working poor, the hardest. I would say that increases in energy taxes are almost certain, should Obama be elected.)
Tax series post 2
Posted by Jim Miller at October 20, 2008 02:56 PM | Email ThisDan Quayle was a lot smarter than anyone gave him credit for. Sure, he was a stolid (boring) conservative, but he was/is definintely more articulate than Obama. And yet.....
Obama still hasn't addressed the issue of windfall profit taxes from the oil companies. Hello, Barry, notice the price of oil lately?
I would like someone to say the heck with spreading the wealth by giving money to everyone; I want them to say we are in a short term crisis, our economy is strong but we need to restore confidence and get more jobs.
Posted by: swatter on October 20, 2008 03:11 PMHe's actually giving money to those people who don't pay taxes. He calls them "refundable" tax credits. It's a transfer of money from taxpayers to non-taxpayers. It's really welfare, or socialism.
Posted by: Palouse on October 20, 2008 03:31 PMOn which planet, or in whose imagination?
@2: He's actually giving money to those people who don't pay taxes. He calls them "refundable" tax credits. It's a transfer of money from taxpayers to non-taxpayers. It's really welfare, or socialism.
As far as I can tell, I haven't seen a proposal by McCain to dispense with the progressive tax system altogether. Does that mean that he is a socialist as well?
And in terms of Bill Clinton and tax increases, he inherited a government from Reagan and Bush that was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Running irresponsible tax cuts through at the same time as massive increases in defense spending effectively tied his hands once he actually got his hands on the books to see that we were broke from fiscal irresponsibility.
Say what you like about Reagan and Bush, good or bad, but they were far from fiscally responsible, and were not truthful about it to the American people.
Posted by: demo kid on October 20, 2008 03:55 PMStraw man. McCain is the only candidate with a proven record of fiscal conservatism. He doesn't take earmarks, and he will rein in government spending. Obama won't. He's also not advocating a transfer of wealth from tax payers to non-taxpayers. Obama is.
I'm not a fan of Bush's spending, and Obama is further to the left of Bush in that regard. McCain isn't anywhere close.
Posted by: Palouse on October 20, 2008 04:06 PMYou know, the guy who will save the world, who, in a snit of humility, will lower the seas and heal the earth. You know, the guy who is so prophetic that the earth has begun to cool even before he is elected.
Posted by: swatter on October 20, 2008 04:20 PMHowever, there is NOTHING that Obama and/or Biden could do to lose the admiration of the Faithful. They are Lemmings. Obama could murder someone in cold-blood on live TV, and the press and Dems would look the other way. They would blame the victim or simply state it never happened.
Obama has lied throughout the campaign and he is never held to account. Biden has proved that Dan Quayle is Mensa-man compared to 3-letter Joe, but no one cares. They are too busy smashing Palin's better-than-Obama's resume.
No evidence in the world showing that Obama is unfit to be president would be sufficient. Folks have blindly bought into the idea of Obama. Truth no longer matters.
Posted by: Seabecker on October 20, 2008 05:19 PMLook for more of the same from Obama. The Democrat plan is confiscate and claim to balance the budget. Forget about reducing Government. That is not part of the plan.
Grab and spend and claim you are helping the poor. All you do is create more poor people.
Posted by: Vince on October 20, 2008 05:31 PMAmerica does not need its first communist president.
Posted by: Michele on October 20, 2008 05:37 PMI don't know who you talked to, but Bush Uno had already cut military spending consequent to the "Fall of the Wall". Clinton did not inherit any massive defense spending increases or any irresponsible tax cuts. You must be too young to remember that Bush Uno lost his republican base and the '92 election because he reneged on his promise "No new taxes!"
BTW, Bush "Uno" is a spanglish phrase for the first one, George Herbert Walker Bush, just so you know.
Posted by: Bob R on October 20, 2008 05:45 PMAs far as I can tell, I haven't seen a proposal by McCain to dispense with the progressive tax system altogether.
You're either being sloppy (again), or ignorant. McCain has proposed a VASTLY simplified tax structure, with just two simple tiers. That's about at far away as you can get from a progressive system and still not end up with a flat tax (which the Slavery Party has poisoned with their rhetoric).
As far as Bill Clinton, never once did he balance the budget, and while he inherited a growing economy he managed to turn it into a recession when he left...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 20, 2008 05:47 PMThe Empty Suit promises a tax cut that most sentient beings KNOW he cannot deliver; thus, we know he's lying. Leftists don't CARE that he's lying, any more than they cared that Clinton lied.
The only question is this: How much damage will he do before he's replaced? And that's an impossible figure to calculate.
Even that idiot Biden thinks we'll get smacked within his first 6 months. That means people are going to die SOLELY because this anti-American racist bigot gets elected.
Odd, isn't it? Biden knows OhDrama isn't ready to be president; knows that people are going to die if OhDrama is elected... and he's going along for the ride anyway.
I'll say one thing for Biden: he's a buffoon... but sometimes, he's a TRUTHFUL buffoon.
Posted by: Hinton on October 20, 2008 05:58 PMWhy not argue instead about who's budget deficit will be larger?
Yes, lets. Start with explaining how Barack Obama will pay the needed $660 BILLION annually for his civilian national security force. You know the one that he's called to be as big and well funded as the current DOD.
So that's a 20% bump in the budget right there. Dig out from that hole first, and we can talk more...
But first I want to know how he's going to pay for his own private army of brownshirts to carry out his will...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 20, 2008 06:08 PMFor once, I agree with Demo Kid.
Given the difficulty of the past 8 years, and given the fact that R's have held the WH for 8 years, the question should be "How big is the landslide for the D's," not "Why aren't Republicans winning in a landslide?"
It still could end up being a landslide, but given Obama's weaknesses as a candidate, which are too many to count, I'm still thinking it's going to be relatively close, although I unfortunately still think McCain is the underdog.
Posted by: Cliff on October 20, 2008 06:38 PMAnd it is incorrect to say that Powell was not in combat. He served a tour as a military advisor and was wounded by a punji stake. In his second tour, he rescued several men from a burning helicopter.
Now, can I ask you all to go back to the topic, taxes and Democratic promises.
Posted by: Jim Miller on October 20, 2008 07:28 PMI'll admit when I'm wrong and you're right... McCain wants to create a regressive tax structure that will make the rich richer at the expense of the poor.
@13: Even that idiot Biden thinks we'll get smacked within his first 6 months. That means people are going to die SOLELY because this anti-American racist bigot gets elected.
Do you folks specialize in alarmism? He said that the next administration will be tested, and that might come from a number of sources. But hey, if McCain would be running the country the same way he's running his campaign, I wouldn't expect anything but an uncoordinated, rash response to any crisis.
@14: Yes, lets. Start with explaining how Barack Obama will pay the needed $660 BILLION annually for his civilian national security force. You know the one that he's called to be as big and well funded as the current DOD.
Only a damned fool or a paranoid conspiracy theorist would conflate Americorps, Peace Corps, or the reorganization of Homeland Security and the State Department with a "civilian national security force". Stop looking for answers on wingnut websites.
@17: So Good riddance to bad rubbish!
Figures. Racist through and through. He's only good to you when he's thinking your way, eh?
Same goes for @20.
@18: You could call him a "Marxisant", as Melanie Phillips did. The word was new to me before I saw it in her post, but I must say it fits him.
I haven't checked in with her lately... is she back to amateur racial profiling? Or is she just spewing hate randomly around now?
Posted by: demo kid on October 21, 2008 12:32 PMI mean, he was pretty clear when he said that Obama wasn't ready to be president, wasn't he?
And I got the gist of it when he said that he wasn't the best pick for VP.
"Testing" in this instance means that "SOMEDOBY will be dying." And the "alarmist" aspect came from the moron running with a guy that HE said "wasn't ready," a fact that you ALWAYS ignore.
If some country is in the "testing," business, who do you think is the most likely of the two to face that kind of challenge?
An inexperienced, clueless moron like the guy you're supporting?
Or someone who actually knows the difference between a bullet and a round?
Posted by: Hinton on October 21, 2008 01:24 PMI'll admit when I'm wrong and you're right...
Thank you.
McCain wants to create a regressive tax structure that will make the rich richer at the expense of the poor.
Aw, you had to go and get it wrong again... You don't know squat about his plan, do you? Admit it now, and it won't be so embarrassing in the future.
McCain offers two PARALLEL plans that the taxpayer can choose. His two-tier, vastly simplified plan (which will lower taxes for just about everyone except a few cases right near the tier transition). OR you can keep the current system but that system also has additional tax cuts.
NO ONE under a McCain tax structure pays more taxes, so your talking point is once-again wrong.
Only a damned fool or a paranoid conspiracy theorist would conflate Americorps, Peace Corps, or the reorganization of Homeland Security and the State Department with a "civilian national security force". Stop looking for answers on wingnut websites.
We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the US military. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., July 2 2008.
How about the Chicago Tribune? Is that a wingnut website?
How about in Obama's own words? It's about 17 minute in to this speech. You know he's called to increase the size of the military, and create a new force inside the US, equal in size and budget as his expanded military.
So you tell me - where does he get the $800 billion total ($100 billion for the expanded military bringing the DOD budget to $700 billion, and then of course the match for the new force) for these two groups?
Where does he get the 2.3 million employees for this new civilian security force - there's nowhere near that many unemployed people in the US.
And why is the official transcript of the speech scrubbed to remove this claim? What's he hiding?
See, you're wrong again. I'm not being conspiratorial or paranoid. Rather, I'm taking That One's words at face value. He says the military cannot do it on its own. So he wants to create a parallel civilian security force, equal in size, scope, and funding to the military.
So he wants 2.3 million civilians (never mind current US long term unemployment is under 2 million people) in a new Federal department (same level as the DOD).
He wants them to have operational command on US soil as our military has overseas (I thought you guys hated military tribunals and renditions and arrests overseas? You must love them here! That's the power the US military has overseas).
And he wants the budget to be at least the same size (current DOD spending is $660 billion a year).
So you tell me - where does he get the funds and people for this new program? And you're comfortabale with a civilian analogy to the military patrolling our streets?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 21, 2008 03:14 PM