Questioning Obama's Critics: Why the Dislike?

[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.

 

[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 At some point I will poke around and see if some of the demonstration projects are no longer active.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 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 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: 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 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: 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.


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 let's 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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

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.

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%).