Hate Obama? Why?

[Ivan Seeking]

So as not to derail other threads, it seemed best to start this one.

For those who do not like Obama, could you state specifically why? I am amazed by, for example, the angry women who think they won't vote for Obama under any conditions. Why? Why the vile and venom? What could he have possibly done to incite such anger?

Same is true for Republicans generally. I understand having reservations about his age and experience, but for these reasons, how can anyone possibly have so much contempt for the man as we hear from individuals and the media?

I am most impressed by people who don't even pay attention to politics, but still hate Obama. I have an uncle who knows about as much politics as I know about basket weaving, but he hates Obama. [course he lives in OC - need more be said?]

I am starting to think that the most vocal opponents are simply racists.

[WarPhalange]

Let me get the ball rolling with some honest criticisms:

He doesn't have enough experience in Washington and he's just blindly running into a minefield.

His message of "change" doesn't carry much substance, since he has rarely given any details.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Here's some comedy of the West Virgina variety to compensate:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=c-q4MDQ0cDI

There was also one by John Stewart, but F'ing Viacom decided to be a whiny little B**** and take the video down.

[Greg Bernhardt]

I generally dislike all politicians. Obama exploits and manipulates just like any other politician. I'm not against voting for him, but I doubt he's the savior for this country.

[turbo-1]

I am starting to think that the most vocal opponents are simply racists.Some fraction of them are, for sure. I hang out with a bunch of bikers, and one of them (transplant from Brockton MA area) was at my house one day and started spouting off about what a shame it was that so many black people were moving into town. I turned the conversation to something else, and later I printed up an 8x10 photo of my father, wife, sister, nephew and his lovely daughter having a cookout at my house. My nephew is a Navy lifer, and he married a beautiful black woman with a daughter from a previous marriage. I hung that picture on the refrigerator, and the next time he dropped in and went to get a beer, he did a double-take. I said "That's my grand-niece and I love her." He has since (several years now) been on his best behavior, but I'll bet he won't vote for Obama under any circumstances.

[Ivan Seeking]

I would also be interested in knowing how many Obama haters watch Fox News, listen to talk radio, or are members of an evangelical church.

[turbo-1]

I generally dislike all politicians. Obama exploits and manipulates just like any other politician. I'm not against voting for him, but I doubt he's the savior for this country.I'm an independent who shares some values normally attributed to liberals, and some normally attributed to conservatives. I have to hold my nose to vote for any politician, and I choose based on who I think might do the least amount of damage in areas important to me.

[Greg Bernhardt]

I would also be interested in knowing how many Obama haters watch Fox News, or listen to talk radio.

I watch FOX news, listen to talk radio, but don't goto church and I'm very much undecided.

[jimmysnyder]

[of course he lives in OC - need more be said?]

I am starting to think that the most vocal opponents are simply racists.
Thanks for the laugh Ivan.

I can't imagine what people find not to like in Obama. He is young, vigorous, intelligent, and given what's been thrown at him, gracious. If he should win, I believe he will be a great President. Come to think of it, there's only one person in the country that would be better.

[jimmysnyder]

I would also be interested in knowing how many Obama haters watch Fox News, listen to talk radio, or are members of an evangelical church.
:rofl: Stop it Ivan.

[mgb_phys]

I can't imagine what people find not to like in Obama.
He wants to be president - that's enough to disqualify anyone.


Come to think of it, there's only one person in the country that would be better.
Greg for president?

[vociferous]

I do not hate Obama; I simply think he is unlikely to be a good President. I would be okay with seeing him on a ticket as Vice President, and believe that he may even have the potential to be a good President, someday, but today is not the day.

His foreign policy is naive and is likely to lead to almost as many problems as the man he would presume to replace. In my opinion, which I think is well-supported by fact, a decision to withdraw from Iraq before the Democratic government there is strong enough to maintain control, would be almost as bad of a decision as becoming involved in there. And what is Obama's plan, when the government inevitably fails, and a civil war breaks out, with the Sunnis being funded by the Arabs and the Shi'ites by the Iranians, when Al Queda can operate freely among the chaos of civil war? To re-invade Iraq!

As a registered Democrat, this will probably be the only time that I will not vote for the party's presidential nominee.

As for McCain, I respect him, though, like with Obama, I disagree with a big chunk of his platform, especially on domestic issues. Also, as a veteran, I am completely mystified by his decision to oppose increased GI bill benefits. I am certainly not happy with the fact that he will probably become President, though, a balance of power might be beneficial, especially since McCain, unlike Bush, is a moderate who is usually very willing to compromise. His opposition to Webb's improved GI bill is probably going to prevent me from voting for him.

I will probably write-in someone this year. I supported Richardson originally, and later Hillary, after Richardson dropped-out. I will probably write-in Hillary, as I have a feeling a lot of upset Democrats will.

The sparkle of light in this election will be that; whether the President be McCain or Obama, we are virtually guaranteed that they will be a much better Commander-in-Chief than the guy in the Oval Office right now, who is currently the worst President of the 21st century in my book, and I doubt anyone is going to be taking that distinction away during my lifetime.

[vociferous]

I would also be interested in knowing how many Obama haters watch Fox News, listen to talk radio, or are members of an evangelical church.

I watch the Daily Show and rarely listen to the radio. One of my parents is Jewish; the other is Liberal Protestant, and I myself am fairly agnostic, but I certainly do not want to see Obama be the next President.

[jimmysnyder]

[the next president] will be a much better Commander-in-Chief than the guy in the Oval Office right now, who is currently the worst President of the 21st century
Correction, second worst.

[russ_watters]

For those who do not like Obama, could you state specifically why? I am amazed by, for example, the angry women who think they won't vote for Obama under any conditions. Why? Why the vile and venom? What could he have possibly done to incite such anger?

Same is true for Republicans generally. I understand having reservations about his age and experience, but for these reasons, how can anyone possibly have so much contempt for the man as we hear from individuals and the media?
I don't have any dislike for him. In fact, up until March I genuinely liked him and had a very strong preference for him over Hillary (yeah, for me that's not saying much).

But, to use your word, I now have some serious reservations about him because:
-He's extremely liberal.
-He's nurtured and surrounded himself in a racist/anti-american culture.
-He's too charismatic.

[Gokul43201]

-He's extremely liberal.Can you explain exactly what you mean by this? I recall you showed appreciation of some of his stances on Iran and/or Pakistan that you thought were quite reasonable and much unlike typical far-left rhetoric.

Edit: This may already be taking the thread off-topic. The OP is more about people that hate Obama than those that disagree with his positions.

[Ivan Seeking]

:rofl: Stop it Ivan.

So then we can assume that you do one of the above?

[Gokul43201]

-He's nurtured and surrounded himself in a racist/anti-american culture.Is this about the church that he used to attend?

[Ivan Seeking]

I watch FOX news, listen to talk radio...

If you don't mind me asking: Why? Do you consider them to be reliable sources of information?

[Greg Bernhardt]

If you don't mind me asking: Why? Do you consider them to be reliable sources of information?

I don't, it's entertainment. With some news on the side.

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't, it's entertainment. With some news on the side.

So then you view them as being more inline with The Daily Show, or The Colbert Report?

[Greg Bernhardt]

So then you view them as being more inline with The Daily Show, or The Colbert Report?

Fox News is not comedy or parody

[Ivan Seeking]

I watch the Daily Show and rarely listen to the radio. One of my parents is Jewish; the other is Liberal Protestant, and I myself am fairly agnostic, but I certainly do not want to see Obama be the next President.

It is perfectly reasonable to prefer one candidate over another. What interests me is the vile and contempt expressed by many people towards Obama. I understand political preference, but I don't understand the hate. I don't understand people who would paint him as a terrorists or whatnot without knowing anything about him.

I never liked Bush, in fact I don't trust any Bush, and I knew without any doubt that his admin would be a national disaster, but over the last eight years, Bush Jr. has earned my contempt. So whereas now I feel rage and contempt, sometimes verging on personal hatred, this would not have been justified in 2000. But I see people who HATE Obama now, and I can see no reason for it.

[Ivan Seeking]

I really want Obama to win, but I don't hate McCain. When push comes to shove, I respect the man. I have serious issues with some of his positions, but I respect him. However, I really don't like some of his friends - namely the extreme right - but at the moment, many on the extreme right don't like him much either.

And, yes, they are both politicians, so we can't expect them to be saints. I suspect that it may even be true that Obama cannot walk on water. :biggrin:

[Benzoate]

I dislike him because everybody is making him out to be some kind of savior or messiah. For christ sakes he is only a politician. and he has flip flop on issues a couple of times. I get made when they ignore a politician like ron paul who has been consistent on issues he supports or does not support, and he is really a genuine politician and he really cares about the concerns of the people he represents. Not saying that Obama doesn't possess any integrity but we barely know him. He has not been in office long enough for people to form of him.

[mgb_phys]

But I see people who HATE Obama now, and I can see no reason for it.
Surely it couldn't be anything to do with skin colour could it ? Not in such a multicultural society!

[russ_watters]

Can you explain exactly what you mean by this? Jeez, Gokul, how many times are you going to ask this question? I'm not answering it again: you already know the answer.

[russ_watters]

Is this about the church that he used to attend? And his wife. He also said his grandmother was racist, in a racist way, which makes me wonder which one is really the racist.

[jimmysnyder]

So then we can assume that you do one of the above?
I don't watch TV, I don't listen to radio, and I am Jewish. But what has this to do with your thesis? I don't hate Obama. The reason I laughed is because of the juxtaposition of the following in a single thread:

[course he lives in OC - need more be said?]

I would also be interested in knowing how many Obama haters watch Fox News, listen to talk radio, or are members of an evangelical church.

I am starting to think that the most vocal opponents are simply racists.

It seems that some prejudices are PC while others are not and you know the name of that game.

[Ivan Seeking]

Orange County is notoriously Republican. Since my uncle doesn't follow the news or have a clue about any facts, he clearly gets his information, and in particular, his attitude, from his friends. So the question is, where do they get their information?

As for the rest, yes, those are certainly sources of hate and misinformation. That point certainly need not be defended.

But I am asking, if it isn't hate radio, or Fox News, or extremist churches, then why the hate?

[Ivan Seeking]

I should say that I understand that women are temporarily angry. That is normal when a favorite candidate loses. But still, some that I've seen interviewed are sooooooooo hateful, it really goes beyond politics and is touching something deeper.

[Ivan Seeking]

And his wife. He also said his grandmother was racist, in a racist way, which makes me wonder which one is really the racist.

You are suggesting that a guy who is half black, and half white, is a racist?

[B. Elliott]

While I don't exactly hate him (pretty strong words), i'm definitely not going to vote for a freshmen senator, completely regardless of the race issue.

[Gokul43201]

Jeez, Gokul, how many times are you going to ask this question? I'm not answering it again: you already know the answer.I know the answer if it is "there was a non-partisan group that called Obama the most liberal senator". I was asking you if there were specific issues that you personally found him too liberal on...but I guess you're not answering that one.

And his wife. Is this just about the "proud" statement or is there more to it than that? Because, if that's all there is, then McCain saying it's lately tough to be proud of America should make him anti-American too.

He also said his grandmother was racist, in a racist way, which makes me wonder which one is really the racist.This makes absolutely no sense to me. Here's what he said about his grandmother: "a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

How does Obama recounting this make him racist?

[Evo]

Okay, let's all remember that emotions run high when it comes to politics.

[TheStatutoryApe]

Some fraction of them are, for sure. I hang out with a bunch of bikers, and one of them (transplant from Brockton MA area) was at my house one day and started spouting off about what a shame it was that so many black people were moving into town. I turned the conversation to something else, and later I printed up an 8x10 photo of my father, wife, sister, nephew and his lovely daughter having a cookout at my house. My nephew is a Navy lifer, and he married a beautiful black woman with a daughter from a previous marriage. I hung that picture on the refrigerator, and the next time he dropped in and went to get a beer, he did a double-take. I said "That's my grand-niece and I love her." He has since (several years now) been on his best behavior, but I'll bet he won't vote for Obama under any circumstances.

I've known people like this, and am even related to a few. They seem to be 'racist' by habit. My grandfather always complained about 'wetbacks' and 'niggers' and my 'jap' stepfather but when ever he met someone of another ethnicity he would talk with them and get along with them just fine yet it somehow never occured to him that maybe his judgements about such people in general were wrong. This has been the pattern with just about every 'racist' I have ever spoken with.

So really I don't think that there are that many people who truely hate Obama because he is black. I was initially worried about the 'keep darkie out' vote but I've come to believe that it is rather impotent without a republican candidate that they really feel they can get behind, that they don't really care that much that Obama is black.

[roam]

I don't care about a person's race etc etc... I simply don't vote.

Why vote to support a parliamentarian system I so ferociously dislike?

I would have understood the need to vote during some, say more, class-conscious times but at this point in the US; you're simply keeping the system up and running.

Never settle for the lesser of two evils. Don't even register yourself for the vote, simply ignore it.

That's my opinion, that's what I'd do anyway.

[mheslep]

... Here's what he said about his grandmother: "a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."...He also used the phrase 'typical white person' referring to her in that line.

[vociferous]

It is perfectly reasonable to prefer one candidate over another. What interests me is the vile and contempt expressed by many people towards Obama. I understand political preference, but I don't understand the hate. I don't understand people who would paint him as a terrorists or whatnot without knowing anything about him.

I never liked Bush, in fact I don't trust any Bush, and I knew without any doubt that his admin would be a national disaster, but over the last eight years, Bush Jr. has earned my contempt. So whereas now I feel rage and contempt, sometimes verging on personal hatred, this would not have been justified in 2000. But I see people who HATE Obama now, and I can see no reason for it.

I never liked Bush much, and I think he is a bad President, but I do not understand why people hate him. I also do not understand how people can be so personally judgmental of a person they have never met. I think it is perfectly fine to say, "I think Bush is a bad President," but people will say, "Bush is an asshole," or, "Bush is a moron." Unless you personally know him, I think that is completely unfair, since you really have no personal experience to base that assessment on.

But, it does help explain why people hate Obama. If you do not like someone's policies and stances, the average person is going to start projecting the aforementioned dislike onto their perception of the individual's personality, which is why we get people who absolutely despise and loath those that they have never met.

[phyzmatix]

...in fact I don't trust any Bush...

Oh, for sure! It's gotten me into a lot of trouble over the years :rofl:

[D H]

Do I hate him? No. Do I want him as my next president? No.
He is the slickest of politicians who has somehow convinced the American public into thinking he is something else. He is not something else; he is a politician. A politician with a silver tongue.


He is too green (newbie green, not environmental green) and too liberal a politician.


The Senate may well be a 58/42 split (counting two independents as Democrats); the House 240/195. I do not like the idea of all the three being under the control of one party.


I feel financially and emotionally threatened by Obama. He explicitly made a campaign promise as a kowtow to the teachers union that threatens the field in which I work: human spaceflight. He bolsters my opinion of him every time he speaks about NASA. This is much more than a financial issue; I can always get a job working on things that fly halfway around the world and finish the flight with a rather dramatic flair. This one issue strikes to the very core of who I am.

[phyzmatix]

Could someone explain to me what is meant by a "too liberal politician". I noticed that a few people have commented on this perceived aspect of Obama.

Is this someone who won't readily revert to bombing as an answer? Someone who won't rape and pillage economies of developing countries in order to strengthen their own? Someone who might actually sign the Kyoto treaty?

What actions or policies would qualify a politician as "too liberal"?

(PS, I'm not looking for an argument, just some insight into what seems to represent a large part of the American psyche)

[B. Elliott]

He is too green (newbie green, not environmental green) and too liberal a politician.


That's my main concern. Not necessarily the liberal aspect, but all in all, why vote for someone who (relatively) has nil experience with government.

[AhmedEzz]

I don't hate Obama but I understand why some people might. However, i think that if they 'listen' to him they might like him better and maybe clear some perceptions that they might have. Sure his race and color is an issue, but maybe this can be a positive thing instead of negative one.

[Gokul43201]

I do not hate Obama; I simply think he is unlikely to be a good President....His foreign policy is naive and is likely to lead to almost as many problems as the man he would presume to replace. In my opinion, which I think is well-supported by fact, a decision to withdraw from Iraq before the Democratic government there is strong enough to maintain control, would be almost as bad of a decision as becoming involved in there.
...
I will probably write-in Hillary, as I have a feeling a lot of upset Democrats will.So what exactly was Hillary's position on Iraq, and how did she demonstrate significantly better judgment than Obama?

I dislike him because everybody is making him out to be some kind of savior or messiah.So you dislike Obama because of the actions of other people?


I never liked Bush much, and I think he is a bad President, but I do not understand why people hate him. I also do not understand how people can be so personally judgmental of a person they have never met. I think it is perfectly fine to say, "I think Bush is a bad President," but people will say, "Bush is an asshole," or, "Bush is a moron." Unless you personally know him, I think that is completely unfair, since you really have no personal experience to base that assessment on.

But, it does help explain why people hate Obama. If you do not like someone's policies and stances, the average person is going to start projecting the aforementioned dislike onto their perception of the individual's personality, which is why we get people who absolutely despise and loath those that they have never met.The difference: Bush has had 7 years in a position of power where he has been able to directly affect the quality of our lives. Obama has not.


While I don't exactly hate him (pretty strong words), i'm definitely not going to vote for a freshmen senator...


He is too green (newbie green, not environmental green)...If you really believe a background in constitutional law, a few terms in the Illinois legislature and a couple years in Congress is completely insufficient political experience to be a good President, then you would have voted against one of the greatest American Presidents - Abe Lincoln.

[OmCheeto]

Fox News is not comedy or parody

I disagree. When I saw that the National Enquirer was the source of their story one day, I laughed so hard, I almost pissed myself.

Go Obama!

ps. But I don't hate the other candidate. I think either will make a good president, regardless of the nonsense that comes out of their mouths.

[Astronuc]

Whoever become President is going to face constraints on the budget, unless that allows the government to continue massive deficit spending.

As for NASA, apparently none of the candidates (ostensibly including McCain) mention it, with the possible exception of Clinton.

Kaufman wrote in the Post that, “Except for Clinton’s, none of the official campaign Web sites appears to mention NASA or human space exploration specifically.” That’s still the case, and it shouldn’t be. Clinton made a smart move when she used the fiftieth anniversary of the Sputnik satellite launch this fall to announce that she would end the Republican “war on science.” Among other things, the New York senator said that she supports continuing manned space exploration and, seemingly, the Constellation program.
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_nasa_plan_gets_little_p.php

Kaufman's article - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201359.html
When asked about their candidates' positions on the moon-Mars project, a spokeswoman for Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) did not respond, . . . .

A comparison of NASA and space exploration policies at Popular Mechanics
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4260504.html



On a broader note, I certainly think negative campaigning with the trend of casting aspersions on one's opponent(s) has had a detrimental affect on US politics and civil discourse. Rather than an objective assessment, it seems some (perhaps many) folks give into emotions and subjective criticism based on innuendo and hearsay. I would hope the PF community strives to be beyond that.

[B. Elliott]

If you really believe a background in constitutional law, a few terms in the Illinois legislature and a couple years in Congress is completely insufficient political experience to be a good President, then you would have voted against one of the greatest American Presidents - Abe Lincoln.

I do believe it is insufficient. Fully. Abraham Lincoln also ran for president over 140 years ago which has no resemblance even the slightest to our current economic situations. Different times entirely. If I was around the time that Lincoln was running for president (unknowing of what the future held) I wouldn't have voted for him. And as far as him being one of the greatest American Presidents, that's something I don't agree with considering that my mother is a Civil War historian. But that's a discussion beyond the scope of this topic.

Just because someone can speak with the utmost charisma, doesn't make him a good leader. Adolf Hitler was an excellent speaker.

[seycyrus]

I disagree. When I saw that the National Enquirer was the source of their story one day, I laughed so hard, I almost pissed myself.


In the current events segment of many news channels, (CNN, MSNBC,NBC, FOX), the story often refers to allusions made by tabloids.

The fact is that members of both Obama's and Hilary's campaigns were on FOX and lauded them for their unbiased reporting.

The fact that people choose to turn their filters on/off due to what channel they might be watching is ludicrous.

Lots of people had a great laugh due to the fact that the "microwaving popcorn with a cell phone" story was mentioned on FOX, but noone brought up the fact that it was also brought up on CNN...

I remember watching "Judge Dredd" (I think) and a secondary character referred to "The Great Burger Wars"

That ain't nuthin compared to what will happen during "The News Channel Holocaust"!

[jimmysnyder]

He is too green
The bigots say he is too black. The conservatives say he is too red. The Neocons say he is too yellow. The optimists say he is too blue. And you say he is too green. Did the Rainbow Coalition say he is too white? Only Cindy Lauper knows for sure.

[turbo-1]

I do believe it is insufficient. Fully. Abraham Lincoln also ran for president over 140 years ago which has no resemblance even the slightest to our current economic situations. Different times entirely. If I was around the time that Lincoln was running for president (unknowing of what the future held) I wouldn't have voted for him. And as far as him being one of the greatest American Presidents, that's something I don't agree with considering that my mother is a Civil War historian. But that's a discussion beyond the scope of this topic.

Just because someone can speak with the utmost charisma, doesn't make him a good leader. Adolf Hitler was an excellent speaker.There are parallels, though, that bear consideration. The Republican party was emerging in power, and Lincoln was handed a terrible mess left behind by Buchanan, whose policies had laid the foundation for the secession of the South. Lincoln made some mistakes, including relying too heavily on ineffectual generals like McClellan, who dithered away precious time while the South built their military strength. The next president will have his hands full trying to disengage peacefully from Iraq, while trying to take down Al Qaeda and the de-fang the Taliban.

As for experience - no single person can do all the jobs of the administration - the trick is to get (and heed) good advice from people with in-depth knowledge of the problems and opportunities at hand, and delegate responsibility wisely, and demand accountability and follow-up.

[B. Elliott]

There are parallels, though, that bear consideration. The Republican party was emerging in power, and Lincoln was handed a terrible mess left behind by Buchanan, whose policies had laid the foundation for the secession of the South. Lincoln made some mistakes, including relying too heavily on ineffectual generals like McClellan, who dithered away precious time while the South built their military strength. The next president will have his hands full trying to disengage peacefully from Iraq, while trying to take down Al Qaeda and the de-fang the Taliban.

As for experience - no single person can do all the jobs of the administration - the trick is to get (and heed) good advice from people with in-depth knowledge of the problems and opportunities at hand, and delegate responsibility wisely, and demand accountability and follow-up.

True, but my overall way of looking at it is 'the older the wiser'. If we're going to have to strategically disengage wartime actions in the middle east while also having a full understanding of the policies of the participant, who better than an elder leader with actual military experience and military leadership skills? A person who can hear all sides and draw a conclusion of off both advise, and personal experience.

[Swatje]

Hmm. As a non-European third party observer I'm gonna add in some of my own opinion in here.

No president will fix the mess the United States is in right now. Neither Obama, neither McCain. The problem is, McCain could screw it up big time for, not only the US, but for the entire world. That's why I am 100% anti-McCain. I like Obama's standpoints, and he has books out about what his opinions are on change, but purely theoretical exposés on how to fix this country are lacking. But that is definetly not what this presidential campaign is about. This campaign is about wether or not the next president will have the correct judgement on advisements given to him. McCain will without any doubt, have very poor judgement. He is an easy to influence type of person, and he doesn't think any further than his nose is long. Obama is more educated and looking ahead.

[mheslep]

....If you really believe a background in constitutional law, a few terms in the Illinois legislature and a couple years in Congress is completely insufficient political experience to be a good President, then you would have voted against one of the greatest American Presidents - Abe Lincoln.
And yet somehow the moniker 'Honest Barrack' has not gained traction.
A little more detail on Lincoln:
-Self taught, did not go to Harvard.
-Captain in the Illinois militia.
-Highly successful lawyer for 23 years in private practice he co-started; he was not an academic.
-Served 4 successive terms in the Illinois House, became major leading figure in Ill. politics.
-Elected to US House, one term.

Lincoln also:
-did not see fit to write his own biography at age 34,
-was not ever beaten 2:1 in an election (Obama vs Rush House primary).

[B. Elliott]

To me it pretty much boils down to hiring someone with potential (fresh out of college) or hiring someone with years of actual work experience. In my book (along with nearly every business in existence) will choose not to hire an employee based off pure academia knowledge alone. They want someone who is proven where there is less risk involved.

Every single business that I have had personal experience with, will hire the person with actual work experience over one who is just 'educated'. Obama may do an excellent job and if he is actually nominated as president, I hope for the best.

[AhmedEzz]

True, but my overall way of looking at it is 'the older the wiser'. If we're going to have to strategically disengage wartime actions in the middle east while also having a full understanding of the policies of the participant, who better than an elder leader with actual military experience and military leadership skills? A person who can hear all sides and draw a conclusion of off both advise, and personal experience.

You mean someone who is willing to extend the war on Iraq and perhaps Iran. Mccain speaks about 'victory' not about peace, he sounds to me more like Genghis Khan of the Mongols.
I remember a famous quote but not the exact text, it said "Victory is the one made during peace not war".

[B. Elliott]

No to stray too off topic with the Lincoln issue, but very few text books mention the fact that by 1864, key Confederate leaders, inclding Jefferson Davis were prepared to abolish slavery. As early as 1862 some confederate leaders supported various forms of emancipation. In 1864 Davis officially recommended that saves who performed faithful service in non-combat positions in the Confederate army should be set free. Robert E. Lee along with many other Confederate generals favred emancipating slaves who served in the army. In fact, Lee long favored the abolition of slavery and actually called the institution a "moral and political evil" years before the war...

http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

By 1864 Davis was prepared to abolish slavery in order to gain European diplomatic recognition to save the Confederacy. Duncan Kenner, one of the biggest slaveholders in the south at the time, who was alos chairman of the Was and Means Commitee of the Confederate House of Representatives strongly supported this proposal. So did the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah Benjamin. Davis informed congressional leaders of his intentions and sent Kenner to Europe to make the proposal. Davis even made Kenner a minister plenipotentiary to ensure he could make the proposal to the british and French governments and that it would be taken seriously...

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/documents/federalist/federalist54.html

Lincoln was originally for removing all Negros from the US entirely! What you need to do is go back and actually read the papers at the time. The 'slaves' were much more passive about their freedom than other people, today are about theirs. Less than 30% of families in the Confederacy had anything at all to do with slavery. To bring your comment into this issue Turbo, you are right. To an extent, slavery was as the Iraq war is today. A way to get those who have easily mallable minds behind an idea that there was no support for in the Union states. The occupation of South Carolina by the Union army was unconstitutional. The North invaded the South and the 'S' word was a last ditch effort to get public opinion behind the effort. For that reason, I round Lincoln and Al Gore in the same boat. That's why I don't believe Lincoln was one of our 'greatest' presidents, and that also why I don't believe Gore even remotely deserved to be awarded the Nobel peace prize.

You have to always remember that the history books are always written by the victors. The material which is taught in schools is typically chosen and cherrypicked because it is nigh impossible to teach everything

[D H]

As for NASA, apparently none of the candidates (ostensibly including McCain) mention it, with the possible exception of Clinton.
I agree with you regarding Clinton. Unfortunately, she is out.

Obama did mention NASA quite some time ago in a quasi-official statement that remains on the Obama website. Popular Mechanics has a copy: http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/obama-space-policy.pdf. Obama gives rhetorical lip service to NASA on the first page; no numbers and no explicit plan. The second page has numbers. The part of his space policy with specific numbers is funding for teachers. This funding will come at the expense of NASA's human spaceflight activities. Anything beyond low Earth orbit will be on a starvation diet sufficient to fund a few studies and nothing else.

Space politics (http://www.spacepolitics.com) and The Space Review (http://www.thespacereview.com) have covered the campaigns and how it intersects with space (which for the most is a space of measure zero) extensively. The campaigns have occasionally said a few things about space. Recently, a so-called space debate (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1142/1) was held with representatives from the Obama, McCain, and Clinton campaigns on May 30.

I know most people don't give a hoot about science and space policy. NASA receives about 0.6% of the federal budget, and the country has a lot of bigger problems to confront. However, this issue does deeply affects me.

While Obama's choice of a Vice Presidential candidate doesn't matter much, McCain's choice does for obvious reasons. A bad McCain choice for VP (e.g., a candidate strongly endorsed by the religious right) might well swing me over to the Obama side.

[B. Elliott]

http://www.factasy.com/civil_war/book/export/html/2338

[B. Elliott]

I agree with you regarding Clinton. Unfortunately, she is out.

Obama did mention NASA quite some time ago in a quasi-official statement that remains on the Obama website. Popular Mechanics has a copy: http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/obama-space-policy.pdf. Obama gives rhetorical lip service to NASA on the first page; no numbers and no explicit plan. The second page has numbers. The part of his space policy with specific numbers is funding for teachers. This funding will come at the expense of NASA's human spaceflight activities. Anything beyond low Earth orbit will be on a starvation diet sufficient to fund a few studies and nothing else.

Space politics (http://www.spacepolitics.com) and The Space Review (http://www.thespacereview.com) have covered the campaigns and how it intersects with space (which for the most is a space of measure zero) extensively. The campaigns have occasionally said a few things about space. Recently, a so-called space debate (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1142/1) was held with representatives from the Obama, McCain, and Clinton campaigns on May 30.

I know most people don't give a hoot about science and space policy. NASA receives about 0.6% of the federal budget, and the country has a lot of bigger problems to confront. However, this issue does deeply affects me.

While Obama's choice of a Vice Presidential candidate doesn't matter much, McCain's choice does for obvious reasons. A bad McCain choice for VP (e.g., a candidate strongly endorsed by the religious right) might well swing me over to the Obama side.

Thank you for those links D H.

[Astronuc]

I know most people don't give a hoot about science and space policy. NASA receives about 0.6% of the federal budget, and the country has a lot of bigger problems to confront. However, this issue does deeply affects me.

While Obama's choice of a Vice Presidential candidate doesn't matter much, McCain's choice does for obvious reasons. A bad McCain choice for VP (e.g., a candidate strongly endorsed by the religious right) might well swing me over to the Obama side. AIAA Public Policy - http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=7 - unfortunately nothing on the Presidential candidates. O'Keefe was told to cut the budget and Griffin has changed priorities(and accepted a limited/restricted budget), and frankly I don't see any significant change in the next administration, except that Obama is considering a diversion of the federal budget from NASA (and perhaps other programs) to education. With about $200 billion/yr going to Iraq and Afghanistan, I think NASA is on the bipartisan backburner.

Prometheus and JIMO went as I expected, not as I had hoped. :rolleyes:

[Gokul43201]

And yet somehow the moniker 'Honest Barrack' has not gained traction.
A little more detail on Lincoln:
-Self taught, did not go to Harvard.
-Captain in the Illinois militia.
-Highly successful lawyer for 23 years in private practice he co-started; he was not an academic.
-Served 4 successive terms in the Illinois House, became major leading figure in Ill. politics.
-Elected to US House, one term.

Lincoln also:
-did not see fit to write his own biography at age 34,
-was not ever beaten 2:1 in an election (Obama vs Rush House primary).How is this relevant to the question of political inexperience? Yes, Obama didn't join the Illinois militia, and Lincoln couldn't work a computer.

Incidentally, do you actually know the margin in the 1858 Senate Race that Lincoln lost? I don't.

[D H]

With about $200 billion/yr going to Iraq and Afghanistan, I think NASA is on the bipartisan backburner.
Even Iraq and Afghanistan are backburner issues as of late compared to the frontburner issues of economy and energy. Space policy is not even a backburner issue to either party; if it were it would still be getting some heat. Space policy is a bipartisan CMBR issue.

[Astronuc]

Even Iraq and Afghanistan are taking a back seat to the economy as the #1 issue. Space policy is not even a backburner issue to either party; if it were it would still be getting some heat. Space policy is a bipartisan CMBR issue. Yep. :grumpy:

[Ivan Seeking]

Frankly, with all of this talk of sending people to Mars, NASA needs a reality check. Send a probe that can bring back a scoop of dirt and we'll talk.

Right now we need a sound energy policy; and that doesn't mean drilling for a few percent of the oil that we need. Rather than sending people to Mars, I say we should end the need for oil once and for all. Then we will have another $1/2 trillion+ annually to go to Mars.

With Obama in office, we could do it in ten years. McCain will do as we have always done - nothing!

[turbo-1]

Frankly, with all of this talk of sending people to Mars, NASA needs a reality check. Send a probe that can bring back a scoop of dirt and we'll talk.
Really! The talk of establishing a manned base on the moon is crazy, as well. There is no reasonable cost-benefit analysis, and the expense of resupply/shielding/personnel-rotation would be daunting. We would have to have a huge breakthrough in propulsion before we could consider such a program.

[D H]

I'd respond, Ivan, but doing so would be complete hijack of this thread.

Back to hating Obama ...
I don't see near as much emotional hatred directed toward Obama as I saw directed to Clinton. The far right sees the Clintons in much the same vein that the far left sees Bush: with hatred that borders is completely irrational and borders on insanity. The far right is emotionally spent from helping defeat Clinton. They don't have much steam left in them to rouse hatred against Obama.

[B. Elliott]

Frankly, with all of this talk of sending people to Mars, NASA needs a reality check. Send a probe that can bring back a scoop of dirt and we'll talk.

Right now we need a sound energy policy; and that doesn't mean drilling for a few percent of the oil that we need. Rather than sending people to Mars, I say we should end the need for oil once and for all. Then we will have another $1/2 trillion+ annually to go to Mars.

With Obama in office, we could do it in ten years. McCain will do as we have always done - nothing!

I don't believe a manned mission to Mars should even be on the agenda. As it has been brought up in other threads, until there is a way to make traveling outside of the Earths realm profitable, I see no need to go. We can continue to send probes and other remote science labs to do nearly everything that a human explorer can do, with much less risk.

IMO, a manned mission to Mars is a political agenda. Just as it was with the Apollo missions.

[Gokul43201]

Completely off-topic, but I just found out that Dems won the Illinois senate in 1958 by a pretty slim majority (though it appears they used some kind of almost Parliamentary system back then).

[D H]

I don't believe a manned mission to Mars should even be on the agenda.
A manned mission to Mars is not and cannot be on NASA's agenda. Congress made that very explicit in the last two budgets for NASA. It is on the agenda of others, e.g., the Mars Society, but they are more than a bit loony (marsy?) and they do not set NASA's agenda or provide NASA with any funds.

[Ivan Seeking]

A manned mission to Mars is not and cannot be on NASA's agenda. Congress made that very explicit in the last two budgets for NASA. It is on the agenda of others, e.g., the Mars Society, but they are more than a bit loony (marsy?) and they do not set NASA's agenda or provide NASA with any funds.

NASA is working on it right now.

As for McCain:
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Presumptive Republican White House nominee John McCain said Thursday he would like to see a manned mission to Mars as part of a "better set of priorities" for NASA that would better engage the public.[continued]
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7d5NED1ohbl3X-N5ksIdx3kejOQ

So he wants to drill for oil and go to Mars. That is quite a plan, John. How does this solve ANY problems?

Here at PF we are always concerned about critical thinking. So ask yourself, what are our prioreties right now? Gas is over $4 a gallon, and by July next year, we are likely looking at $6, or more.

[B. Elliott]

NASA is working on it right now.

As for McCain:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7d5NED1ohbl3X-N5ksIdx3kejOQ

So he wants to drill for oil and go to Mars. That is quite a plan, John. How does this solve ANY problems?

And just when I thought I had my mind made up.:grumpy:

[D H]

NASA is working on it right now.

No, they are not. NASA is explicitly prohibited from funding efforts directed toward human exploration of Mars. From http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=22822:

The bill language also continues a moratorium prohibiting NASA from implementing a reduction in force and from funding any research, development or demonstration activity related exclusively to Human Exploration of Mars. NASA has too much on its plate already, and the President is welcome to include adequate funding for the Human Mars Initiative in a budget amendment or subsequent year funding requests.

[Gokul43201]

As for McCain:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7d5NED1ohbl3X-N5ksIdx3kejOQ

So he wants to drill for oil and go to Mars. That is quite a plan, John. How does this solve ANY problems?How much attention should you really pay to anything McCain says about technology? His basis is a half-century old classic?

I'd believe that McCain is making an effort to understand anything about modern technology after he learns to work a computer (http://youtube.com/watch?v=4rpamTKMlKw&feature=related).

[Ivan Seeking]

No, they are not. NASA is explicitly prohibited from funding efforts directed toward human exploration of Mars. From http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=22822:

They are still working on supporting systems. You can watch hours of it on TDC and PBS

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, this is the newest budget, so it probably cuts funding for what has been happening until now. At some point I will poke around and see if some of the demonstration projects are no longer active.

Either way, McCain wants to go to Mars, but he doesn't know how to use a computer. Obama has made history by using the power of the internet, and he wants to pursue real and innovative solutions to real problems. This will mean a huge boost for science, right here at home.

[D H]

No. it doesn't. This ban has been in place for a few years now. Quoting again: "The bill language also continues a moratorium prohibiting NASA from implementing a reduction in force and from funding any research, development or demonstration activity related exclusively to Human Exploration of Mars."

[chemisttree]

Here at PF we are always concerned about critical thinking. So ask yourself, what are our prioreties right now?


What is Obama's energy plan? (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/) Auctioning Cap and Trade on emissions? That's a tax any way you look at it. A portion of that tax (150 Billion) will be used to fund alternative energy research. How does that work? Who owns their emission credits? Obama seems to think they belong, at least in part, to the government (that's a TAX). Cellulosic ethanol? Is the answer really only 10 years away? The only concrete plan he has is to increase taxes and spending. I'd be interested to hear more details about his plan.

He's asking us to just believe...

[Ivan Seeking]

OT, but an interesting quote from today.

..."We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

He said he was also set for Republicans to say "he's got a feisty wife," in trying to attack his wife Michelle.

"We know the strategy because they've already shown their cards. Ultimately I think the American people recognize that old stuff hasn't moved us forward. That old stuff just divides us," he said. [continued]
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2040982720080620

[Gokul43201]

What is Obama's energy plan? (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/) Auctioning Cap and Trade on emissions? That's a tax any way you look at it. A portion of that tax (150 Billion) will be used to fund alternative energy research. How does that work? Who owns their emission credits? Obama seems to think they belong, at least in part, to the government (that's a TAX). Cellulosic ethanol? Is the answer really only 10 years away? The only concrete plan he has is to increase taxes and spending. I'd be interested to hear more details about his plan.

He's asking us to just believe...Here's more details, from the campaign website:To Support The Cap And Trade System, [ I ] Will Promote The Innovation, Development And Deployment Of Advanced Technologies. [ I ] will reform federal government research funding and infrastructure to support the cap and trade emissions reduction goals and emphasize the commercialization of low-carbon technologies. Under [my] plan:

Emissions Permits Will Eventually Be Auctioned To Support The Development Of Advanced Technologies. A portion of the process of these auctions will be used to support a diversified portfolio of research and commercialization challenges, ranging from carbon capture and sequestration, to nuclear power, to battery development. Funds will also be used to provide financial backing for a Green Innovation Financing and Transfer (GIFT) to facilitate commercialization.

PS: Oops. (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/da151a1c-733a-4dc1-9cd3-f9ca5caba1de.htm)

[roam]

By not voting, you're opposing the system directly. By voting you're supporting it. Not voting due to your class-conscious stance simply means that you're aware of the situation and that you actively choose to oppose it, which means that you're "politically involved".

[~christina~]

I'm confused as to how to the president can actually change anything at all whether it be issue X or Y. I just understand that the president can vote for or against a bill but can they create a bill as well? (Alot of the debate as to who is better for the country has made me think about their promises and can the people running for the office of president actually have the power to do what they claim they will do if they are elected?)

[WarPhalange]

What is Obama's energy plan? (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/) Auctioning Cap and Trade on emissions? That's a tax any way you look at it. A portion of that tax (150 Billion) will be used to fund alternative energy research. How does that work? Who owns their emission credits? Obama seems to think they belong, at least in part, to the government (that's a TAX). Cellulosic ethanol? Is the answer really only 10 years away? The only concrete plan he has is to increase taxes and spending. I'd be interested to hear more details about his plan.

He's asking us to just believe...

PS: Oops. (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/da151a1c-733a-4dc1-9cd3-f9ca5caba1de.htm)

Right wingers have an uncanny nack for shooting themselves in the foot.

[OmCheeto]

I'm confused as to how to the president can actually change anything at all whether it be issue X or Y. I just understand that the president can vote for or against a bill but can they create a bill as well? (Alot of the debate as to who is better for the country has made me think about their promises and can the people running for the office of president actually have the power to do what they claim they will do if they are elected?)

I don't think it's the presidents job to change anything. I view them as leaders of the nation. Sometimes we get leaders who are too far ahead of the nation, so no one follows(Carter). Sometimes they are banner waving, let's kick some world butt types, and people get behind them, and we end up going nowhere(Reagan). Some were so popular that we put people on the moon for them, and jumped headlong into a war with them(Kennedy).

No one really knows what a person will do once they get into office. Who'd have guessed Nixon would go all totally paranoid and do a bunch of stupid things.

I think people hate Obama because they are afraid of too much change. The day he won that last primary, I was channel surfing and found him making his victory speech. After the speech, there were about 15 commentators saying all sorts of good things about him. I got a little apprehensive though after I noticed all of them were of African decent. I was like; "Oh my god! He's not even president yet, and they've already taken over!" Then I noticed the little BET in the corner of the screen. I changed the channel and my heart rate went back to normal. :blushing:


BET = Black Entertainment Television

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm confused as to how to the president can actually change anything at all whether it be issue X or Y. I just understand that the president can vote for or against a bill but can they create a bill as well? (Alot of the debate as to who is better for the country has made me think about their promises and can the people running for the office of president actually have the power to do what they claim they will do if they are elected?)

They are certainly limited in what they can do... at least that is how it is supposed to work. However, after Bush, never again can it be said that a President cannot be dangerous and reckless with US power. It does matter who gets elected.

[chemisttree]

Right wingers have an uncanny nack for shooting themselves in the foot.

Shooting themselves in the foot? Obama wants to auction emissions and McCain wants to allocate them. In Obama's plan, any pollution (emissions?) is taxed through the sale of the permit at auction. McCain's plan allocates them (no fee or auction), at least initially.

from the McCain plan:
Market participants are allotted total permits equal to the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. If they can invent, improve, or acquire a way to reduce their emissions, they can sell their extra permits for cash. The profit motive will coordinate the efforts of venture capitalists, corporate planners, entrepreneurs, and environmentalists on the common motive of reducing emissions.

from the Obama plan:
Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies.

Both of these plans will send manufacturing scurrying offshore as much as possible but Obama's will send it rocketing offshore.

Of course, there aren't many details of either plan and Obama could still change his mind if he finds the system is broken in any way...

[Gokul43201]

Shooting themselves in the foot? Obama wants to auction emissions and McCain wants to allocate them. In Obama's plan, any pollution (emissions?) is taxed through the sale of the permit at auction. McCain's plan allocates them (no fee or auction), at least initially.How initially are we talking? McCain also intends to auction emission permits, only he doesn't specify exactly when he will begin this auctioning.

Under John McCain's plan:

Emissions Permits Will Eventually Be Auctioned To Support The Development Of Advanced Technologies. A portion of the process of these auctions will be used to support a diversified portfolio of research and commercialization challenges, ranging from carbon capture and sequestration, to nuclear power, to battery development. (the emphasis via capitalization is not mine)

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/da151a1c-733a-4dc1-9cd3-f9ca5caba1de.htm

[chemisttree]

How initially are we talking? McCain also intends to auction emission permits, only he doesn't specify exactly when he will begin this auctioning.

Yes, initially McCain won't auction the emission permits. His plan to eventually auction them is probably just hot air. I am reminded of CAFE standards... easily passed but difficult to enact.
Obama will do it immediately, or at least try. That is a huge difference. McCain's position is code for "vote for me and maybe nothing bad will happen" vs Obama's position which is code for "vote for me and your sacrifice begins immediately".

The likely truth is that neither candidate can get anything even close to their plans through Congress. Still it is important to see what they will try to do...

[WarPhalange]

Yes, initially McCain won't auction the emission permits. His plan to eventually auction them is probably just hot air. I am reminded of CAFE standards... easily passed but difficult to enact.
Obama will do it immediately, or at least try. That is a huge difference. McCain's position is code for "vote for me and maybe nothing bad will happen" vs Obama's position which is code for "vote for me and your sacrifice begins immediately".

Yes, McCain *might not* make you sacrifice for the sake of climate, but he WILL make you sacrifice for the war that's going on.

[WarPhalange]

Well... I am...

[WheelsRCool]

I do not "hate" Obama, I just think he would be terrible for this nation because of the following of his policies, as I understand them (and correct me if I am mistaken!):

1) Let the Bush tax cuts expire - from my understanding, the Bush tax cuts were not "for the rich" as so many like to say, but were actually an across-the-board tax cut; before them, the tax rates were 39.6, 36, 31, and 28 percent, and after them, 35, 33, 28, and 25 percent. So pretty much every income group except for the very lowest (those making under $10,000 a year) saw their tax rates drop. The thing is, the Bush tax cuts increased tax revenues. If you go the Congressional Budget Office website (www.cbo.gov) and look at the data, you see that the tax revenues initially dropped off, which is to be expected with tax cuts initially, but as of 2007, the tax revenues were up to $2.56 trillion, their highest ever. So they seem to have worked.

If Obama lets them expire, I believe he will, in a few years, likely decrease tax revenues. I have read Obama only wants to let them expire for those making $250,000 and up, because that is more "fair," but what exactly does the word "fair" mean? "Fair" is just one of those terms politicians toss out there. If you look at the data at the IRS site you will see that the highest-earning 2% pay the lion's share of the total tax burden, about 68% (which is the largest this income group has paid in history as far as the data goes; the lowest-earning portion of the population is paying the smallest portion of the total burden). So I could say it would be more "fair" to tax this 2% at a very low rate, and tax the majority of the middle-class at 95%, to try to even out the revenues. Obviously such a strategy would be ludicrous, but it would be one form of "fairness."

The other thing is, since the Bush tax cuts increased total tax revenues, why increase taxes on those who pay the lion's share, and thus likely will cut down on their economic activity if their taxes go up further?

And finally, small businesses form the backbone of America, and I believe (though I may be mistaken) that the majority of these small businesses are sole proprietorships and thus taxed at the normal tax rates, not the corporte rate.

And let's not forget that $250,000 is still middle-class, it's just well-off middle-class. Such folks are not rich.

2) Raise the capital gains tax - Again, every time capital gains taxes have been lowered, whether by Democrats or Republicans, tax revenues from them have increased. When John F. Kennedy lowered them, revenues went up. When President Clinton lowered them in the late 1990s, revenues increased; it is believed that Clinton's lowering of them in the late 1990s was partially responsible for the surplus we saw in 2000.

The other issue is I don't think Senator Obama knows enough about economics to understand what he is doing. For example, his economic advisor, University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee (hope I got the spelling right there), has done research and doesn't believe that lowering capital gains taxes, over the long run, increases tax revenues. He thinks that's a misconception. Now I disagree with that, but the thing is, during the ABC debate with Hillary, they asked him, "Why raise capital gains taxes at all?" (since they have always increased revenues when lowered). Instead of responding with something like, "Well, that is a misconception that some people, in particular Republicans, have, that lowering capital gains taxes increases revenues, yada yada..." instead he was just stone-walled it seemed. Which tells me he himself doesn't know enough about the subject it seems.

Also, according to the IRS, I believe that 47% of the total capital gains tax revenues come from people earning below $50,000 a year, and 79% come from people earning $100,000 a year or less; in other words, most capital gains tax revenues come from those who are middle-class.

3) Raise the minimum wage to over $9 - to me this will only increase unemployment in the inner cities amongst the inner city youth, the very people Obama wants to help. The minimum wage is a price control. If you artificially increase the price of something, you get a surplus. In the case of labor, artificially increasing its price for businesses, the wages, causes a surplus because most of America is employed by small businesses, and small businesses cannot absorb a higher minimum wage like a big business can. It's simply the laws of supply and demand at work.

The other thing is that this will hurt small businesses again, sole proprietorships and incorporated small businesses, as very few can absorb the higher costs of a higher minimum wage. Wal-Mart supports a higher minimum wage, and I am guessing it is because they can absorb it but know it will hurt small business competitors, as Wal-Mart isn't exactly reknowned as a company that cares about people, or its employees, a great deal.

4) Either raise, or leave as is, the corporate tax rate I'm not sure if Senator Obama intends to raise or leave as is the corporate tax rate, but he seems to act as if claims by Republicans to lower it means giving tax breaks to big corporations. Well, for one thing, corporations pass their taxes, or a portion of them, onto the consumers, so a lower tax could help lower prices. Also, other countries, such as Ireland and Switzerland and Iceland, that have low corporate tax rates, have been stealing a lot of business from both Europe and the United States. Ireland really was able to modernize fast with this. So I would think lowering the American corporate tax rate, one of the highest in the world, would help attract back businesses, or at least prevent current ones here from leaving.

The other thing, however, is that we have a varying corporate tax rate. It is small businesses that earn on the order of around $100,000 to $300,000 that pay the 39% rate. Big corporations pay the 35% rate! Which means that lowering the corporate tax rate, say to a flat 35%, is not giving big business a tax cut, but it IS giving all of the incorporated small businesses, who are the backbone of the economy, in hard economic times, a tax cut.

IF Obama is intending to increase the corporate tax rate, if he increases it where the highest rate still applies to small businesses, they will get hurt (this in addition to an increased minimum wage).

5) Wants to Increase the Cap On Salaries Subject to the Social Security Payroll Tax - This I believe is currently set at $97,500. Obama contradicted himself in the ABC debate when he said he would not increase taxes on those earning under $250,000, but then said he would increase the cap on salaries subject to the SS payroll tax...but that is $97,500. There are a lot middle-class folks who earn between $97,500 and $250,000.

And ultimately, if he was to pass this tax, for a person who invests, and thus earns capital gains, they might, with letting the Bush tax cuts expire, increasing the capital gains tax, and increasing the cap on salaries subject to the SS payroll tax, see a triple tax increase (depends on if Obama would raise this cap or let the bush tax cuts only expire for those earning $250K and up, etc...).

6) Wants to Provide Universal Healthcare - This I am staunchly against because I do not think it can work at all. California, the world's 7th largest economy, just recently considered implementing a universal healthcare system, and had to axe it because it was determined it would bankrupt the state. And yet Obama intends to somehow provide all 300 million America with affordable, quality healthcare. Another problem with this is the American healthcare system has some severe efficiency problems, as we spend about twice as much per person on our publicly-funded healthcare as do countries with totally state-funded systems.

Now Obama claims his healthcare plan is not for nationalization of the healthcare industry, but I do not see how such a system could avoid going down the route to becoming a fully state (taxpayer!) - funded, nationalized healthcare system. Germany for years had a quasi-private, quasi-public healthcare system, but is now switching to a fully state-funded system, I am guessing because the current system is too overburdened. Healthcare is 16% of the U.S. GDP. The LAST thing I want to see is 16% of the GDP end up under direct State control.

My final fear is that they would try to outlaw private care, as Canada did, with such a system. In the United Kingdom, the healthcare system is taxpayer-funded, but they have private care available for those who can or are willing to pay for it.

The Fraser Institute just did a study on the increasing wait times for care in the Canadian healthcare system: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/COMMERCE.WEB/product_files/WaitingYourTurn2007rev2.pdf

7) Obama's Foreign Policy - I disagree with Senator Obama that America can just pull out of Iraq. Agree or disagree with the Iraq War, I think it would be a disaster to pull right out. I also do not think Senator Obama will be able to just sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and "talk" with him about these issues.

8) Church - I do not trust Obama for sitting in that church with that pastor for twenty years, and then having said pastor as a trusted campaign advisor. Yes, he denounced the church and fired the pastor, yada yada, but if it was 2000 and it had come out that George Bush had attended for twenty years a church with some racist, hate-spewing minister, I think the media would have hung him, castrated him, tared-and-feathered him, stoned him, dragged him through the streets, and stuck a hot coal up his rearend, and that would've just been the warmup! His campaign for Presidency would've been ended. I think Obama got a free pass. Yes, it "possible" he sat in the that church for twenty years and was unaware of his minister's views, but it's also "possible" that I'm really an alien sitting here typing this (none of you have really any way to know :) ).

I just feel the media has given him a free pass on this and it makes me uneasy.

9) Obama's Stance on Ethanol (most of this information I get from the book "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence") - Obama has used the corporate jets of Archer-Daniels Midland, the nation's biggest ethanol producer, a known price-fixer that controls 60% of the ethanol industry. Obama complains about Big Oil and their "record profits," yet they only consist of about 2% of the global crude supply and operate on a very small profit margin (around 10%). Furthermore, the oil industry is cyclical. No one wanted to help Big Oil back in the 1990s when oil was priced at $2 a barrel and they couldn't make any profit.

YET, Obama seems in the tank for an entire industry that is protected by large tariffs on imported ethanol, gets very large subsidies, and is an industry in which 60% of it is controlled by a company that is a known price-fixer (ADM). Not to mention that ethanol has less energy than gasoline, so you need more of it for the same effect, there isn't enough farmland in America to supply all of America with ethanol, and also I don't like that such a small portion of the American population (less than 1% in Iowa, the main corn state), seem to have such a large say over America's energy policy because of the ethanol lobby.

And then there's the danger of turning our fuel over to a crop. You've all seen the floods in the Midwest, that have destroyed a lot of the crops out there. So, contrary to the folks that say "Growing our fuel is a no-brainer," I disagree; even if ethanol had more energy than gasoline, and even if we had enough land to grow enough to supply all of our fuel, this could be outright dangerous. A series of bad floods or droughts or a combination could cause a literal fuel shortage.

As it is, growing ethanol will skyrocket corn and food prices, make cars less efficient, meanwhile if there was a severe harming of the corn crop, food prices would skyrocket, there could perhaps be a shortage of certain foods, fuel prices could skyrocket, perhaps we would see a shortage of fuel, and then to top it all off, the American taxpayer would have to bail out these ethanol companies which are already subsidized.

John McCain and Hillary Clinton were both staunch critics of the ethanol lobby, calling it a sham, until they began running for President, because the Iowa vote is so important, and Iowa, as I said, is the biggest corn (and thus ethanol) state.

11) Obama's CO2 Ideas - Senator Obama needs to remember that, as other members have stated above, putting cap or tax or whatnot on carbon emissions will just send American businesses soaring overseas. It will also hurt existing businesses here and possibly drive up energy prices.

He also needs to remember that China in 2009 I believe, should surpass America as the world's largest CO2 outputter, and both China and India have flatly stated that they will not decrease their CO2 output if it will hurt their economies. Furthermore, I believe most of the peer-reviewed economic analyses have stated that at most, CO2 emissions should only be reduced by a minor amount, unless we want to incur serious standard-of-living costs.

12) "America Is 3% of the World Population, But Uses 25% of the Resources - so in other words, we need to cut back, he seems to be implying. However, America also produces the lion's share of the world's wealth and charitable giving, and we are amongst the most efficient in energy usage on a per-capita basis. When you produce most of the world's wealth and are the world's most productive people, I think it's okay to use the largest chunk of resources.

13) Senator Obama Said At a College That "Our Individual Greatness Is Because of Our Collectivism" - now that is standard issue Marxism right there, or he got it backwards; it's our collective greatness comes from our individualism. America is founded on individualism. German National Socialism, Maoism, the Soviet Union, etc...all tried that collectivist stuff, and it didn't work too well as we've seen.

14) Europe Is Speedwalking to Lower Taxes and Decrease Regulation - According to an article I read in either Forbes or the Wall Street Journal, it seems Europe is now finally catching onto the American way of lower taxes, free-trade, and light regulation, I am guessing from having seen the great success countries like Ireland, Iceland, and Switzerland have had with this strategy. So Europe, while not running in this direction, seems to be speedwalking towards it.

And yet, right in tough economic times, and while the rest of the world is copying America, Senator Obama seems to want to take us backwards on these policies

15) Anti-Free Trade - Senator Obama criticized NAFTA highly (something which scared many other world leaders). I do not see how free-trade is a bad thing. Yes, it can sting at first, as people who had secure factory jobs lose them as they are shipped overseas, but overall, in the long-run, many more jobs and wealth are created. Goolsbee, his economic advisor, went to Canada to assure the leaders there that Obama was talking more rhetoric with regards to NAFTA, something that embarassed the Senator. he has since watered down his NAFTA and free-trade thinking, to saying essentially that he is for free-trade, but wants "fair" free-trade, in contrast to the Republicans who seem to think that "any free-trade is good." I may be mistaken, but I do not see how free-trade can be made "fair." It's FREE-trade. Businesses and individuals decide whether they will trade with each other, and if it's where both parties benefit from the transaction, they trade. I don't believe "protectionist" or "fairness" measures will work.

16) Claims George Bush "Ran Up the Deficit" - this I saw in one of the debates. The thing is that this is not true. The deficit has shrank under President Bush (check the CBO website for the data). And this is not the largest deficit in history, as many seem to say. In terms of overall dollars perhaps, then yes, but that isn't what one goes by. You go by the size of the deficit to the GDP. The deficit is actually at a historical low-point as of now. It might even be a surplus if Bush and the Republicans hadn't spent money like a kid in a candy store.

The truly largest deficit was during World War II, when the government ran a deficit on the order of two-thirds of the economy. But that was a world war.

I probably have other criticism of Obama as well, but I can't remember them right now. I also have a lot of criticisms of McCain as well, but I agree with what Thomas Sowell said: "Senator McCain could never convince me to vote for him; only Senator Obama could convince me to vote for Senator McCain."

[Gokul43201]

So many errors, misquotes and misrepresentations in the above post. Where do you start?

When you provide a quote, please link to the original source. When you make a factual claim that is not common knowledge, please cite directly, the relevant data.

[grant9076]

I am starting to think that the most vocal opponents are simply racists.

I agree that not all reasons to not vote for Obama are reasons to dislike him. However, here are a few reasons that I have to dislike him:

1. If McCain, Clinton, or Bush were to refer to someone as being "A typical black person", people would (rightfully) respond with outrage and disgust. I see no reason why Obama should be measured with a different yardstick.

2. If McCain was close friends with a white supremacist for over 20 years, there would (rightfully) be an outrage. Again, I see no reason why Obama should be held to a different standard.

3. Obama claiming to not know the nature of Rev. Wright (after disinviting him to certain events) indicates a level of dishonesty that I cannot ignore.

4. Obama's comments in the closed door session in California indicate to me that he is an elitist (snob).

These are also reasons to doubt that he will be the great unifying figure that he claims he will be.

I am a black person and I do not hold any prejudice against my own ethnic group (or any other for that matter). Similarly, my dislike for Obama has nothing to do with his skin color.

[WarPhalange]

1. If McCain, Clinton, or Bush were to refer to someone as being "A typical black person", people would (rightfully) respond with outrage and disgust. I see no reason why Obama should be measured with a different yardstick.

Pop quiz: What did he say right afterwards? Although I agree that his word choice was poor. He could have skipped that phrase entirely and gotten the point across better.

2. If McCain was close friends with a white supremacist for over 20 years, there would (rightfully) be an outrage. Again, I see no reason why Obama should be held to a different standard.

How many sermons of Rev. Wright have you watched? Or did you just watch the 5 second sound bites and think that 20 years of preaching can be summed up by that?

3. Obama claiming to not know the nature of Rev. Wright (after disinviting him to certain events) indicates a level of dishonesty that I cannot ignore.

Point taken.

4. Obama's comments in the closed door session in California indicate to me that he is an elitist (snob).Which one was this? I might have missed this. I'd like to hear what he said.

These are also reasons to doubt that he will be the great unifying figure that he claims he will be.

Oh for sure. He's just a single man. There is a lot he can do, but he's not the Messiah.

I am a black person and I do not hold any prejudice against my own ethnic group (or any other for that matter). Similarly, my dislike for Obama has nothing to do with his skin color.

So who are you going to vote for, if anybody?

[russ_watters]

How many sermons of Rev. Wright have you watched? Or did you just watch the 5 second sound bites and think that 20 years of preaching can be summed up by that? It's a little more serious than that. That the church was black-centric was posted prominently on their website until the Rev Wright flap happened. Rev Wright's views were at the very core of what that church was about (which is, of course, why he was pastor for 20 years).

These days I only go to church half a dozen times a year, but I am still plugged into my parents' church's politics. Even in about the most moderate of churches (Presbyterian), issues like having gay pastors and dealing with evolution are serious enough to tear the church apart. If the pastor of my parents' church said the types of things Wright said - even once - he'd immediately be fired, unless half the church agreed with him, in which case it would immediately tear the church apart.

[WarPhalange]

So you're saying the giant audience in his church were all black supremacists?

[WheelsRCool]

So many errors, misquotes and misrepresentations in the above post. Where do you start?

When you provide a quote, please link to the original source. When you make a factual claim that is not common knowledge, please cite directly, the relevant data.

I did cite sources, where I could; regarding the quotes, I cannot link to the sources, because the source was when I saw him say these things on the TV news, and during debates, not on specific Youtube clips that I can link to.

Which errors did I make? Senator Obama has said he will let the Bush tax cuts expire (to see that the Bush tax cuts increased revenues and decreased the deficit, go to here: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.shtml , to see that the highest-earners pay about 68% of the total tax burden, check here: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/tax_liability_shares.xls), he has said he will increase the minimum wage to $9.50 and index it to inflation, leave the corporate tax rate as is (businesses earning between $100,001 to $335,000 pay the 39% rate; such businesses likely provide a middle-class income for their owners; businesses earning over $18,333,333, i.e. Big Business, pay at the 35% rate; and how do we know said Big Businesses can't also use things like their corporate jets to get certain tax write-offs to pay an even lower tax rate?). Obama said specifically he wanted to increase the cap on salaries subject to the Social Security payroll tax during the ABC debate against Senator Clinton, which is currently $97,500.

For that, go here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4670271 this is the transcript of the debate: go to page 3 and read that for where he actually says it.

Healthcare is currently 16% of the U.S. GDP, yes California did try to enact it and axed it, and yes Obama is planning for universal healthcare for this nation.

Foreign policy, Iraq-wise, Senator Obama has stated repeatedly that he intends to pull out of Iraq. He is gradually changing his rhetoric now, so as not to seem like a total flip-flopper it seems, as I think he realizes he may not be able to do this.

Church-wise, I have said, in my opinion, I do not think Obama would have sat in that church for twenty years and not known the Reverand Wright's opinions. And I do not buy the "You can't judge the man by a 10 second soundbite they showed on TV" argument either. You don't make decent sermons for twenty years than break out into some tirade like that. The crowd has to be expecting it, and Wright seems to revel in the attention. If you noticed, he had no problem keeping himself in the news for as long as possible.

Regarding Obama on ethanol, I stated that most of the information I wrote comes from the book "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence," which the author cites his various sources in that book. The book is not a smear job on Senator Obama by any means. In the book, he rips apart the push for ethanol. And Senator Obama is largely supported by Archer-Daniels Midland, a company that has been dragged into court twice for attempting to fix prices.

Regarding Obama's anti free-trade stance, listen to some of his early speeches. For his "collectivism" quote, I forget which college he was speaking at when he said this, I remember watching it specifically on the news though and it was not some cut-and-paste clip; that is precisely what he said before the audience. And yes, in a debate, I remember he specifically talked about how George Bush and the Republicans have "run up the deficit."

Which one was this? I might have missed this. I'd like to hear what he said.

I think what Grant9076 is referring to is when Senator Obama talked about the people in Pennsylvania and how they "cling to their guns and religion." He didn't know he was being recorded at the time. IMO, it did sound elitist, as if he's implying, "These poor small-town blue-collar country-folk, there isn't much to their pathetic lives, so they cling to those age-old customs of gun ownership and religion, stuff that we wealthy advanced big-city types are well past..." just Google "Obama cling guns religion youtube" and see what comes up.

[WarPhalange]

I think what Grant9076 is referring to is when Senator Obama talked about the people in Pennsylvania and how they "cling to their guns and religion." He didn't know he was being recorded at the time. IMO, it did sound elitist, as if he's implying, "These poor small-town blue-collar country-folk, there isn't much to their pathetic lives, so they cling to those age-old customs of gun ownership and religion, stuff that we wealthy advanced big-city types are well past..." just Google "Obama cling guns religion youtube" and see what comes up.

I had a feeling it was that one. If so, then please.

Did you hear the whole quote? Or the context it was in? It wasn't "Those poor stupid country folk only know guns and religion" it was "These people have been shafted by the government they thought would help them and therefore go to the things that comfort them, things that give them strength, such as guns and religion."

It makes him sound elitist? His dad was some black guy from Kenya and he had to work for everything he's gotten in life.

What about [insert almost any Democrat or Republican here]? Comes from a wealthy family and had things handed to them.

This is like Bush claiming Kerry isn't a war veteran all over again.

[jimmysnyder]

Obama said specifically he wanted to increase the cap on salaries subject to the Social Security payroll tax during the ABC debate against Senator Clinton, which is currently $97,500.
Here is a history of the salary cap.
2008 $102,000
2007 $97,500
2006 $94,200
2005 $90,000
2004 $87,900
2003 $87,000
2002 $84,900
2001 $80,400
2000 $76,200
This is not a sufficient reason to hate Obama.

Can anyone explain why the cap is a good thing? (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html)

[mheslep]

...16) Claims George Bush "Ran Up the Deficit" - this I saw in one of the debates. The thing is that this is not true.
The deficit has shrank under President Bush (check the CBO website for the data). That is incorrect. The Administration and/or the Congress have increased the deficit compared to the prior Administration. The CBO data show the budget was in surplus $128B in 2001 and in 2007 the budget was in deficit $162B though declining from a peark of $412B. One can expect that deficit figure to climb again in 2008/9 due to a slumping economy, though this time under a two year old Democratic congress. Context is important: the late 90's had the dot com / telecom bubble, this decade had 911.
...You go by the size of the deficit to the GDP. The deficit is actually at a historical low-point as of now.comma, _as_ a percentage of GDP. True in '07, it won't be in '08 with revenues off and stalled GDP growth.
It might even be a surplus if Bush and the Republicans hadn't spent money like a kid in a candy store. Yes, and now continued by the Dem. Congress.

[mheslep]

I had a feeling it was that one. If so, then please.

Did you hear the whole quote? Or the context it was in? It wasn't "Those poor stupid country folk only know guns and religion" it was "These people have been shafted by the government they thought would help them and therefore go to the things that comfort them, things that give them strength, such as guns and religion."

It makes him sound elitist? His dad was some black guy from Kenya and he had to work for everything he's gotten in life.

What about [insert almost any Democrat or Republican here]? Comes from a wealthy family and had things handed to them.

This is like Bush claiming Kerry isn't a war veteran all over again.

Borrowing from Gokul:
"So many errors, misquotes and misrepresentations in the above post. Where do you start?

When you provide a quote, please link to the original source. When you make a factual claim that is not common knowledge, please cite directly, the relevant data."

[russ_watters]

So you're saying the giant audience in his church were all black supremacists?
Was that question directed at me? I said nothing of the sort! I don't even know what a "black supremacist" is!

[WarPhalange]

Borrowing from Gokul:
"So many errors, misquotes and misrepresentations in the above post. Where do you start?

When you provide a quote, please link to the original source. When you make a factual claim that is not common knowledge, please cite directly, the relevant data."



Just because I put something in quotes doesn't mean it was a direct quote. In both case we were talking about what he had implied, not what he had said. I never claimed he said that exactly and neither did Wheels.

[WarPhalange]

Was that question directed at me? I said nothing of the sort! I don't even know what a "black supremacist" is!

Okay okay, sorry. I meant "do you think the entire church agreed with him" then? Since you said even a half-way split would have torn apart any church you know of.

Where I'm going with this is that he had a lot of people in his audience and if they all agreed with him then they'd all be whatever it is you (or the media) are calling Wright. Now, if he is an "extremist" in his views, then that would imply that the audience is, too. Which wouldn't make sense since he had so many people attend.

[russ_watters]

Okay okay, sorry. I meant "do you think the entire church agreed with him" then? Since you said even a half-way split would have torn apart any church you know of.

Where I'm going with this is that he had a lot of people in his audience and if they all agreed with him then they'd all be whatever it is you (or the media) are calling Wright. They're not clones, WarPalange. But they do have to be at least somewhat like-minded on certain issues. Otherwise, there isn't any reason to belong to the same organization. Now, if he is an "extremist" in his views, then that would imply that the audience is, too. Which wouldn't make sense since he had so many people attend. How does that follow?

[WheelsRCool]

Here is a history of the salary cap.
2008 $102,000
2007 $97,500
2006 $94,200
2005 $90,000
2004 $87,900
2003 $87,000
2002 $84,900
2001 $80,400
2000 $76,200
This is not a sufficient reason to hate Obama.

Can anyone explain why the cap is a good thing? (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html)

I said at the start of my original post, that I do not hate Obama. I disagree with him and I pointed out a mistake he made in the ABC debate in saying he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone earning under $250,000; $102,000 is still lower than $250,000 with a lot of people in-between.

That is incorrect. The Administration and/or the Congress have increased the deficit compared to the prior Administration. The CBO data show the budget was in surplus $128B in 2001 and in 2007 the budget was in deficit $162B though declining from a peark of $412B. One can expect that deficit figure to climb again in 2008/9 due to a slumping economy, though this time under a two year old Democratic congress. Context is important: the late 90's had the dot com / telecom bubble, this decade had 911.

Yes, the Dot Com bubble, and Bill Clinton's lowering capital gains taxes, combined are what most likely created the surplus of 2000. However, regarding the deficit, from what I see in the data, it initially began growing during the first half of the Bush administration, then reversed itself in 2005. In 2000 the surplus was at about $236 billion, then in 2001, it was at $128 billion, in 2002, at -$158 billion, in 2003, -$378 billion, in 2004, -$413 billion, in 2005, down to -$318 billion, 2006, -$248 billion, and in 2007, -$162 billion, so it seems it has shrank.

I agree that the deficit likely will grow again by the end of 2008 because of these tough economic times.

I say the budget is at a historical low point it seems because if you look at the deficit as a percentage of potential GDP, compared to other decades, it seems at a rather very low number (-1.2%).

[WarPhalange]

Are you including the cost of the war in Iraq into the deficit? If not, then why? Is it counted separately or something?

[lisab]

But they do have to be at least somewhat like-minded on certain issues. Otherwise, there isn't any reason to belong to the same organization.

True, but since you and I have only seen a small fraction of the sermons, and we know very little of the other things the church was doing in the community (e.g., charity work), it's hard to say just what those certain issues may be.

Personally I suspect it's that whole Jesus-Christ-Prince-of-Peace thing, but who's to say?

[mheslep]

...

I agree that the deficit likely will grow again by the end of 2008 because of these tough economic times.Yes, looks like the deficit is on target to increase by ~2.5X: May 2007 -$68B, May 2008 -$165B. Ouch.

CBO Monthlies
ESTIMATES FOR MAY
(Billions of dollars)
Actual FY2007 Preliminary FY2008 Estimated Change
Receipts 164 125 -39
Outlays 232 290 +58
Deficit (-) -68 -165 -97


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/93xx/doc9347/06-2008-MBR.htm

Again Congress shares some of the blame here as May reflects those rebate checks that just went out.

[vociferous]

The Deficit will grow because we have spent the last eight years without any kind of fiscal responsibility. The deficit will continue to grow because neither Obama nor McCain will deal with the problem.

Obama will try to raise taxes, but he will also allow the Democrats in congress to have free reign on spending, so the deficit will increase.

McCain may not allow the Democrats to increase spending like Obama would, but he also will be unlikely to increase taxes as much either.

Either way, the national debt will continue to increase. Clinton was one of the few Presidents who took the national debt seriously.

I think McCain has better potential in that regard, but based on his fiscal plan, I would not expect to see him balance the budget. Balancing the budget requires tax increases and spending cuts, neither one of which are popular.

[Gokul43201]

I'm going to do this a bit at a time, whenever I get a chance:
1) Let the Bush tax cuts expire - from my understanding, the Bush tax cuts were not "for the rich" as so many like to say, but were actually an across-the-board tax cut; before them, the tax rates were 39.6, 36, 31, and 28 percent, and after them, 35, 33, 28, and 25 percent. So pretty much every income group except for the very lowest (those making under $10,000 a year) saw their tax rates drop. The thing is, the Bush tax cuts increased tax revenues. If you go the Congressional Budget Office website (www.cbo.gov) and look at the data, you see that the tax revenues initially dropped off, which is to be expected with tax cuts initially, but as of 2007, the tax revenues were up to $2.56 trillion, their highest ever. So they seem to have worked.That's partly meaningless and the rest of it is just wrong.

0. Tax revenues have historically seen generally positive growth since the great depression - there's nothing special about that.

1. During the Bush years, total tax receipts have declined as many times as they had declined in all of the previous 30 years (Carter+Reagan+Bush Sr+Clinton)[1].

2. During the Clinton years, tax revenues fell 0 times and grew at an annualized rate of 6.8%. During the Bush years (2001 through 2005, CBO numbers) tax revenues fell thrice and declined overall at an annualized rate of 1.3%[1]. I think if you include 2006, 2007, this decline goes to almost exactly 0%. These are inflation adjusted numbers. The number you quote is not adjusted for inflation.

3. It is silly to say that tax revenues (unadjusted) "were their highest ever" value. That was true every single year of the two Clinton terms, and it was also true if you adjusted for inflation or looked at the fraction of the GDP. Not so for the 2007 revenue, which is still only at about the 1993 level as a fraction of GDP and almost exactly at 2000 level when adjusted for inflation.[1]

4. As a fraction of GDP, the revenues increased monotonically during the Clinton years, from 17.5% in 1992 to 20.9% in 2000. They have since been much lower, hitting a low of 16.3% in 2004 and climbing back up to about 17.6%.[1]

5. The CBO estimates that revenues from individual income taxes (as a percentage of GDP) would actually be about 2% higher, if not for the Bush tax cuts[2].

[1] Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007 [PDF File, 2.2MB (www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf)]
[2] Sources of the Growth and Decline in Individual Income Tax Revenues Since 1994, Congressional Budget Office, May 2008 (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/90xx/doc9076/MainText.3.1.shtml)

[OmCheeto]

I'm going to do this a bit at a time, whenever I get a chance
Researching and responding to multi-point posts can be quite time consuming. You should play teacher and assign one to each of the people who posts in this thread, based on their knowledge base.

This is after all, a homework forum.

And double up the work for Tsu and Evo. They are going to need something to do whilst recuperating.:wink:

[Gokul43201]

1) Let the Bush tax cuts expire ...

If Obama lets them expire, I believe he will, in a few years, likely decrease tax revenues.This is in contradiction with the findings of the CBO, as pointed out in my previous post. Besides, Obama's plan doesn't just let "them expire", it replaces the Bush tax cut structure with a new structure.

I have read Obama only wants to let them expire for those making $250,000 and up, because that is more "fair," but what exactly does the word "fair" mean? "Fair" is just one of those terms politicians toss out there.Or it is a term that reflects the social philosophy of the politician.

If you look at the data at the IRS site you will see that the highest-earning 2% pay the lion's share of the total tax burden, about 68% (which is the largest this income group has paid in history as far as the data goes; the lowest-earning portion of the population is paying the smallest portion of the total burden).That is neither surprising nor indicative of the tax structure - it might simply be a reflection of income trends. After all, the top 2% also enjoy a historically high share of the income[1].

So I could say it would be more "fair" to tax this 2% at a very low rate, and tax the majority of the middle-class at 95%, to try to even out the revenues.You are entitled to your own arbitration of fairness. If, for instance, you think it is fair to tax a person more than s/he earns, that's your choice. If you think that the amount of taxes paid (not the tax rate) should be independent of income, (i.e., the tax rate is inversely proportional to income) that's your choice. There probably isn't a single economist in the world that will agree with you on its economic value, and I doubt that even 1% of all people will find this "fair".

Obviously such a strategy would be ludicrous, but it would be one form of "fairness."Like I said, you are entitled to it. But just because you have provided no philosophical basis for your judgment of fairness doesn't mean others don't have one.

The other thing is, since the Bush tax cuts increased total tax revenues, why increase taxes on those who pay the lion's share, and thus likely will cut down on their economic activity if their taxes go up further?Faulty premise. Nevertheless, there are good arguments for cutting taxes on low-income groups, particularly during weak economic cycles - we have discussed these in other threads here.

And finally, small businesses form the backbone of America, and I believe (though I may be mistaken) that the majority of these small businesses are sole proprietorships and thus taxed at the normal tax rates, not the corporte rate.So what is your point? First of all, it looks like you are doing an about-turn in your philosophy. While sole proprietors make up a majority of businesses, they take in a small fraction of business receipts. Just like the poor and the middle-class, who make up an overwhelming majority of the population, but not of incomes. Why is it that you have suddenly begun to care about the majority group rather than the majority contributor?

Secondly, the overwhelming majority of these owners earn less than $250,000, and will see a tax-cut, according to the Obama plan.[2]

And let's not forget that $250,000 is still middle-class, it's just well-off middle-class. Such folks are not rich.At $250,000, you make over 5 times the median income, and belong in the top 2% of households.[3] While the upper-class is typically defined as the top 1%[4], the rich are typically defined as the top 5%[5]. If you make $250,000 or more, you are most definitely rich.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html
[2] Tax Policy Center: McCain & Obama Tax policy effects (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/?postversion=2008061113)
[3] US Census Bureau: Table HINC-04[\url]
[4] US Census Bureau: [url=http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/hhinc/new06_000.htm]Table HINC-06 (http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new04_001.htm)
[5] L. Beeghley, The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States, New York, NY: Pearson (2004)

[jimmysnyder]

the rich are typically defined as the top 5%.
I can't go along with that. The rich are typically defined as anyone who makes more than me. Bill Gates is the only American who doesn't think anybody is rich.

[Gokul43201]

I can't go along with that. The rich are typically defined as anyone who makes more than me. Bill Gates is the only American who doesn't think anybody is rich.Not anymore. This year, it's your good friend Mr. Buffet, who's at the top. At second place is Mexico's telecom mogul, Carlos Slim Helú, with Gates settling for a measly third place spot.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-03/2008-03-06-voa25.cfm?CFID=5382387&CFTOKEN=24497124

[jimmysnyder]

This year, it's your good friend Mr. Buffet, who's at the top.
I called my good friend Mr. Buffet (Warren to me) and asked him. He said that Gates used to be rich, but that now nobody is.

[mheslep]

...Either way, the national debt will continue to increase. Clinton was one of the few Presidents who took the national debt seriously...Hooey. The '94 Congress via the welfare reform and the Contract with America took spending and the debt seriously.

[WheelsRCool]

I'm going to do this a bit at a time, whenever I get a chance:
That's partly meaningless and the rest of it is just wrong.

0. Tax revenues have historically seen generally positive growth since the great depression - there's nothing special about that.

That's because the economy and the population have consistently grown has grown since the Great Depression.

2. During the Clinton years, tax revenues fell 0 times and grew at an annualized rate of 6.8%. During the Bush years (2001 through 2005, CBO numbers) tax revenues fell thrice and declined overall at an annualized rate of 1.3%[1]. I think if you include 2006, 2007, this decline goes to almost exactly 0%. These are inflation adjusted numbers. The number you quote is not adjusted for inflation.

Perhaps, but I would think the main reason for the sudden increase in tax revenues during the Clinton years was because of the Dot Com bubble.

3. It is silly to say that tax revenues (unadjusted) "were their highest ever" value. That was true every single year of the two Clinton terms, and it was also true if you adjusted for inflation or looked at the fraction of the GDP. Not so for the 2007 revenue, which is still only at about the 1993 level as a fraction of GDP and almost exactly at 2000 level when adjusted for inflation.[1]

Interesting point, but I do not think if taxes as a percentage of GDP go down, that this matters a whole lot, bu