News Questioning Obama's Critics: Why the Dislike?

[Evo]

I don't get what you mean; what studies do you need to understand that if you rescind the federal minimum wage, that in a state with its own minimum wage that is higher than said federal minimum wage, which businesses must pay, that there will not be any difference?

If the Federal min. wage is $5 and the state itself has none, businesses will pay a $5 minimum wage; if the minimum wage is rescinded, businesses will pay the market's minimum wage.

If the Federal min. wage is $5, but the state has a $7 minimum wage, businesses pay the $7 minimum wage. If the Federal minimum wage is rescinded, the businesses in the state will still pay the $7 minimum wage.

You stated as a fact

Eliminate the Federal minimum wage and leave it to the states; those states with their own minimum wages that make them higher than the federal minimum wage, businesses must pay the state minimum wage, so there would be no difference in those states

Link to the study that proves that. I think that is a pretty clear request. Not to mention that it is a requirement of the Guidelines.

To think that a state would implement the same or higher minimum wage than what is mandated by law is completely without basis.

 

[syano]

I do not know how anyone could vote for Senator Obama, after looking at his policy proposals, his history, his associations...

After looking at his policy proposals and history the vast majority of postgraduates have decided to vote for Obama. What is your explanation to his greater appeal to this demographic compared to that of McCain’s?

 

[WheelsRCool]

Here are some sources:

Under Reagan, I believe the highest income tax rate was 28%; prior to the Bush tax cuts, the highest-rate was 39.6%.

"President Reagan presided over two major pieces of tax legislation which together reduced the top tax rate from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent by 1988." - http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/BG1086.cfm

The thing to remember though is that due to revenue shortages, many states are considering increasing their state tax rates as well.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23544.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget5-2008aug05,0,6637454.story
http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/local_story_127235047.html

Yes, I am aware of Warren Buffett's claim, but I think he is either a liar or he doesn't understand what he is saying. He called for flat-out increasing the capital gains and dividends tax, which would hit a lot of middle-class folk (Obama has since said he will only raise it for those making $250K or more).He also claims that he pays less in taxes than the middle-class, which I disagree with. Most of his income is from dividends, which are taxed at the 15% rate (0% if you have no ordinary income right now), but the thing to remember is the corporate tax rate paid and the tax on income from investments these big corporations make. Big corporations are taxed at about 11% for their investment income and a 35% corporate tax rate, along with the dividends which are taxed at 15%.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/06/29/warren-buffets-faulty-tax-math/

One look at Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Massachusettes, Germany, the UK, California, and the health plans in some other states that were implemented and went way overbudget, make me very fearful of something like this. Remember, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid already take up a large portion of the Federal budget, and no one knows if the projections of their future costs alone are correct.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2837920420080129
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05doctors.html
http://acronymrequired.com/2005/05/whining-on-the-1.html

Tim Harford, in his book The Undercover Economist also talks about the healthcare problems with the UK healthcare system.

Senator Obama says his healthcare plan should cost about $100 billion a year, which I am guessing would be for the supposed 45 million who have no health insurance in America yet Canada, with a population of about 33 million, their healthcare costs over $150 billion: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/11/13/healthcare-spending.html

And the U.S. system isn't known for being efficient, we put about twice as much per capita into our healthcare as nations with fully nationalized systems: http://www.calnurse.org/media-center/in-the-news/2008/july/u-s-spends-more-than-twice-as-much-on-health-care-per-person-than-most-other-industrialized-nations-ranks-last-in-preventable-mortality-study-finds.html

 

[WheelsRCool]

To think that a state would implement the same or higher minimum wage than what is mandated by law is completely without basis.

I don't get what you're asking for; if the state has its own minimum wage, that is what businesses must pay; if the city has a higher minimum wage than the state, businesses will pay that, unless special laws exempt them.

What else would be the purpose of a state or city minimum wage? Unless they explicitly make it law that businesses can pay their minimum wage while it is lower than the Federal minimum wage.

Here is a list of the state minimum wages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages

 

[harborsparrow]

For my doubts, I have I been labeled a racist, "feminist" (as though that's bad!), uneducated, dumb and bitter. By "friends" (i.e., fellow Democrats). No one has ever paused long enough to listen to my reasons, but in case anyone IS listening, here they are:

1) his campaign styled Bill Clinton as a racist (does anyone but me find this outrageous?)
2) he seems lacking in compassion or understanding for poor people who lack the means to purchase health insurance and are having trouble finding jobs by which to support themselves
3) he seems to have a history of associating with less than stellar characters, including Rezko and Rev. Wright and the entire obnoxious congregation of that racist church that he attended for so many years and in which his daughters were obtaining their religious education
4) he always seems to side-step tough questions; instead of providing any real details on what he intends to do about problems, he falls into "inspirational" talk, and I'm immune to that due to my own religious upbringing (a long story for another time)
5) I'm not sure that he really knows much; he certainly has a lot of people working for him publishing position papers about things, which presumably he will have time to read sometime during the campaign; but, what does HE know about the detailed mechanics of the problems in this world? does he have any really specific plans about solving them? compared to the specific solutions which Hilary Clinton could state off the cuff, he didn't seem to have very many actual answers. And please don't answer this by referring me to position papers on his website (that someone else wrote). Why doesn't he tell me himself?

In addition to the above, I thought his campaign was anti-woman, and the press is definitely condescending and insensitive to women. He and Hilary were not treated alike (she was treated much worse). I've heard all the excuses people have for this, but how can I not be dismayed to find those fiery feminists, the Republicans, better at defending Palin than the Dems were at defending Clinton? Far, far better. I am no longer a democrat.

So, I don't much like Obama. That said, I won't vote for a Republican.

I actually like McCain, but I won't vote for him. But, I'm still not sure that I will actually vote for Obama either, after a lifetime of voting faithfully 100% democrat. I may abstain. I'm not sure yet, though I am leaning Obama. Reluctantly.

 

[LowlyPion]

... compared to the specific solutions which Hilary Clinton could state off the cuff, ...

Hilary to her credit was very much involved in policy both in the White House with Bill and in the Senate. My preference would be for her in fact, and if she had played the delegate game a little more skillfully might well be the nominee now.

But the choice now is the dangerous duo of McCain the militarist and Palin the vapid valley-girl VP side kick, that really suggests jeopardy and polarization for the Nation more than the kind of consensus and compromise that the host of extant problems facing us would seem to require. And at this point Obama looks to be the only one that would serve to bridge our Foreign Relations and Domestic issues with thoughtfulness, rather than ideology.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This was a rather amusing chain of events.

1). McCain accuses Obama [debate] of naivety for saying out loud that he would go after Osama bin Laden if we knew his location in Pakistan.

2) In a public exchange caught on a local news camera, Palin says that we should go into Pakistan unilaterally to get the terrorists.

3). McCain defends Palin's statement [ABC This Week] by saying that they are on the same page.

Conclusion: McCain publically admitted that he would go into Pakistan unilaterally.

How naive! Or course he may have just been confused again.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Now, in a Couric interview, McCain is accusing the media of gotcha journalism.

The question was spontaneous and came from a Temple Univ. student who was there to get a burger. The student was interviewed on CNN and responded by saying that it is sad when a tax-paying voter is accused of gotcha journalism, just because he asked a question.


One funny moment: Palin stood in line to order food. When she placed her order at the window, the cashier took her money and said, "name?".

 

[Astronuc]

Now, in a Couric interview, McCain is accusing the media of gotcha journalism.

The question was spontaneous and came from a Temple Univ. student who was there to get a burger. The student was interviewed on CNN and responded by saying that it is sad when a tax-paying voter is accused of gotcha journalism, just because he asked a question.

Ummm - but it was a question! Or maybe it was not on the list of permissible questions that the public is allowed to ask.

You know - I bet the answers are in the back of the book.

One funny moment: Palin stood in line to order food. When she placed her order at the window, the cashier took her money and said, "name?".

That was a test. Did Palin answer it correctly?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is the Couric spot.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/29/eveningnews/main4487826.shtml

Obviously McCain has no problem with Obama's position. It was just more double-talk.

 

[mheslep]

The point was that a potential head of state should not make speeches or other official policy statements about crossing Pakistani borders, which then forces Pakistani officials to publicly react. Pizza/Hamburger stands with a microphone across the way don't qualify as platforms for policy statements. If Obama wins his statements immediately complicate US-Pakistani relations on day one, which is just dumb.

 

[quadraphonics]

If Obama wins his statements immediately complicate US-Pakistani relations on day one, which is just dumb.

Or rather, they would complicate US-Pakistani relations, were it not for the fact that the current administration has already announced that it will cross Pakistan's border, and then proceeded to do exactly that, repeatedly, in the face of armed resistance from Pakistani armed forces. And that McCain would continue the same policy in the first place. Given that, the worst you can say about Obama's remarks is that they will not uncomplicate relations, which is not a very strong criticism. US-Pakistani relations have always been complicated, and nothing that anyone says is going to change that any time soon.

But, hey, don't let that stop you from pretending that it's Obama's statements that have Pakistanis up in arms, and not the actual attacks that the actual President is actually launching on a regular basis. Or that Pakistanis are so stupid that they will not care that McCain explicitly agrees with Obama on this point, as long as he doesn't say it too loudly or too often, or outside of pizza restaurants. And let's not even get into the irony of McCain stating that he'll attack Pakistan in a network TV interview and then going on to condemn Obama for having "announced" the same thing. Especially after aknowledging that Palin just did exactly the same thing.

The Straight Talk Express seems to have taken a detour into Doublespeak Valley, from whence integrity never returns.

 

[mheslep]

Or rather, they would complicate US-Pakistani relations, were it not for the fact that the current administration has already announced that it will cross Pakistan's border, and then proceeded to do exactly that, repeatedly, in the face of armed resistance from Pakistani armed forces. ...

No I think you are mistaken about any public announcement by the current administration of US forces crossing without Pakistani permission. This has allowed to Pakistanis to talk about accidents, flares, etc, and never appear to surrender sovereignty.

 

[mheslep]

Or rather, they would complicate US-Pakistani relations, were it not for the fact that the current administration has already announced that it will cross Pakistan's border, and then proceeded to do exactly that, repeatedly, in the face of armed resistance from Pakistani armed forces. And that McCain would continue the same policy in the first place. Given that, the worst you can say about Obama's remarks is that they will not uncomplicate relations, which is not a very strong criticism. US-Pakistani relations have always been complicated, and nothing that anyone says is going to change that any time soon.

But, hey, don't let that stop you from pretending that it's Obama's statements that have Pakistanis up in arms,

I don't say they that Obama statements have done much of anything, yet. As you concurred above his statements will cause problems should he win.

and not the actual attacks that the actual President is actually launching on a regular basis.

It has happened. You don't know how regular this is any more than I do.

And let's not even get into the irony of McCain stating that he'll attack Pakistan in a network TV interview and then going on to condemn Obama for having "announced" the same thing.

What TV interview stating he'll attack Pakistan? Source?

 

[quadraphonics]

No I think you are mistaken about any public announcement by the current administration of US forces crossing without Pakistani permission. This has allowed to Pakistanis to talk about accidents, flares, etc, and never appear to surrender sovereignty.

Actually, it's true that they didn't announce anything; that was a leak I was thinking of. But, that only worked a few years ago, when they were launching isolated missile strikes (and not apologizing for it then, either). The cat was out of the bag when actual troops started raiding parts of Pakistan; at this point, nothing Bush, McCain or Obama says is going to change anything. Everyone in Pakistan knows what's going on, and they all know that none of the candidates plan to make significant changes in this area.

I would bet you dollars to donuts that Pakistanis still overwhelmingly favor Obama for President of the US. As far as that goes, I'd bet he wins the Pakistani-American vote.

Also, it's not so much 'appear to surrender sovereignty' as much as 'admit that they don't possesses sovereignty in the first place.' The entire application of the term "sovereignty" is academic when it comes to areas that the government does not, and apparently can not, actually control the region in question. Coddling Pakistani insecurity on this point should not be a priority for the President. Pakistan needs to either live up to its responsibilities, or accept that the people who are damaged by their failures are going to do so. The sooner this choice becomes clear to them, the better it will be for everyone (except Al Qaeda, that is).

 

[quadraphonics]

As you concurred above his statements will cause problems should he win.

No, I said they will not alleviate complications (as opposed to actual problems) that already exist. I also said that McCain's position wouldn't be any better in this regard. No amount of statements, or lack of statements, is going to solve any actual problems.

It has happened. You don't know how regular this is any more than I do.

I know that news stories detailing new incursions appear regularly in the media, and that nobody in the Bush administration so much as lifted a finger to dispute the leaked directives to attack Pakistan. What else do you want?

What TV interview stating he'll attack Pakistan? Source?

The interview with Katie Couric linked above. In the first part of the interview they discuss how Palin said she'd attack Pakistan, and that McCain agrees with her, but thinks they shouldn't say this publicly. Apparently CBS Evening News doesn't count as any kind of "official, public" forum. Telling voters that you'll attack Pakistan is also blessed as fine, provided it's not publicized. Apparently McCain thinks Pakistanis are so stupid that they won't object to actual attacks, and stated intentions to continue attacking, as long as they aren't made in televized debates.

 

[LowlyPion]

The point was that a potential head of state should not make speeches or other official policy statements about crossing Pakistani borders, which then forces Pakistani officials to publicly react. Pizza/Hamburger stands with a microphone across the way don't qualify as platforms for policy statements. If Obama wins his statements immediately complicate US-Pakistani relations on day one, which is just dumb.

To a certain extent there is little that Palin can say that should be taken seriously, because her thinking is a bit scattered and not to be taken all that seriously to begin with. The idea of thinking she is capable of directing US policy is laughable even, were it not so frightening that the Nation could actually end up with such a leader making policy. Just as scary I might add is McCain's assessment that she makes a capable National leader.

But as to your supposition that Obama is making policy and Palin is not, that's simply absurd. There is no longer any such distinction to be made once the hats or the pantyhose are in the ring. It's all public record. This kind of double standard, this hypocrisy that these Republicans promoting McCain/Palin would hope to escape judgment by employing, simply indicates that they are unready to be trusted to govern.

 

[LowlyPion]

The Straight Talk Express seems to have taken a detour into Doublespeak Valley, from whence integrity never returns.

It's mired in the mud there.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The point was that a potential head of state should not make speeches or other official policy statements about crossing Pakistani borders, which then forces Pakistani officials to publicly react. Pizza/Hamburger stands with a microphone across the way don't qualify as platforms for policy statements.

She was in front of a news camera making a policy statement as potentially the next vP. But I know this gets confusing. Perhaps it is just another example of her being out of her league.

If Obama wins his statements immediately complicate US-Pakistani relations on day one, which is just dumb.

Really! So then when McCain sang bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, we should assume that he was speaking as a Beach Boy? And why then would McCain admit that he and Palin agree. He did exactly what he chastized Obama for doing.

Do you rememeber when Reagan said we would begin bombing Moscow in five minutes? Now THAT was a great Republican!

 

[mheslep]

She was in front of a news camera making a policy statement as potentially the next vP. But I know this gets confusing. Perhaps it is just another example of her being out of her league.

No, she was in front of a camera making a statement.

 

[turbo]

McCain does himself a disservice if he ignores states with strong unions. This speech had steel-worker union reps on their feet.

 

[LowlyPion]

McCain does himself a disservice if he ignores states with strong unions. This speech had steel-worker union reps on their feet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QIGJTHdH50

They should have had him speak at the Democratic National Convention.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Obama Tells Tax-Burdened Plumber the Plan is to ‘Spread the Wealth Around’
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=195153

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is wrong with people who are doing well paying their fair share? Cripes, even Warren Buffet complains that his tax burden is far too low - that he pays a much smaller percentage of his income in taxes, than the people who work for him.

Why the bleeding hearts for the rich?

Obama points out that his plan would take taxes on the wealthy to the same levels that they were under Reagan.

Was Reagan too liberal for today's Republicans?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

What is wrong with people who are doing well paying their fair share? Cripes, even Warren Buffet complains that his tax burden is far too low - that he pays a much smaller percentage of his income in taxes, than the people who work for him.

Why the bleeding hearts for the rich?

Obama points out that his plan would take taxes on the wealthy to the same levels that they were under Reagan.

Was Reagan too liberal for today's Republicans?

Buffet? lol, I think there is quite a difference between him and a small business owner making $250k a year. Hell you could take away 90% of his money and he could still afford to buy a small country.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm327.cfm

 

[WarPhalange]

Someone help me with this.

Taxes = revenue.

Lower taxes = higher revenue?

Why Greg, if I didn't know any better, I'd alert you to have yourself banned for spouting crackpot theories.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Someone help me with this.

Taxes = revenue.

Lower taxes = higher revenue?

A famous example of this occurred during the Kennedy administration. The theory is that reduced tax RATES encourage businesses to expand and the end result is higher tax REVENUE.

 

[stewartcs]

What is wrong with people who are doing well paying their fair share?

The problem with taxing those who make more money than others is that it is not fair. It is unfair since they have to pay more taxes. You're essentially being penalized for being successful.

Why should I pay more taxes than my neighbor who has the same freedoms and opportunities that I have, just less ambition and initiative?

CS

 

[WarPhalange]

The problem with taxing those who make more money than others is that it is not fair. It is unfair since they have to pay more taxes. You're essentially being penalized for being successful.

Why should I pay more taxes than my neighbor who has the same freedoms and opportunities that I have, just less ambition and initiative?

CS

Hahahah! Same opportunities. Oh, please.

You're essentially giving back to society for letting you get there in the first place.

 

[WarPhalange]

A famous example of this occurred during the Kennedy administration. The theory is that reduced tax RATES encourage businesses to expand and the end result is higher tax REVENUE.

Is there anything saying businesses can expand indefinitely?