Joe Biden is taking some flack for saying that paying higher taxes is “patriotic” during an interview with Good Morning America, and the McCain campaign is making hay with a new advertisement. The GMA appearance wasn’t the first time Biden has made this strange claim, though. He used the line while answering a question during a campaign appearance in Sarasota, Florida earlier this month to a delighted response from the anti-success crowed in attendance.
Guess what, Joe. Class warfare rhetoric that works in your ultra-liberal bubble usually doesn’t play well among normal people.
Two Biden videos along with the McCain response below.
Joe Biden delights a Sarasota crowd by asserting that paying higher taxes is the “patriotic” thing to do.
Joe Biden repeats his assertion that paying high taxes is “patriotic” in a Good Morning America interview.
McCain campaign ad takes Blowhard Joe down a few notches.
Like That? You'll Probably Like These.
- Biden: Joe Not A “Real” Plumber
- New McCain Ad: Joe Biden Is Ready To Embarrass
- …I Would Let the Tax Cuts for All of the Middle Class Lapse
- Joe Biden Gets Tough Questions And Withers
- Biden: No Coal Plants Here in America
Tagged
Biden's Greatest Hits, Campaign Advertising, Joe Biden, John McCain, Tax Policy, Taxation with Idiot Representation21 Responses to “Joe Biden: Paying Higher Taxes is Patriotic [Video]”
Comments posted are the opinions of the individual poster and do not reflect the views of Bucks Right. Comments are only moderated to prevent spam. No legitimate opinions are altered for content, although we reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason. VALID e-mail address required.
1JRay on Sep 19, 2008 at 4:22 pm:
How dare he!!! It is much more patriotic to cut income and spend more. If you are going bankrupt, the best thing to do is quit that second job, borrow money from China at a staggering interest rate and actually increase your family budget. That is fiscal conservatism and that is true patriotism!!!
CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC POLICIES DON’T WORK!!! This current crisis makes that utterly aparent. Yes we need more taxes, we need to get out of debt, it is simple economics 101. It hurts, but it has to be done!!!
[Reply]
Steven Reply:
September 19th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Democrat policies mandating that home loans be given to people who cannot afford them in neighborhoods that do not appreciate in value directly led to the current crisis (which has absolutely nothing to do with taxes).
Each sentence only needs one punctuation mark at the end. “It is simple English 101.”
[Reply]
2JRay on Sep 19, 2008 at 11:17 pm:
I’m sorry for talking about more than one concept in one response… Conservative economic policies of deregulation are what caused this current crisis,,, not Democratic mandates… The home loan industry was deregulated by the six year reign of conservatism,,, just enough to create a loophole so that predatory lending could not be stopped… Conservatives had six years with all three branches of government under their control and a presidential apporval rating of 90%… They pushed forth their conservative economic agenda as much as could possibly be done in a Democratic (not party, but type of government) society,,, and look where it has taken us… It makes no sense that Republicans refuse to learn their history… Hoover left the economy in shambles and Roosevelt left it in a boom… Eisenhower left the economy in shambles, Kennedy and Johnson left it in a boom. Nixon and Ford left the economy in shambles, Carter did the best he could, but only had four years. Reagan and Bushy 1 left the economy in shambles and Clinton left it in a boom. Every Conservative president since the 1930’s has left office with an unemployment rate above 5% and every liberal president in the same time period has left office with unemployment under 5%. Conservatives break things and Liberals fix them. Liberal economic policies work, and conservative policies don’t, it is a fact!!! All you have to do is look at the liberal economic policies that Bush is pushing forth right now to try to stop the problem. Bailouts and regulation are liberal economic ideas, they are quintessentially anti-conservative. So why is there no admission of guilt with the 80% government take over of a private insurance firm??? Don’t attack my punctuation, attack my ideas…YOU CAN’T!!!
——NEXT POINT——-
The national debt has gone from $5 Trillion to $9 Trillion over the same time period described above and Bush says that cutting taxes is the way to go. It makes no sense that we can continually spend more and more money, growing the government in a very anti-conservative (spending wise) manner and spend $1 Billion a week in country that we continue to make weaker simply because we are there, and then not worry about paying for it. It is very fiscally irresponsible and there is no way that anyone can argue that!!!!!!!!!
[Reply]
Steven Reply:
September 19th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
You have it exactly backwards. Liberals push off things - you know, little things like terrorism and the like - for when the grownups take over and have to deal with the aftermath.
It was a whole lot of predatory borrowing that got us in this mess. You can’t blame people for basically accepting houses for free, but you can blame the Congress that made the rules that allowed them to do so. The predatory lending would result in excessive profits, not going bankrupt to the point of being taken over by the government.
I remember when we had all three branches. It’s back during the “good times” before the short bus rolled into congress and things started going downhill.
Roosevelt and Johnson left our country IN WAR and the industrial nature of our economy at those times built war machines. If that’s the way you want to get to “boom times,” you’re seriously demented. When Clinton left office we were in a recession (the so-called boom broke in March 2000), and Islamic Terrorists were at war with us without us being at war with them. Again, you can go back there, but I’m not willing to.
Our economy was in shambles twice since 1929 - the depression and during Carter. Our economy is not in shambles now. The financial sector of our economy is in Democrat-induced turmoil. Our economy is not in shambles now, was not when the first President Bush left office, not when Ford left office.
If liberal economic policies work so well, what happened to the Soviet Union?
[Reply]
3JRay on Sep 20, 2008 at 9:42 am:
By the way, the highest unemployment rate since the great depression, a whopping 10.8%, one out of every ten of your friends, fell during your great messiah’s reign, November-December, 1983. This was a time that the current conservative economic ideology was birthed. Thanks RR. And my apologies, conservatism does work, it works for the wealthy, not the 10% that can’t find a job, who cares about them.
[Reply]
Steven Reply:
September 20th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Conservatives don’t have political Messiahs.
The unemployment rate is not the economy.
I think you mean 1982, before Reagan’s agenda was able to make it through the Democrat Congress to full implementation, but don’t let facts get in the way.
The guy was reelected in a landslide two short years later. People knew where to affix the blame for the problems of the past.
[Reply]
4JRay on Sep 20, 2008 at 2:14 pm:
“I think you mean 1982, before Reagan’s agenda was able to make it through the Democrat Congress to full implementation, but don’t let facts get in the way.”
I am so sorry, you are right, it was December of 1982, two years after Reagan took office. I apologize, I was a little rushed in my research.
And you are correct, it would be impossible to put any plans through that would have any effect on the economy in a mere two short years…that is unless you are the Democratic majority that took control of Congress a year and a half ago. Man those guys knew how to wreck things quick, with a Republican president that holds a veto pen too. Either they, the current Democratic Congress, are better at governing than Ronald Reagan, or you are making excuses that you can’t back up. You continually blame others, take no responsibility and cry foul every time someone calls you out.
[Reply]
Steven Reply:
September 20th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
And you are correct, it would be impossible to put any plans through that would have any effect on the economy in a mere two short years…that is unless you are the Democratic majority that took control of Congress a year and a half ago.
As I’m sure you’re aware, the President and Congress have different roles in enacting an agenda.
Man those guys knew how to wreck things quick, with a Republican president that holds a veto pen too.
You’re preaching to the choir on that point. You’d be hard pressed to find any mention by me on this site that says President Bush is enough of a fiscal conservative. When the adults were in charge of Congress, it was in check. When the short bus rolled into town Bush signed a lot of laws that he shouldn’t have.
Either they, the current Democratic Congress, are better at governing than Ronald Reagan, or you are making excuses that you can’t back up.
Again, different roles. That’s like saying “Boy the Supreme Court really ruined the economy.”
You continually blame others
A tone your posts never take, of course.
, take no responsibility
See above
and cry foul every time someone calls you out.
Ummm…it’s my site. Every comment is here at my pleasure. If I didn’t want your viewpoint represented, it wouldn’t be. Not sure how letting you have your ill informed say is “crying foul.”
[Reply]
5JRay on Sep 20, 2008 at 4:18 pm:
“You can’t blame people for basically accepting houses for free, but you can blame the Congress that made the rules that allowed them to do so.”
Which Congress made those rules - The Republican one.
“The predatory lending would result in excessive profits, not going bankrupt to the point of being taken over by the government.”
Excessive profits…until…people foreclosed for not being able to pay their mortgages. That is precisely what caused bankruptcies.
“I remember when we had all three branches. It’s back during the “good times” before the short bus rolled into congress and things started going downhill.”
In 2006, when Bush was at his high water mark in the manipulation of the American people, and before the Democrats took “control” (if you want to call it control with Joe “Lie”berman casting the swing vote), “Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said that when Bush came into office in January 2001, the official White House budget projection showed a $305-billion surplus. So the new projected deficit of $296 billion represents a swing of $600 billion, Spratt said.”
Good times my friend, good times.
Lets see, when Bush came into office, he inherited a 4.0% unemployment rate and during these “good times”, December, 2001 through June, 2004 it never got below 5.6% with a high of 6.3% in June, 2003.
So…a $600 BILLION swing in the federal deficit and a 2.3% rise in unemployment and you think those are “good times”. WOW. You are seriously demented AND out of touch.
[Reply]
Steven Reply:
September 20th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
And people say the public schools are failing.
You do realize that none of what you wrote has much of anything to do with the current crisis. Just as you realize that projections aren’t reality, and 2.3% is almost nothing.
Google “Community Reinvestment Act 1977″ and grab a kleenex.
[Reply]
JRay Reply:
September 20th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
2.3% is almost nothing when you are talking about the raise that I get every year for working as hard as I do…doesn’t even keep up with inflation, it sucks.
But a 2.3% increase from 4.0% is more than a 50% increase. And when you are using those numbers to talk about the massive labor force we have in this country, the numbers are huge. The latest employment situation summary from the Bureau of Labor Statistics says, “The number of unemployed persons rose by 592,000 to 9.4 million in August,
and the unemployment rate increased by 0.4 percentage point to 6.1 percent.” A 0.4% increase put 592,000 people out of work, and we are talking about 2.3%, 7 times that amount. That would put the figures over 4 million people out of work during the hayday of conservatism under W. How on earth can you say 2.3% is almost nothing?
Touché on the CRA, thanks for the education, but you still cannot dispute the numbers in the previous posts. And thanks for keeping this forum open, I enjoy the debate. When I say “you”, most of the time I mean Republicans in general, not you in particular.
[Reply]
Steven Reply:
September 20th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Again “conservatism” and “under W” when it comes to fiscal responsibility do not belong in the same sentence.
6edit35 on Sep 20, 2008 at 11:47 pm:
The US economy does not run in a vacuum. Prosperity depends on many factors, not the least of which is the ability of the US military to maintain stability in the world…..
the free flow of oil to developing and growing markets….
and the natural ebb and flow of inventions and technological advancements that spark new rounds of growth and proprietary ownership. (automobiles, TV-radio-media, Internet, etc.)
Clinton cut the US military from 19 active divisions down to 11, and left America vulnerable to alqaeda. GWB had to expend huge amounts of capital to rebuild, especially in the face of the 9/11 attacks.
Furthermore, Clinton and the Dems are 90% responsible for US dependancy on foreign oil/energy by refusing to allow domestic oil companies to develop the very energy on which we ALL rely.
That refusal by the Pelosi/Murphy ‘do nothing’ crowd has drained the US Treasury while causing the price of vital energy to double the past few years.
Like I said, the US economy does not operate in a vacuum just as Steven mentioned the caustic Community Reinvestment Act run amok.
The only silver lining in the financial and military attacks on America and the West the past few years is the possibility that Europe has hopefully awoken to the attempted take over of its very soul by Muslim jihad.
Also, America and the West has stared into the abyss of a world controlled and dominated by Muslim oil, and now seems to be coming to its senses.
It will take a lot of effort by GWB and the conservative leaders in America to fend off these attacks on the freedom and prosperity.
Clinton and Gore’s philosophy was to just submit.
GWB has chosen the tougher road, but in the end the correct path…. which is to fight to keep America and the World free from tyranny.
It is a costly path, but well worth it in the end.
[Reply]
7JRay on Sep 20, 2008 at 11:57 pm:
“Clinton cut the US military from 19 active divisions down to 11, and left America vulnerable to alqaeda. GWB had to expend huge amounts of capital to rebuild, especially in the face of the 9/11 attacks.”
Why is it that every other time in American history when a nation needs to “rebuild” its military, it creates a boom in the economy. No-bid contracts and war for profit is tearing the moral fibers of this country apart. We will never recover from the damage that this supposed “War on Terror” has caused. Do you really think it is possible to kill everyone that hates us? Wouldn’t it be a better idea to just strengthen our security infrastructure and focus inward. The fact that people are getting rich off of war is disgusting. It makes my stomach turn and if it doesn’t do the same for you, you are heartless.
[Reply]
Steven Reply:
September 21st, 2008 at 2:37 am
If you’re going to San Francisco, be sure to wear some flowers in your hair, hippie.
[Reply]
JRay Reply:
September 21st, 2008 at 9:22 am
But do you really think it’s possible to kill everyone who hates us?
[Reply]
Steven Reply:
September 21st, 2008 at 11:24 am
We’re not marching into North Korea (like your buddy Truman tried) or Venezuela or Iran. Characterizing the War on Terror as trying to “kill everyone who hates us” is useless inaccurate hyperbole.
We tried being on defense only as you suggest. It got 3000 people killed.
8JRay on Sep 21, 2008 at 2:57 pm:
So what exactly is the goal of the “War on Terror”? If we don’t want to kill them, there is no use “marching in” to anywhere, then what is the point? How will this war be carried out in the future? Has it been a success?
[Reply]
Steven Reply:
September 21st, 2008 at 3:51 pm
One thing the War on Terror isn’t is “killing everyone who hates America.” You’re still here.
Fair warning that, unless you can somehow point to how this line of comment relates to “Joe Biden: Paying Higher Taxes is Patriotic,” you’re way off topic and verging on trolling. If you want to debate the merits of The War on Terror, I suggest you start a topic in the forum or find a blog that’s talking about it.
[Reply]
9JRay on Sep 21, 2008 at 3:00 pm:
By the way…Do “under McCain” and “conservatism” belong in the same sentence? I would argue no, and argue that modern conservatism is dead. There is no clear plan for anything going forward. Your party needs time to rethink its values and goals and try again in another four years. Bush killed the party.
[Reply]
Steven Reply:
September 21st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
McCain laid out a very clear plan on Friday while Obama was saying “Uh, I, Uh, I, Present.” I suggest you take a look at it.
Going behind all you bizarre claims concerning the death of conservatism after McCain/Palin’s 40 state win is going to be fun the morning of November 5.
[Reply]