Barack - What Are His Positions?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Can peoples reads?

My point remains arguing the causation is silly, because uh, yeah there’s more to the economy than the tax rate. Taxes can be higher and the economy can still make significant gains (and has) and taxes can be cut a whole lot and not make a difference at all (2001) or just barely (2003). So it follows a president can be a tax raiser and reap enormous benefits, or be the ultimate tax cutter and have anemic results (GWB).

You’ll remember I said,
Taxes will be raised and everything will be fine.
Yes, both can happen.

And my point was different - that your correlations weren’t informative.

Let’s refocus: What sort of effect would you expect raising of marginal income tax rates to have, ceteris parabus, on the production of income? Same question, but with regard to raising the investment tax rates (cap gains and dividends) on investing?

hmmm…for me, to refute higher taxes destroy the economy, the 2 charts I linked to (real gdp/per admin and change in personal tax%—because as is obvious to most, your marginal rate is not actually the percentage of your income you pay in taxes) make the basic point.

You could (or anyone) of course point us to charts or data that show how yes, the higher tax rates of democratic presidents have sunk their respective economies compared to the economies of republican presidents.

and yes I understand the CW of taxes.
Of course the government can increase personal income by cutting taxes/and/or spending. The question is how effective is it when those cuts are actually deferrals, well not that effective because at some point the costs have to be paid for…

So can the gov. borrow a boatload of cash and boost GDP, hell yeah! It just comes at a cost later, the GHWB to RR if you will.

100–
I don’t mean to be a referee here, but BB is making valuable points. Would you care to address just 2 of them:
–“marginal tax rate changes do…”
–“ceteris paribus.”

[/quote]

He can’t and hasn’t been able to since he began posting here. He’s the domestic version of Lixy.

142

Obama votes agains this own proposals. Geez he really has a handle on this whole economic thing I see.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2008/03/13/senate-97-obama-0/

Even Sen. Obama voted against President Obama�??s tax-and-spending package.

Republican Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado made Democrats put their votes where their likely nominee�??s rhetoric is.

Allard sponsored an amendment to the budget that included everyone of the $1.4 trillion in new spending �?? $1,400,000,000,000 �?? $1.4 million million �?? over five years that Obama has proposed on the campaign trail.

The Senate shot it down, 97-0.

Even Sen. Obama voted against President Obama.

It was just like his campaign staff assuring the Canadian government that Obama had absolutely no intention of doing what he told Ohio voters he would do on Nafta.

My Washington bureau chief noted: �??The amendment offered $1.4 trillion in new spending over five years and the equivalent tax hikes required to pay for it, covering 111 proposals that cost estimates could be generated for. Obama has at least another 77 proposals that weren�??t included in this amendment.�??

Can we promise crap we have absolutely no intention of delivering?

YES WE CAN!

Can we fool the weak-minded?

YES WE CAN!

Can we replace the tired old Washington politics with Chicago-style politics?

YES WE CAN.

143

[quote]hedo wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
…

100–
I don’t mean to be a referee here, but BB is making valuable points. Would you care to address just 2 of them:
–“marginal tax rate changes do…”
–“ceteris paribus.”

He can’t and hasn’t been able to since he began posting here. He’s the domestic version of Lixy.

[/quote]

Except his true love is the democratic party rather than Islamic terrorism.

144

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Can peoples reads?

My point remains arguing the causation is silly, because uh, yeah there’s more to the economy than the tax rate. Taxes can be higher and the economy can still make significant gains (and has) and taxes can be cut a whole lot and not make a difference at all (2001) or just barely (2003). So it follows a president can be a tax raiser and reap enormous benefits, or be the ultimate tax cutter and have anemic results (GWB).

You’ll remember I said,
Taxes will be raised and everything will be fine.
Yes, both can happen.

And my point was different - that your correlations weren’t informative.

Let’s refocus: What sort of effect would you expect raising of marginal income tax rates to have, ceteris parabus, on the production of income? Same question, but with regard to raising the investment tax rates (cap gains and dividends) on investing?

hmmm…for me, to refute higher taxes destroy the economy, the 2 charts I linked to (real gdp/per admin and change in personal tax%—because as is obvious to most, your marginal rate is not actually the percentage of your income you pay in taxes) make the basic point.

You could (or anyone) of course point us to charts or data that show how yes, the higher tax rates of democratic presidents have sunk their respective economies compared to the economies of republican presidents.

and yes I understand the CW of taxes.
Of course the government can increase personal income by cutting taxes/and/or spending. The question is how effective is it when those cuts are actually deferrals, well not that effective because at some point the costs have to be paid for…

So can the gov. borrow a boatload of cash and boost GDP, hell yeah! It just comes at a cost later, the GHWB to RR if you will.

100–
I don’t mean to be a referee here, but BB is making valuable points. Would you care to address just 2 of them:
–“marginal tax rate changes do…”
–“ceteris paribus.”

[/quote]

expect + ceteris paribus = less income

Now on to the charts clearly showing the tax policies of democratic presidents have destroyed their respective economies…

145

When is someone going to pay the bills? They say every man woman and child owes $30,000 dollars towards our National Debt. If one in 5 would qualify for a loan of $30.000 that would make that person�??s debt to be $150,000. Now we know maybe 1 in 20 or 50 would qualify for a $150,000 dollar line of credit. Some one is going to have to pay. I think the sooner the better,

146

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
When is someone going to pay the bills?[/quote]

As soon as we elect a government willing to drasticly cut spending, only then can we start “paying the bills”.

147

[quote]100meters wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Can peoples reads?

My point remains arguing the causation is silly, because uh, yeah there’s more to the economy than the tax rate. Taxes can be higher and the economy can still make significant gains (and has) and taxes can be cut a whole lot and not make a difference at all (2001) or just barely (2003). So it follows a president can be a tax raiser and reap enormous benefits, or be the ultimate tax cutter and have anemic results (GWB).

You’ll remember I said,
Taxes will be raised and everything will be fine.
Yes, both can happen.

And my point was different - that your correlations weren’t informative.

Let’s refocus: What sort of effect would you expect raising of marginal income tax rates to have, ceteris parabus, on the production of income? Same question, but with regard to raising the investment tax rates (cap gains and dividends) on investing?

hmmm…for me, to refute higher taxes destroy the economy, the 2 charts I linked to (real gdp/per admin and change in personal tax%—because as is obvious to most, your marginal rate is not actually the percentage of your income you pay in taxes) make the basic point.

You could (or anyone) of course point us to charts or data that show how yes, the higher tax rates of democratic presidents have sunk their respective economies compared to the economies of republican presidents.

and yes I understand the CW of taxes.
Of course the government can increase personal income by cutting taxes/and/or spending. The question is how effective is it when those cuts are actually deferrals, well not that effective because at some point the costs have to be paid for…

So can the gov. borrow a boatload of cash and boost GDP, hell yeah! It just comes at a cost later, the GHWB to RR if you will.

100–
I don’t mean to be a referee here, but BB is making valuable points. Would you care to address just 2 of them:
–“marginal tax rate changes do…”
–“ceteris paribus.”

expect + ceteris paribus = less income

Now on to the charts clearly showing the tax policies of democratic presidents have destroyed their respective economies…

[/quote]

OK. So your best sole argument is that the past alwys predicts the future, and your simple charts entirely and accurately describe the past.

I am unconvinced.
I will check back in ten years.

148

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
100meters wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Can peoples reads?

My point remains arguing the causation is silly, because uh, yeah there’s more to the economy than the tax rate. Taxes can be higher and the economy can still make significant gains (and has) and taxes can be cut a whole lot and not make a difference at all (2001) or just barely (2003). So it follows a president can be a tax raiser and reap enormous benefits, or be the ultimate tax cutter and have anemic results (GWB).

You’ll remember I said,
Taxes will be raised and everything will be fine.
Yes, both can happen.

And my point was different - that your correlations weren’t informative.

Let’s refocus: What sort of effect would you expect raising of marginal income tax rates to have, ceteris parabus, on the production of income? Same question, but with regard to raising the investment tax rates (cap gains and dividends) on investing?

hmmm…for me, to refute higher taxes destroy the economy, the 2 charts I linked to (real gdp/per admin and change in personal tax%—because as is obvious to most, your marginal rate is not actually the percentage of your income you pay in taxes) make the basic point.

You could (or anyone) of course point us to charts or data that show how yes, the higher tax rates of democratic presidents have sunk their respective economies compared to the economies of republican presidents.

and yes I understand the CW of taxes.
Of course the government can increase personal income by cutting taxes/and/or spending. The question is how effective is it when those cuts are actually deferrals, well not that effective because at some point the costs have to be paid for…

So can the gov. borrow a boatload of cash and boost GDP, hell yeah! It just comes at a cost later, the GHWB to RR if you will.

100–
I don’t mean to be a referee here, but BB is making valuable points. Would you care to address just 2 of them:
–“marginal tax rate changes do…”
–“ceteris paribus.”

expect + ceteris paribus = less income

Now on to the charts clearly showing the tax policies of democratic presidents have destroyed their respective economies…

OK. So your best sole argument is that the past alwys predicts the future, and your simple charts entirely and accurately describe the past.

I am unconvinced.
I will check back in ten years.[/quote]

I was unaware that we were able to make assumptions based on the future.

My bad.

149

I am surprised no one has brought up exactly how original Obama’s words are.

Barrack seems to stand behind his zero accomplishments based on his powerful words, but I wonder exactly how many of those words are his.

150

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
I am surprised no one has brought up exactly how original Obama’s words are.

Barrack seems to stand behind his zero accomplishments based his powerful words, but I wonder exactly how many of those words are his.

[/quote]

Wow. He lifted that completely. When are people going to wake up? This man is a fraud.

151

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
I am surprised no one has brought up exactly how original Obama’s words are.

Barrack seems to stand behind his zero accomplishments based his powerful words, but I wonder exactly how many of those words are his.

Wow. He lifted that completely. When are people going to wake up? This man is a fraud.[/quote]

Yeah, the thing is…deval suggested he use those lines, they’re good friends, and have exchanged ideas…

I mean he wrote 2 books and most of all his speeches and you’ve latched onto a suggested line.

but yeah good post otherwise.

152

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
I am surprised no one has brought up exactly how original Obama’s words are.

Barrack seems to stand behind his zero accomplishments based his powerful words, but I wonder exactly how many of those words are his.

Wow. He lifted that completely. When are people going to wake up? This man is a fraud.

Yeah, the thing is…deval suggested he use those lines, they’re good friends, and have exchanged ideas…

I mean he wrote 2 books and most of all his speeches and you’ve latched onto a suggested line.

but yeah good post otherwise.

[/quote]

Those two lines hit me in the face by the media. I wonder what a little actual research would reveal. Considering zero accomplishments, and the claim accomplishments mean nothing it’s the words of change, I would hope those are the only two “suggested lines.”

It seems ironic that Clinton points out “It’s not change you can believe in, it’s change you can xerox,” in the same debate she xeroxs a few words herself.

Granted she does stand on a record and not just her words, but it still seems ironic. Hypocrite?

153

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
I am surprised no one has brought up exactly how original Obama’s words are.

Barrack seems to stand behind his zero accomplishments based his powerful words, but I wonder exactly how many of those words are his.

Wow. He lifted that completely. When are people going to wake up? This man is a fraud.

Yeah, the thing is…deval suggested he use those lines, they’re good friends, and have exchanged ideas…

I mean he wrote 2 books and most of all his speeches and you’ve latched onto a suggested line.

but yeah good post otherwise.

[/quote]

A line? Did you watch the videos? Every line. The man is a fraud.

154

You’re not a fraud for using a speech that someone told you to use. Or for writing a speech based on someone else’s speech when you have their blessing to do so. As is the case with this accusation.

He would be a fraud if he claimed they were his words, that he had written them, or if perhaps he claimed he had permission to use them when in fact the author explicitly denied it. As it happens, the reality of the situation is exactly the opposite.

I swear, if this is the best people can come up with against Obama, you might as well give him the keys to the White House tomorrow. Grasping at straws would be too generous a definition of the attacks he’s received.

155

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
You’re not a fraud for using a speech that someone told you to use. Or for writing a speech based on someone else’s speech when you have their blessing to do so. As is the case with this accusation.

He would be a fraud if he claimed they were his words, that he had written them, or if perhaps he claimed he had permission to use them when in fact the author explicitly denied it. As it happens, the reality of the situation is exactly the opposite.

I swear, if this is the best people can come up with against Obama, you might as well give him the keys to the White House tomorrow. Grasping at straws would be too generous a definition of the attacks he’s received.

[/quote]

The best we can come up with? The man has done very little in his career, he has hid from voting on tough issues and the little he has done is questionable.

When we question it you say we are grasping at straws. His whole career is made of straw.

156

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The best we can come up with? The man has done very little in his career, he has hid from voting on tough issues and the little he has done is questionable.

When we question it you say we are grasping at straws. His whole career is made of straw.[/quote]

From what I understand, his “present” votes were almost unanimously protest votes to prevent otherwise solid legislature from being bogged down by riders and earmarks. This is consistent with his ideal of accountability and transparency to all legislative process, and hardly something to criticize the man for. It shows judgment and refusal to be curtailed by bureaucracy.

Aside from that, to say he has not done much with his career is silly. He has done plenty. All of the candidates(since George Washington) have done plenty. Arguing scale is irrelevant. The current administration has extensively qualified resumes and they have all but fucked this country completely.

Honestly, I don’t even like his politics(for the most part). But, thus far, nothing has suggested to me that he is a bad person, or otherwise incompetent, irrational, indecisive or incapable of leading this country.

McCain is not going to win in November, and do you really want Hillary in office? There is no way Obama can do a worse job than the current administration has, so I’m trying to be optimistic, this is the way the cards will lie, might as well make the most of them.

157

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
…

McCain is not going to win in November, and do you really want Hillary in office? There is no way Obama can do a worse job than the current administration has, so I’m trying to be optimistic, this is the way the cards will lie, might as well make the most of them.

[/quote]

I just registered democrat to vote for Hillary in April. That is how much I do not want to see Obama.

He is the big unknown and what little I do know I do not like. Not what I want for a president.

158

I can not and will not vote for a Presidential candidate that has accomplished nothing during their Senate career.

Since when is accomplishing nothing a positive attribute? The assertion that zero accomplishments is good because there is no negative history is asinine.

I want this to be very clear, I am not saying he has not done much with his career, I am saying he has accomplished nothing as a Senator.

159

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
I am surprised no one has brought up exactly how original Obama’s words are.

Barrack seems to stand behind his zero accomplishments based his powerful words, but I wonder exactly how many of those words are his.

Wow. He lifted that completely. When are people going to wake up? This man is a fraud.

Yeah, the thing is…deval suggested he use those lines, they’re good friends, and have exchanged ideas…

I mean he wrote 2 books and most of all his speeches and you’ve latched onto a suggested line.

but yeah good post otherwise.

A line? Did you watch the videos? Every line. The man is a fraud.
[/quote]

Yes every line from a friend, who share lines, who is a campaign co- chair, who suggested using it… god your just hopelessly stupid.

160

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
I can not and will not vote for a Presidential candidate that has accomplished nothing during their Senate career.

Since when is accomplishing nothing a positive attribute? The assertion that zero accomplishments is good because there is no negative history is asinine.

I want this to be very clear, I am not saying he has not done much with his career, I am saying he has accomplished nothing as a Senator.

[/quote]

What do you do when the candidate was never a senator?
I mean the requirement is be 35 years old.
He has more legislative experience than Clinton and has better judgement on foreign policy than either McCain (obviously) or Clinton. And McCain doesn’t know anything about the economy.

Seems like an easy choice.