Barack - What Are His Positions?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]JeffR wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I normally do not post on threads that are to long for me to read, because I do not have the time. I can say I watched the Chris Mathews interview with the Texas Senator. I do think Chris Mathews made the point that he is not only arrogant but also rude. Obama has no major accomplishments to add to our political abyss, which in my opinion is not a bad thing. Look at some of the laws and bills that are passed. I believe that the average American is tired of the usual politics or should I say our experience .

It may not come from the educated because they know how to protect their investment. But some day the poor and the people that our government is not serving will revolt.

I believe our government does not want us to understand anything; they want us to believe that our political process is so complicated that you have to be imbedded in the process to accomplish anything. I do not believe it to be.

The Republicans believe that people that are poor are that because they are lazy. And that may be true in some cases. I believe most people are poor because the lack of education. And now people are being walked on by Banks, Insurance companies, I think the biggest discrimination is the Credit bureau.

The Credit bureau says some one is poor so banks and insurance companies can assume they are uneducated and the systematically rape them. I am sure this will be dissected and it may not be totally right, but have at it.
Peace

pitbull,

I actually agree with some of your points. Where I think you are dangerously wrong is that the Presidency SHOULD ALWAYS have the most qualified person elected. When that position carries the MOST responsibility of any official on the planet, you need commiserate training.

You don’t want Larry the personable gardener taking out your gall bladder. You want the head of Mayo. A guy who has lived, breathed, and developed his skills to the utmost.

Unless obama receives the greatest mandate EVER (no chance), then will be unable to change the whole culture of Washington. Therefore, he is going to need to be well versed in dealing Washington as it is. If not, he’ll be ineffective.

JeffR

[/quote]

What is commiserate training anyway? Is that where we learn how to seek solace from others who share similar political sorrows? Of course I’m just grinding your gears Jeff, I’m sure you meant commensurate, but how is it that the person who carries the most responsibility on the planet is possibly going to struggle being effective in Washington? I agree with another poster earlier who suggested that it is not as complicated as some would have us believe, but even if it were, I still can’t comprehend your message.

62

Some Obamanomics -

Here’s a sample calculation showing how Obama tax cuts would affect a big-firm NY lawyer:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/02/obama_biglaw_and_taxesor_obama_1.php

And Tom Friedman thought the people in the midwest didn’t vote THEIR economic interests…

63

[quote]theOUTLAW wrote:
storey420 wrote:
I can’t imagine the poster of this as being anyone that is successful. College student? Welfare recipient?

Look at his avatar and smell yourself. [/quote]

HUH???

64

Marginal tax rates have consequences. http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/02/the_british_are.html

Obamanomics would mean pay cut of tens of thousands of dollars for a lot of professionals and high-salaried individuals in high-cost-of-living areas who hardly qualify as “the rich.”

People are economically rational when their rewards are clear - if you decrease their potential returns, they will decrease their risks. This means less investment and less entrepreneurial activity.

At the same time, more trade restrictions will lead to higher priced goods - on top of an inflationary environment. On top of a possible recession.

Good times.

65

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

People are economically rational when their rewards are clear - if you decrease their potential returns, they will decrease their risks. This means less investment and less entrepreneurial activity.
[/quote]
Never underestimate the power of greed

66

[quote]JeffR wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I normally do not post on threads that are to long for me to read, because I do not have the time. I can say I watched the Chris Mathews interview with the Texas Senator. I do think Chris Mathews made the point that he is not only arrogant but also rude. Obama has no major accomplishments to add to our political abyss, which in my opinion is not a bad thing. Look at some of the laws and bills that are passed. I believe that the average American is tired of the usual politics or should I say our experience .

It may not come from the educated because they know how to protect their investment. But some day the poor and the people that our government is not serving will revolt.

I believe our government does not want us to understand anything; they want us to believe that our political process is so complicated that you have to be imbedded in the process to accomplish anything. I do not believe it to be.

The Republicans believe that people that are poor are that because they are lazy. And that may be true in some cases. I believe most people are poor because the lack of education. And now people are being walked on by Banks, Insurance companies, I think the biggest discrimination is the Credit bureau.

The Credit bureau says some one is poor so banks and insurance companies can assume they are uneducated and the systematically rape them. I am sure this will be dissected and it may not be totally right, but have at it.
Peace

pitbull,

I actually agree with some of your points. Where I think you are dangerously wrong is that the Presidency SHOULD ALWAYS have the most qualified person elected. When that position carries the MOST responsibility of any official on the planet, you need commiserate training.

You don’t want Larry the personable gardener taking out your gall bladder. You want the head of Mayo. A guy who has lived, breathed, and developed his skills to the utmost.

Unless obama receives the greatest mandate EVER (no chance), then will be unable to change the whole culture of Washington. Therefore, he is going to need to be well versed in dealing Washington as it is. If not, he’ll be ineffective.

JeffR

[/quote]

I believe we nee experienced advisers for the economy and national defense, but do not need the experience at politicking or earmarking or doing favors for campaign finance.

67

What can’t you comprehend ?

68

I understand the pain first hand that taxes cause, I think right now we need to be more concerned about spending. I do not know how factual these figures are. And I know these are just numbers

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 26 Feb 2008 at 10:23:34 PM GMT is:

$9,322,441,468,600.78

The estimated population of the United States is 304,467,875
so each citizen’s share of this debt is $30,618.80.

69

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I understand the pain first hand that taxes cause, I think right now we need to be more concerned about spending. I do not know how factual these figures are. And I know these are just numbers

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 26 Feb 2008 at 10:23:34 PM GMT is:

$9,322,441,468,600.78

The estimated population of the United States is 304,467,875
so each citizen’s share of this debt is $30,618.80.

[/quote]

A look at how we spend our ducats:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3521

70

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I understand the pain first hand that taxes cause, I think right now we need to be more concerned about spending. I do not know how factual these figures are. And I know these are just numbers

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 26 Feb 2008 at 10:23:34 PM GMT is:

$9,322,441,468,600.78

The estimated population of the United States is 304,467,875
so each citizen’s share of this debt is $30,618.80.

[/quote]

Do you feel any better when I tell you that that number is insignificant next to the implied obligations of social security?

71

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!

Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?

The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?

Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.

You are addicted to idealogy and have a lack of understanding of basic economics…like Barack and Hillary.

Actually the wealthy don’t invest in high tax countries, they relocate and the elite are not what you and the other minions are after. Corporations are not the “elite”. They are business entities.

If you don’t have it. You don’t invest it. If you are taxed when taking a risk, then the incentive for risk taking in curtailed. Although you may consider me “elite” I simply own a few businesses and I will not reinvest into them if I am taxed heavily. I’ll simply save and wait until a friendlier administration is in place and will leverage tax advantaged investments.

You get less the more you regulate. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. It’s basic common sense…oh I forgot you are a liberal Democrat.

Taxes can and will be “higher” and you and others will still invest. Why bother arguing this?

No I won’t. I will save and wait. I’m not arguing with you. You are a fool and there is no point in arguing with a fool…and a poor fool at that.

Taxes will not be higher if the country comes to it’s senses and tosses out the Democrats, and their candidates, which is more then likely to happen.
[/quote]

With your predictive powers (Santorum!) it looks like dems will take even more seats.

And everybody but you will continue to invest, obviously (see history, nineties)

72

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!

Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?

The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?

Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.

You are addicted to idealogy and have a lack of understanding of basic economics…like Barack and Hillary.

Actually the wealthy don’t invest in high tax countries, they relocate and the elite are not what you and the other minions are after. Corporations are not the “elite”. They are business entities.

If you don’t have it. You don’t invest it. If you are taxed when taking a risk, then the incentive for risk taking in curtailed. Although you may consider me “elite” I simply own a few businesses and I will not reinvest into them if I am taxed heavily. I’ll simply save and wait until a friendlier administration is in place and will leverage tax advantaged investments.

You get less the more you regulate. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. It’s basic common sense…oh I forgot you are a liberal Democrat.

Taxes can and will be “higher” and you and others will still invest. Why bother arguing this?

No I won’t. I will save and wait. I’m not arguing with you. You are a fool and there is no point in arguing with a fool…and a poor fool at that.

Taxes will not be higher if the country comes to it’s senses and tosses out the Democrats, and their candidates, which is more then likely to happen.

With your predictive powers (Santorum!) it looks like dems will take even more seats.

And everybody but you will continue to invest, obviously (see history, nineties)

[/quote]

You mean when higher taxes where offset by cheap money that rich people benefit from first, which leads to a bubble in the stock market?

Well, if you absolutely hate poor people I guess that makes sense. Why not raise minimum wages and kick them when they are down?

73

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Talking without any knowledge appears to be one of his positions.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/02/us_troops_scavenging_weapons.asp

During tonight’s debate, Barack Obama related this stunning anecdote:

You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon–supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.

And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

As soon as the Senator made the claim he looked as though he knew he’d gone too far. The Corner reports the campaign is already backtracking. After the debate Obama advisor David Axlerod told Stephen Spruiell,

That was a discussion that a captain in the military had with our staff, and he asked that that be passed along to Senator Obama.

So Obama never actually spoke with the captain, which means he can reasonably claim the tale was garbled in transmission. It is possible that an American unit was ill-equipped for combat, these things happen in the fog of war (as do bullshit stories), and they have happened with troubling frequency in this war as in every other. Which is not to diminish any failure on the part of the administration or the military leadership in providing U.S. forces with the equipment they need. But is this particular story true?

Our troops never rotate into theater before running through a series of inspections which ensure that they’re properly equipped, and we’ve never heard a report of soldiers having to scrounge for ammo. If we did, we’d join the Senator in raising hell. In Obama’s telling the blame lies with President Bush, but the story is perfectly vague and based on nothing but hearsay. We expect there will be a lot of folks that want to get to the bottom of this, whether the facts supports Obama’s version or not.

Is Obama just a bullshitter or does he believe his lies? Spreading these kinds of tales is reprehensible.

How can anyone consider voting for this guy?

[/quote]

Uhh…the story was true?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/warner-to-obama-bring-me-your-captain/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=28242288

but other than it being true and all, and you looking like a jackass…a very insightful post

shorter:
why are you so f’ing gullible?
the weekly standard will lie to you every f’ing time. stop reading it. No wonder you never seem to what the hell you’re talking about.

Again this was a TRUE story.

but hilariously you said this:

“Spreading these kinds of tales is reprehensible.”

You told the tale and scolded him. Jeebus.

74

[quote]orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!

Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?

The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?

Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.

You are addicted to idealogy and have a lack of understanding of basic economics…like Barack and Hillary.

Actually the wealthy don’t invest in high tax countries, they relocate and the elite are not what you and the other minions are after. Corporations are not the “elite”. They are business entities.

If you don’t have it. You don’t invest it. If you are taxed when taking a risk, then the incentive for risk taking in curtailed. Although you may consider me “elite” I simply own a few businesses and I will not reinvest into them if I am taxed heavily. I’ll simply save and wait until a friendlier administration is in place and will leverage tax advantaged investments.

You get less the more you regulate. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. It’s basic common sense…oh I forgot you are a liberal Democrat.

Taxes can and will be “higher” and you and others will still invest. Why bother arguing this?

No I won’t. I will save and wait. I’m not arguing with you. You are a fool and there is no point in arguing with a fool…and a poor fool at that.

Taxes will not be higher if the country comes to it’s senses and tosses out the Democrats, and their candidates, which is more then likely to happen.

With your predictive powers (Santorum!) it looks like dems will take even more seats.

And everybody but you will continue to invest, obviously (see history, nineties)

You mean when higher taxes where offset by cheap money that rich people benefit from first, which leads to a bubble in the stock market?

Well, if you absolutely hate poor people I guess that makes sense. Why not raise minimum wages and kick them when they are down?

[/quote]

Explain the benefits to the poor over the last 7 years. Compare to previous admin. Explain current fed policy and who benefits and effects on stock market?

75

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I understand the pain first hand that taxes cause, I think right now we need to be more concerned about spending. I do not know how factual these figures are. And I know these are just numbers

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 26 Feb 2008 at 10:23:34 PM GMT is:

$9,322,441,468,600.78

The estimated population of the United States is 304,467,875
so each citizen’s share of this debt is $30,618.80.

Do you feel any better when I tell you that that number is insignificant next to the implied obligations of social security?

[/quote]

And those obligations were totally unknown before the taxes were cut (who could have know the U.S. government had ongoing expenses and obligations?)

76

[quote]100meters wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I understand the pain first hand that taxes cause, I think right now we need to be more concerned about spending. I do not know how factual these figures are. And I know these are just numbers

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 26 Feb 2008 at 10:23:34 PM GMT is:

$9,322,441,468,600.78

The estimated population of the United States is 304,467,875
so each citizen’s share of this debt is $30,618.80.

Do you feel any better when I tell you that that number is insignificant next to the implied obligations of social security?

And those obligations were totally unknown before the taxes were cut (who could have know the U.S. government had ongoing expenses and obligations?)[/quote]

Actually that is irrelevant.

Pensions, medicaire and whatever will never ever be paid in full not even if the tax rate was 120%.

The system itself leads politicians to promise things that can never become reality.

It is a giant Ponzi scheme.

The German equivalent is pyramid game which is less misleading.

77

[quote]100meters wrote:
orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!

Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?

The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?

Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.

You are addicted to idealogy and have a lack of understanding of basic economics…like Barack and Hillary.

Actually the wealthy don’t invest in high tax countries, they relocate and the elite are not what you and the other minions are after. Corporations are not the “elite”. They are business entities.

If you don’t have it. You don’t invest it. If you are taxed when taking a risk, then the incentive for risk taking in curtailed. Although you may consider me “elite” I simply own a few businesses and I will not reinvest into them if I am taxed heavily. I’ll simply save and wait until a friendlier administration is in place and will leverage tax advantaged investments.

You get less the more you regulate. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. It’s basic common sense…oh I forgot you are a liberal Democrat.

Taxes can and will be “higher” and you and others will still invest. Why bother arguing this?

No I won’t. I will save and wait. I’m not arguing with you. You are a fool and there is no point in arguing with a fool…and a poor fool at that.

Taxes will not be higher if the country comes to it’s senses and tosses out the Democrats, and their candidates, which is more then likely to happen.

With your predictive powers (Santorum!) it looks like dems will take even more seats.

And everybody but you will continue to invest, obviously (see history, nineties)

You mean when higher taxes where offset by cheap money that rich people benefit from first, which leads to a bubble in the stock market?

Well, if you absolutely hate poor people I guess that makes sense. Why not raise minimum wages and kick them when they are down?

Explain the benefits to the poor over the last 7 years. Compare to previous admin. Explain current fed policy and who benefits and effects on stock market?[/quote]

Well, despite all the government interventions the economy grows and the rising tide lifts all boats.

That does not change however that the tide would rise faster without government intervention.

Government prints money.

Since they do not drop it by a helicopter it trickles into the economy from above.

Rich people will be the first to take loans and invest or buy houses, leading to bubbles both in the stock and the real estate market.

Prices are determined in these markets buy supply and demand and if the buyers suddenly have lots of cheap money prices naturally go up.

People on a fixed income however FIRST experience the inflation and THEN, if at all, have their pensions and wages raised.

Meaning, inflation is a tool to shovel money from the poor to the rich.

78

I dont think people are really interested in his positions. Personally, I think Hillary would be a better President on DAY 1, however, she really is a polarizing figure in Washington. I dont know why but she just rubs people the wrong way. Its not really her fault that she’s associated with the “old Washington” but she is.

Barack will win this November in a landslide. Im not saying he will do a shitty job or anything, I’m sure he’ll be fine. I think after 8 years of bullshit, we’re looking for inspiration, “hope and change,” and all that jazz…we’re Americans…we get swept off our feet real easily. Its no surprise Barack is winning. Not to mention…he’s the underdog…Americans love underdogs.

79

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Talking without any knowledge appears to be one of his positions.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/02/us_troops_scavenging_weapons.asp

During tonight’s debate, Barack Obama related this stunning anecdote:

You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon–supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.

And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

As soon as the Senator made the claim he looked as though he knew he’d gone too far. The Corner reports the campaign is already backtracking. After the debate Obama advisor David Axlerod told Stephen Spruiell,

That was a discussion that a captain in the military had with our staff, and he asked that that be passed along to Senator Obama.

So Obama never actually spoke with the captain, which means he can reasonably claim the tale was garbled in transmission. It is possible that an American unit was ill-equipped for combat, these things happen in the fog of war (as do bullshit stories), and they have happened with troubling frequency in this war as in every other. Which is not to diminish any failure on the part of the administration or the military leadership in providing U.S. forces with the equipment they need. But is this particular story true?

Our troops never rotate into theater before running through a series of inspections which ensure that they’re properly equipped, and we’ve never heard a report of soldiers having to scrounge for ammo. If we did, we’d join the Senator in raising hell. In Obama’s telling the blame lies with President Bush, but the story is perfectly vague and based on nothing but hearsay. We expect there will be a lot of folks that want to get to the bottom of this, whether the facts supports Obama’s version or not.

Is Obama just a bullshitter or does he believe his lies? Spreading these kinds of tales is reprehensible.

How can anyone consider voting for this guy?

Uhh…the story was true?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/warner-to-obama-bring-me-your-captain/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=28242288

but other than it being true and all, and you looking like a jackass…a very insightful post

shorter:
why are you so f’ing gullible?
the weekly standard will lie to you every f’ing time. stop reading it. No wonder you never seem to what the hell you’re talking about.

Again this was a TRUE story.

but hilariously you said this:

“Spreading these kinds of tales is reprehensible.”

You told the tale and scolded him. Jeebus.[/quote]

Did you even read the links you posted? They claimed his story is “true” and then they go on to list the factual errors.

15 of the men in his platoon did not get shipped to Iraq. He went to Afghanistan with an understrength platoon and got the rest of the men after he got to Afghanistan.

They had plenty of rifles and ammunition. They were not forced to fight with Taliban weapons (although on occasion they did, like in all previous wars.)

I suppose you consider it a true story because there was a platoon that was sent to Afghanistan and they didn’t have as many Humvees as they wanted so they drove pick up trucks too. Give me a fucking break.

Obama told a false tale. Your sad bloggers are trying to spin it as truth but even they showed the many falsehoods.

80

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

What is commiserate training anyway? Is that where we learn how to seek solace from others who share similar political sorrows? Of course I’m just grinding your gears Jeff, I’m sure you meant commensurate, but how is it that the person who carries the most responsibility on the planet is possibly going to struggle being effective in Washington? I agree with another poster earlier who suggested that it is not as complicated as some would have us believe, but even if it were, I still can’t comprehend your message.

What can’t you comprehend ?
[/quote]
Sorry PB, my post wasn’t very clear at the end. What I take issue with is the fact that the US President needs excessive time on capitol hill to be effective. Comprehend doesn’t really fit…I just don’t understand this mentality that experience is a key qualification.

I’m not just speaking to his post (obviously) either since experience comes up a lot (military, foreign affairs etc.), to me it’s a nice add to your political resume but I just don’t see a valid argument for it being a must. If you’re the President you’ll be as effective as you want to be - period.