Questioning Obama's Critics: Why the Dislike?

[LowlyPion]

In this case it is a fact that the lawsuit has been filed and discussion of it is allowed. On the other hand if there was an unsubstantiated claim of a lawsuit, that would not be allowed.

Not to be argumentative, as you must know how shy I am about expressing my opinion or disagreeing with the opinion of others, but I am having a little trouble with the distinction you are making. The suggestion that discussion is allowed about the fact of a suit does seem a little like suggesting that it is OK to reference the fact of a particular crackpot science site - not of course that I would advocate that.

 

[Evo]

Not to be argumentative, as you must know how shy I am about expressing my opinion or disagreeing with the opinion of others, but I am having a little trouble with the distinction you are making. The suggestion that discussion is allowed about the fact of a suit does seem a little like suggesting that it is OK to reference the fact of a particular crackpot science site - not of course that I would advocate that.

If the only discussion here was of undisputed fact, we would have no discussions.

A pending lawsuit is a fact, however. We can discuss it, but we don't hold a higher authority than the US government. A person can bring up any point to show fallicies, or they can argue for it.

The rules for P&WA and Philosophy are not the same as for hard sciences.

We don't disallow discussion because it goes against our personal beliefs or what we would like to see.

 

[LowlyPion]

A person can bring up any point to show fallicies, or they can argue for it.

It does seem that the crackpot nature of this particular lawsuit has been adequately demonstrated by references to existing law and the presentation of the image of his Birth Certificate - an image for which he and his campaign must accept full responsibility if it is in anyway falsified - a penalty paid in public trust far greater than any that might accrue under law.

Getting back then to the OP and speaking generally, why are any of these allegations given continued currency? Perhaps this springs from some hidden animus harbored within the heart against his candidacy based on non politically correct primal feelings, in addition to the more mean spirited assaults that the nation has witnessed in past dirty tricks?

 

[Evo]

It does seem that the crackpot nature of this particular lawsuit has been adequately demonstrated by references to existing law and the presentation of the image of his Birth Certificate - an image for which he and his campaign must accept full responsibility if it is in anyway falsified - a penalty paid in public trust far greater than any that might accrue under law.

Getting back then to the OP and speaking generally, why are any of these allegations given continued currency? Perhaps this springs from some hidden animus harbored within the heart against his candidacy based on non politically correct primal feelings, in addition to the more mean spirited assaults that the nation has witnessed in past dirty tricks?

Why are any of the allegations in a political campaign allowed? This forum isn't about protecting Obama from the perils of running for president. This forum is about discussing current events. If you have a problem with that, feel free to PM me.

I've been allowing your questions, but seriously, you are pulling this thread off topic.

 

[mheslep]

Wow! Why would someone fake a birth notice in 1961? ...

Because in 1961 or 2001 US citizenship is valuable commodity, causing to fraud to happen all the time?

 

[scarecrow]

why was my post deleted?

 

[OmCheeto]

Today I saw an anti-Obama bumpersticker.

I didn't really get the joke until the guy driving me around in his car pointed out that the bumper sticker proclaiming that Obama was an elitist was stuck to the back of a Cadillac.

I laughed.

 

[Gokul43201]

Today I saw an anti-Obama bumpersticker.

I didn't really get the joke until the guy driving me around in his car pointed out that the bumper sticker proclaiming that Obama was an elitist was stuck to the back of a Cadillac.

I laughed.

Oh, I thought you had just seen this one:
http://www.slick.com/graphics/obamabillfront.jpg

 

[Art]

If the only discussion here was of undisputed fact, we would have no discussions.

A pending lawsuit is a fact, however. We can discuss it, but we don't hold a higher authority than the US government. A person can bring up any point to show fallicies, or they can argue for it.

The rules for P&WA and Philosophy are not the same as for hard sciences.

We don't disallow discussion because it goes against our personal beliefs or what we would like to see.

This same idiot Berg issued a law suit accusing the US government of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks yet any attempt by posters to air that particular conspiracy were immediately shut down by moderators. What is different about this conspiracy theory that makes it okay to run this nonsense for 5 pages?

 

[turbo]

Because in 1961 or 2001 US citizenship is valuable commodity, causing to fraud to happen all the time?

There was NO reason to file a fake birth certificate. Obama was born to a woman who was a US citizen, granting him US citizenship automatically. Berg's lawsuit is an attack on Obama, intended to plant doubt in the minds of people like the same idiots that forward emails claiming that Obama is a Muslim, not too long after forwarding emails tying him to fiery statements made by his Christian pastor.

If the GOP can't attack Obama's policies, they can at least spread lies about him that the gullible will swallow.

 

[Art]

It's a repeat of the Swift Boat campaign. - Bush had a problem with his lack of Vietnam war experience and so his supporters turned it around and attacked Kerry's war record.

Suddenly there was no more mention of Bush's perceived cowardice and all the focus was on whether Kerry had been on patrol on the 1st Jan as he said or the 2nd Jan and other such trivia.

This time McCain has a possible weakness in relation to his Panamanian birth so his supporters attempt to deflect scrutiny by casting dispersions on Obama's citizenship.

It's a strategy with a proven successful track record so I'd say there will be a lot more of this before the election.

 

[mheslep]

There was NO reason to file a fake birth certificate. Obama was born to a woman who was a US citizen, granting him US citizenship automatically. ..

Not that this relevant to Sen Obama's history, but that is not absolutely correct, there are caveats on the citizenship of children of single parent citizens. In 1961 the citizen parent was still required to live in the US prior the child for 10 years, 5 of those under the age of 14. Today its 5 and 2.
http://www.americanlaw.com/citabrd.html

 

[LowlyPion]

This time McCain has a possible weakness in relation to his Panamanian birth so his supporters attempt to deflect scrutiny by casting dispersions on Obama's citizenship.

I don't see any traction to be gained in either assertion. They both apparently meet the criteria for citizenship. The life that this has gotten seems to me more born of the very issue raised by the original post of this thread as to what the real reason may be for slinging this kind of mud at the man.

 

[LowlyPion]

Not that this relevant to Sen Obama's history, but that is not absolutely correct, there are caveats on the citizenship of children of single parent citizens. In 1961 the citizen parent was still required to live in the US prior the child for 10 years, 5 of those under the age of 14. Today its 5 and 2.
http://www.americanlaw.com/citabrd.html

That article seems to be a regurgitation of 8 USC 1401.

I don't know if you saw the Obama promo piece from the convention last night, but the portrayal of Obama's mother and her parents from Kansas, and her childhood there, etc, seem to make any concerns that she would not meet the qualification as a citizen herself - qualified to confer through her Obama's own at birth citizenship under 1401 - wholly moot. (And that is not to say that I think you were in any way implying that there was any question.)

 

[WheelsRCool]

Me personally, I do not know how anyone could vote for Senator Obama, after looking at his policy proposals, his history, his associations, etc...(there are Democrats even scared of him!) and I find it laughable that people would criticize Governor Palin for lacking experience when Senator Obama has even less experience (I can understand plenty though folks criticizing McCain's claiming she is the foremost expert on energy).

As for McCain and Governor Palin themselves, I just view them as the lesser of two evils. Remember this is politics. McCain could have chosen someone better, BUT, it would have just been two Republican white guys. Ho-hum. Picking Palin was a gamble, but it seems to have worked in terms of giving Senator McCain a fighting chance.

 

[Gokul43201]

Me personally, I do not know how anyone could vote for Senator Obama, after looking at his policy proposals,

Specify which ones you find scary - and please use direct quotes or excerpts (no paraphrasing, please)

his history,

Again, what aspect of his history scares you?

his associations,

I think this is well covered in the media, but you can expend on this too, if you like to.

etc...(there are Democrats even scared of him!)

Can you name them? Do they outnumber the Republicans that are scared of McCain or Palin?

and I find it laughable that people would criticize Governor Palin for lacking experience when Senator Obama has even less experience

I've listed some of Obama's national level accomplishments in post #37. Now tell me what thought Palin has given to events at the National level (forget accomplishments, just show me how much she has thought about something more than just the 600,000 inhabitants of her state)?

As for McCain and Governor Palin themselves, I just view them as the lesser of two evils. Remember this is politics. McCain could have chosen someone better, BUT, it would have just been two Republican white guys. Ho-hum. Picking Palin was a gamble, but it seems to have worked in terms of giving Senator McCain a fighting chance.

It's simple: McCain went for the political pick, not for the person most qualified to help him. On the other hand, no one in their right mind would deny that Biden is among the most qualified Senators in the country today, as far as experience and grasp of national and international issues go.

 

[asdfggfdsa]

I find it laughable that people would criticize Governor Palin for lacking experience when Senator Obama has even less experience

WRT foreign policy, I think this is absurd in the extreme.

However, she isn't the presidential candidate, McCain is; I also think many of McCain's proposals do nothing to serve the Am national interest (wrong conclusions IMO).

(no amount of experience will convince me that 1+1=3 is true)

 

[nuby]

Me personally, I do not know how anyone could vote for Senator Obama, after looking at his policy proposals, his history, his associations, etc...(there are Democrats even scared of him!) and I find it laughable that people would criticize Governor Palin for lacking experience when Senator Obama has even less experience (I can understand plenty though folks criticizing McCain's claiming she is the foremost expert on energy).

As for McCain and Governor Palin themselves, I just view them as the lesser of two evils. Remember this is politics. McCain could have chosen someone better, BUT, it would have just been two Republican white guys. Ho-hum. Picking Palin was a gamble, but it seems to have worked in terms of giving Senator McCain a fighting chance.

"Experience" Is just another political buzzword used to mislead people, just like McCain's "Change". Did G.W. Bush have experience? C'mon. Was he intelligent? Some of the best presidents had very little "Experience".

"leadership" , "Intelligence", and "honesty" are what count. And it's too bad people eat up all the lies they are fed.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Specify which ones you find scary - and please use direct quotes or excerpts (no paraphrasing, please)

His plan to increase the minimum wage to $9.50 and index it to inflation, his plans to cut taxes for the 95% of the population while increasing taxes on the highest-earners (who are a very large contributor to our economy, plus it is out-and-out class warfare), his universal healthcare plan, his plans to infringe on free trade, his plan to increase the payroll tax cap, his plan to enact a "windfall profits tax" on Big Oil, some of his foreign-policy proposals, such as withdrawing from Iraq, he once said he would work to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world and cut funding to our military (I don't know what world he is living in), he has talked of taking military action against Pakistan, his poor response to the Russian invasion of Georgia, etc...I also believe he would pass the Fairness Doctrine and the Employee Free Choice Act, which would eliminate the workers right to a private ballot vote, etc...

Again, what aspect of his history scares you?

The fact that he seems to be very comfortable in very Left-leaning circles of questionable people; also, I am highly skeptical of his "change" mantra considering that when he encountered massive corruption in one of the nation's most corrupt political machines, rather than fight against it, he merely went along with it to advance his career.

I also do not like that he essentially voted to support infanticide.

Can you name them? Do they outnumber the Republicans that are scared of McCain or Palin?

I do not know; which Republicans do you speak of, and why are they frightened of McCain; because he is too far to the Right or Left in their view...? And what do they fear of Governor Palin? I am talking in general here, www.hillaryclintonforum.net[/URL] for example.

[quote]I've listed some of Obama's national level accomplishments in post #37. Now tell me what thought Palin has given to events at the National level (forget accomplishments, just show me how much she has thought about something more than just the 600,000 inhabitants of her state)?[/quote]

Senator Obama's only signficant "accomplishment" is that he has written two books about himself and run for office. He has never authored any major piece of legislation and when faced with corruption, never changed anything significant. He also voted "Present" an awful lot of times.

As for Governor Palin, I'm not sure what you're getting at (unless you count the pipeline project). She is a Governor. Her primary concern is going to be the people in her state. Also, she is the only one of the four of them who has had to actually make decisions and then live with the consequences.

[quote]It's simple: McCain went for the political pick, not for the person most qualified to help him. On the other hand, no one in their right mind would deny that Biden is among the most qualified Senators in the country today, as far as experience and grasp of national and international issues go.[/quote]

I would say both did. Senator Obama talks constantly about change, then picks one of the most entrenched politicians in Washington. And I would disagree that Senator Biden has any significant grasp of national and international issues or experience. He has not had any experience in actually crafting foreign policy and then having to be responsible for the consequences. He has been an observer of foreign policy. But just because he has listened to many people testify on various foreign policy issues doesn't tell if he actually understands anything about them.

As for Senator McCain, yes, there are other women he could have picked who were more qualified, but I do not believe any were pro-life, and that would have alienated a lot of GOPers.

[quote]Yeah, he could have chosen Carly Fiorina even.[/quote]

The woman with the reputation for running HP into the ground...? I don't think she would have worked well.

[quote]

"Experience" Is just another political buzzword used to mislead people, just like McCain's "Change". Did G.W. Bush have experience? C'mon. Was he intelligent? Some of the best presidents had very little "Experience".[/quote]

He was a governor first. And I'm not saying you are wrong on the experience issue; I am just saying I find it hypocritical for the Left to criticize Governor Palin for lacking experience when Senator Obama himself has no more experience than she, and he is running for the Presidency.

But you are correct, "experience," especially "foreign policy experience," is just one of those buzzwords tossed out there. Very few politicians have any real foreign policy experience, aside from maybe a Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. No governor who became President ever had any foreign policy experience, for example.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Make that $9.50 by 2011 and indexed to inflation. Currently it's at $6.55 nationally, but over $8 already in many states.

Here are the state line ups.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

Yes, I meant to say "approximately $10;" edited for correctness.

 

[WheelsRCool]

That's not good enough. Because he is talking 3 years from now.

For many people affected this represents a change of maybe 19% in 3 years - 6% a year. That's hardly a back breaker.

For small businesses, it can be. Remember, there is a reason Wal-Mart supports a higher minimum wage (http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/). I doubt it has anything to do with caring about their customers. It is because they, as a huge multinational corporation, can absorb a higher minimum wage easily, but smaller business have to struggle more, either by firing people, or raising prices, or both. It leads to an increase in the unemployment rate.

 

[Gokul43201]

His plan to increase the minimum wage to $9.50 and index it to inflation,

What do you propose we do with the minimum wage?

his plans to cut taxes for the 95% of the population while increasing taxes on the highest-earners

The highest earners in Obama's tax plan will still be paying lower taxes than they paid under Reagan.

(who are a very large contributor to our economy, plus it is out-and-out class warfare),

Under McCain's plan, someone earning 2 million gets a 10% tax cut, while a person earning 20K gets a 0.1% tax cut. That's not class warfare?

Speaking of class-warfare, someone that may know a little about the subject had this to say:

There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.

his universal healthcare plan, his plans to infringe on free trade,

Which specific plans are these? You really haven't posted a single reference or direct quote/excerpt.

his plan to increase the payroll tax cap,

He has no such plan, and we've been through this before.

his plan to enact a "windfall profits tax" on Big Oil,

I disagree with this one too, but Palin has the same thing going in Alaska.

some of his foreign-policy proposals, such as withdrawing from Iraq,

Okay. What about it scares you?

he once said he would work to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world and cut funding to our military (I don't know what world he is living in),

Obama's plan for military funding involves a raise in spending, not a cut. He has said though, that he will cut millions of dollars in wasteful military spending.

he has talked of taking military action against Pakistan,

Nonsense!

his poor response to the Russian invasion of Georgia

How exactly was it poor? Was it poor because it didn't involve the war mongering blustery rhetoric of McCain's speeches? Sheesh! McCain couldn't even pronounce Saakashvili or Abkhazia correctly. And even Saakashvili recognized McCain bombastic blumbering as nothing more than campaign rhetoric.

Now on the other hand, does it not scare you that McCain doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia? Even GWB learned that lesson a couple years ago. Doesn't it scare you that McCain predicted that the conflict in Iraq would be short? And several months before McCain was parroting the Administration line about a cheap, short-lived war, Obama was dead on with respect to the cost of the war. Doesn't it scare you that McCain doesn't seem to know who Zapatero is? Or that he helped the Administration peddle garbage like connecting the anthrax attacks to Iraq? And then he claims to have foreign policy expertise? Claims to need no "on the job training" while Lieberman has to whisper in his ear that al Qaeda is a Sunni group? Please!

The fact that he seems to be very comfortable in very Left-leaning circles of questionable people; also, I am highly skeptical of his "change" mantra considering that when he encountered massive corruption in one of the nation's most corrupt political machines, rather than fight against it, he merely went along with it to advance his career.

I also do not like that he essentially voted to support infanticide.

I don't see how this is "history".

I do not know; which Republicans do you speak of, and why are they frightened of McCain; because he is too far to the Right or Left in their view...?

Because he is too hot tempered, and too impulsive to make rational decisions. Try for instance, this quote from Republican Senator Thad Cochran: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

And what do they fear of Governor Palin?

Essentially, because she's a joke.

Senator Obama's only signficant "accomplishment" is that he has written two books about himself and run for office. He has never authored any major piece of legislation and when faced with corruption, never changed anything significant.

I see you didn't bother to either read the post that I pointed to or decided you didn't have the arguments to refute it ... so why bother?

He also voted "Present" an awful lot of times.

In the Illinois state legislature. I don't like that either.

As for Governor Palin, I'm not sure what you're getting at (unless you count the pipeline project). She is a Governor. Her primary concern is going to be the people in her state. Also, she is the only one of the four of them who has had to actually make decisions and then live with the consequences.

She is a parochial pol that has shown no eagerness to think about events at a national or trans-national level. While Obama was still a state senator, he produced a dead on correct projection of the Iraq War.

I would say both did. Senator Obama talks constantly about change, then picks one of the most entrenched politicians in Washington.

That makes Biden a poor political pick.

And I would disagree that Senator Biden has any significant grasp of national and international issues or experience. He has not had any experience in actually crafting foreign policy and then having to be responsible for the consequences. He has been an observer of foreign policy. But just because he has listened to many people testify on various foreign policy issues doesn't tell if he actually understands anything about them.

This is such an outrageous joke, I'm speechless.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This thread should be split, but while we're on the topic:

For small businesses, it can be. Remember, there is a reason Wal-Mart supports a higher minimum wage (http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/). I doubt it has anything to do with caring about their customers. It is because they, as a huge multinational corporation, can absorb a higher minimum wage easily, but smaller business have to struggle more, either by firing people, or raising prices, or both. It leads to an increase in the unemployment rate.

States with Minimum Wages above the Federal Level have had Faster Small Business and Retail Job Growth.

...Executive Summary
Some observers contend that because many small businesses are labor intensive and largely employ low-wage workers, they will experience sharp cost increases when the minimum wage is increased, leading them to reduce employment levels. However, this report examined recent state-by-state trends for small businesses employing fewer than 50 workers and found that employment and payrolls in small businesses grew faster in the states with minimum wages above the federal level than in the remaining states where the $5.15 an hour federal minimum wage prevailed.

This report also found that total job growth was faster in the higher minimum wage states. Faster job growth also occurred in the retail trade sector, the sector of the economy employing the most workers at low wages, in the higher minimum wage states. The simplistic introductory economics prediction that an increase in the minimum wage will result in job loss clearly is not supported by the actual job growth record. Rather, faced with an increase in the minimum wage, small businesses may have benefited from some combination of higher productivity through improved worker retention and savings on recruitment and training. There may also be a “Henry Ford” effect at work: if you pay workers more, they can buy more, boosting the overall economy, especially among small retail businesses. [continued]

http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPISmallBusinessMinWage.pdf

 

[WheelsRCool]

What do you propose we do with the minimum wage?

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. States who do not want the effects of a minimum wage would be free; if states find that they do not like the federal minimum wage being rescinded and think a minimum wage or minimum wage increase is needed, they can implement one.

The highest earners in Obama's tax plan will still be paying lower taxes than they paid under Reagan.

Under Reagan, I believe the highest income tax rate was 28%; prior to the Bush tax cuts, the highest-rate was 39.6%. The thing to remember though is that due to revenue shortages, many states are considering increasing their state tax rates as well.

Under McCain's plan, someone earning 2 million gets a 10% tax cut, while a person earning 20K gets a 0.1% tax cut. That's not class warfare?

People making $20K pay no taxes; they get it all back. A person earning $2 million is in the portion of the population paying a very large chunk of the total tax revenue. Also, folks earning $2 million consist of a very small portion of the highest-earners; I'm thinking more of folks earning $250K, $300K, etc...

Speaking of class-warfare, someone that may know a little about the subject had this to say:

There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.

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%.

Which specific plans are these? You really haven't posted a single reference or direct quote/excerpt.

Well his universal healthcare plan, as I have stated, I think will cost far more than he projects, especially if one looks at how historically many health plans go over their projected costs. I fear his trying to provide universal healthcare for all Americans would lead to an overstraining of the system and eventually lead to a fully state-funded healthcare system, which will cost who knows how much.

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.

Yes, economists can say this or that, but the future introduces unforeseen variables, or if the system is solvent, politicians find a way to rob it (as they did with Social Security).

For example, the fund Long Term Capital Management was run by a group including two future Nobel Prize-winning economists (the whole fund were geniuses pretty much) and they calculated that they had a one in six billion chance of a blowup, yet they almost brought down the global financial system.

I also believe a Nobel Prize-winning economist (I may be mistaken here) had said that the Dot Com bubble would not burst. And some economists also said housing prices would not come down.

So my point is just even some brilliant economists can be dead wrong on things.

Regarding free-trade, well Senator Obama has been very vocal about NAFTA and how he will work to "reform" NAFTA and create more fair trade. Some months ago, his economic advisor, economist Austan Goolsbee made a statement saying that Senator Obama was essentially just talking rhetoric on NAFTA, because it had scared some foreign leaders.

The thing is, there is no such thing as "fair" trade. It's either free trade or protectionism of some type.

He has no such plan, and we've been through this before.

I know he had supported an increase, then in a previous thread, you had said he said he would not increase it, however I think I read somwehre (albeit I cannot find the link at the moment) that he had said he would raise it up to $200K; if this is still incorrect though, my mistake.

I disagree with this one too, but Palin has the same thing going in Alaska.

I think hers was a little different though (although this might be stretching things, I'm not sure). She raised their royalty rate, because she considers the oil owned by the people of Alaska, so she reasoned that the people should be entitled to a bigger portion of the revenues from it, even though it is oil companies drilling for it. What is good though is she distributed the money directly to the people, instead of support for bigger government.

I believe that much of the oil drilled by Big Oil right now is not owned by the American taxpayers, but by the oil companies themselves, so they should be entitled fully to the profits. I may be mistaken though.

Okay. What about it scares you?

The area could collapse into complete chaos and Iran and the terrorists could take over.

Obama's plan for military funding involves a raise in spending, not a cut. He has said though, that he will cut millions of dollars in wasteful military spending.

How will he determine what is wasteful though?

How exactly was it poor? Was it poor because it didn't involve the war mongering blustery rhetoric of McCain's speeches? Sheesh! McCain couldn't even pronounce Saakashvili or Abkhazia correctly. And even Saakashvili recognized McCain bombastic blumbering as nothing more than campaign rhetoric.

What does pronouncement have to do with it? Senator Obama's initial response was for both sides to negotiate a cease-fire and then take it to the United Nations. Does he really think Russia is going to want to "negotiate" anything with Georgia? Also, Russia has veto power in the UN.

And I would not call McCain's response "war mongering."

Now on the other hand, does it not scare you that McCain doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia?

It is a concern, but nothing I find very scary. Something he definitely needs to bone up on.

Even GWB learned that lesson a couple years ago. Doesn't it scare you that McCain predicted that the conflict in Iraq would be short? And several months before McCain was parroting the Administration line about a cheap, short-lived war, Obama was dead on with respect to the cost of the war.

Not really; he was wrong, Senator Obama was correct on that. But then McCain supported the surge, while Senator Obama said the surge would not work and the war was lost. Senator Obama referred to Iran as being a tiny country and not much of a threat, then he changed his view.

Doesn't it scare you that McCain doesn't seem to know who Zapatero is? Or that he helped the Administration peddle garbage like connecting the anthrax attacks to Iraq? And then he claims to have foreign policy expertise? Claims to need no "on the job training" while Lieberman has to whisper in his ear that al Qaeda is a Sunni group? Please!

I agree here.

Because he is too hot tempered, and too impulsive to make rational decisions. Try for instance, this quote from Republican Senator Thad Cochran: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Hot tempered yes, impulsive I would not say so. One thing also to consider, is he hot-tempered if he doesn't get his way, or hot-tempered if he has to deal with stupid people?

Essentially, because she's a joke.

Oh please. If you consider her a joke, then Senator Obama is an even bigger joke. And unlike him, when she discovered corruption, she actually worked against it and managed to beat it.

What is a joke is that a Senator who has been associated with some very Leftwing radicals in his past (Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshal Davis), whose church had a radical minister whom he had as a trusted advisor on his campaign, who did absolutely nothing to beat out corruption in one of the most corrupt political establishments in the nation, who got caught making an elitist comment about middle American "clinging to their guns and religion," and whose entire rise to fame has come from making grand speeches that floor people, has somehow become a viable candidate for the Presidency.

If he was white, his minister said crazy things about America and had traveled with let's say a KKK member to meet some Nazis in Germany (Wright traveled with Farrakhan), and had been involved with some very questionable characters in his past, etc...the Left would be hysterically terrified of him.

They're terrified of Governor Palin and she is no such extremist.

I see you didn't bother to either read the post that I pointed to or decided you didn't have the arguments to refute it ... so why bother?

I didn't, but I forgot to mention that; the post number you gave was incorrect.

She is a parochial pol that has shown no eagerness to think about events at a national or trans-national level.

I would think pipeline project counts. Remember however, she is a governor, not a Senator.

While Obama was still a state senator, he produced a dead on correct projection of the Iraq War.

And a dead-wrong one. He got one right, one wrong. So did McCain. He could have been wrong if Iraq had been executed better.

 

[WheelsRCool]

States with Minimum Wages above the Federal Level have had Faster Small Business and Retail Job Growth.

From what I can see, the states employing high minimum wages and Left-leaning economics have some of the worst economies in the nation. The only reason California manages to hang on is because it has such great weather and an intelligent workforce. They have some of the highest taxes in the nation, and on practically everything, yet they have still managed to spend the state into a hole. Here in New York, we have a problem with businesses leaving the state, along with high taxes, high minimum wage, and the state has also been spent into fiscal problems. Ohio, Illinois, etc...also have lousy economies.

The states with the best economies, such as Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and Texas, employ more libertarian principles such as low taxes, lower regulations, and lower minimum wages.

Historically, as the minimum wage has been increased, the unemployment rate has increased, in particular in the inner cities.

This isn't always so, sometimes the minimum wage can increase with little to no effect, and sometimes unemployment can go up with no minimum wage, but in general, the minimum wage being a price control that artificially increases the cost of labor, it raises the unemployment rate.

My point though is why not allow the states to experiment on their own? The states with minimum wages already, businesses will continue to pay at the rate. If businesses find the minimum wages more favorable there, they will remain in those states.

If states without minimum wages found this wasn't favorable, they could implement their own. However, if they find not having one is very favorable, they will not be burdened by any federal minimum wage.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From what I can see, the states employing high minimum wages and Left-leaning economics have some of the worst economies in the nation

In that case, we can go with our gut and just ignore the study.

 

[Gokul43201]

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. States who do not want the effects of a minimum wage would be free; if states find that they do not like the federal minimum wage being rescinded and think a minimum wage or minimum wage increase is needed, they can implement one.

What would you like your own state to do about the minimum wage?

People making $20K pay no taxes; they get it all back.

This is just flat out wrong. I know because I belong in that bracket.

A person earning $2 million is in the portion of the population paying a very large chunk of the total tax revenue. Also, folks earning $2 million consist of a very small portion of the highest-earners; I'm thinking more of folks earning $250K, $300K, etc...

Folks earning about $400K get a 2% cut, those earning about $100K get a 1% cut and a near-median earner of about $30K gets about 0.3%.

Regarding free-trade, well Senator Obama has been very vocal about NAFTA and how he will work to "reform" NAFTA and create more fair trade. Some months ago, his economic advisor, economist Austan Goolsbee made a statement saying that Senator Obama was essentially just talking rhetoric on NAFTA, because it had scared some foreign leaders.

So if you now know that it was just campaign rhetoric, you should now be somewhat placated.

The thing is, there is no such thing as "fair" trade. It's either free trade or protectionism of some type.

Then what we've got now is protectionism of a dozen different kinds.

I know he had supported an increase, then in a previous thread, you had said he said he would not increase it, however I think I read somwehre (albeit I cannot find the link at the moment) that he had said he would raise it up to $200K; if this is still incorrect though, my mistake.

What you read - I think - is him saying he would "look into" that possibility (during one of the Primary debates).

The area could collapse into complete chaos and Iran and the terrorists could take over.

That could also happen after McCain pulls troops out. Besides, what terrorists exactly are you talking about? And what "area" specifically are you talking about?

How will he determine what is wasteful though?

I think it would be safe to bet that he would have called Star Wars wasteful. How does anyone determine what is wasteful? How would McCain decide what earmarks to cut? He said he will veto them all. Now since Israel gets virtually all of its economic and military aid via earmarks, this will eliminate nearly all aid that goes to Israel, which I can't imagine McCain wants. How will McCain decide what earmarks are okay and which ones are excessive? Will he veto the $3 million earmark to study the DNA of bears in Montana (that's one of his favorites) while he permits the $3.2 million earmark that Palin requested, to study the DNA of seals in Alaska?

What does pronouncement have to do with it? Senator Obama's initial response was for both sides to negotiate a cease-fire and then take it to the United Nations. Does he really think Russia is going to want to "negotiate" anything with Georgia? Also, Russia has veto power in the UN.

And what was McCain's initial response? As for pronunciation, it tells you about a person's familiarity with the subject - if McCain claims to be intimately familiar with Georgia, he ought to know better than to refer to Abkhazia as Abskaya (reading off a teleprompter).

It is a concern, but nothing I find very scary. Something he definitely needs to bone up on.

This is the kind of attitude that created the mess in Iraq in the first place. When will you folks ever learn this?

Oh please. If you consider her a joke...

It's not just me. I'm talking about Republican commentators like Peggy Noonan, Karl Rove and Mike Murphy.

And unlike him, when she discovered corruption, she actually worked against it and managed to beat it.

Only when the corruption didn't involve herself. Obama was one of the key drivers of the ethics reform bill of 07. I think it's fair to say about Obama and Palin that they are both eager to root out corruption so long as they are not the people that take the fall for it.

What is a joke is that a Senator who has been associated with some very Leftwing radicals in his past (Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshal Davis),

Please! Alinsky was dead for at least a dozen years before Obama even went to Chicago. And Davis just happened to be a neighbor and friend of Obama's grandparents - both of whom served in the Military during WWII. Was Obama's grandfather a liberal commie?

If he was white, his minister said crazy things about America and had traveled with let's say a KKK member to meet some Nazis in Germany (Wright traveled with Farrakhan), and had been involved with some very questionable characters in his past, etc...the Left would be hysterically terrified of him.

Yet Falwell and Robertson have been people that the right see as saviors and icons. Incidentally, Sen. Bob Byrd (D-WV) was a member of the KKK. And segregationists like Thurmond, Helms and Trent Lott were well respected among Republicans.

They're terrified of Governor Palin and she is no such extremist.

She seems to believe that books should be censored, believes in creationism and the rapture, goes to churches that say the war in Iraq and the conflicts in the ME today are a part of the end times and that the last people on Earth before Armageddon will flock to Alaska. She believes that teens should not be taught about contraception and thought is was a good idea to have her fifth child at the age of 44 (when the odds of giving birth to a child with Down Syndrome rises drastically to 1 in 30). She fires city officials as a loyalty test and refuses to participate in an investigation that was unanimously agreed upon by a Republican majority legislature. She thinks we can drill our way out of the energy problem and her most developed thoughts on Iraq seem to be that we should pray that we're doing the right thing there.

And a dead-wrong one. He got one right, one wrong. So did McCain. He could have been wrong if Iraq had been executed better.

Even if we grant that, where does that leave Palin. With zero thoughts on matters not related to Alaska?

Sorry about the post number error. It was post #37 in the other Palin thread (Palin pick an insult...).

 

[WheelsRCool]

What would you like your own state to do about the minimum wage?

Eliminate it.

This is just flat out wrong. I know because I belong in that bracket.

Yes, I should hav elaborated it better. From what understand, it depends on what kind of deductions and credits you can get; you can be single, in your twenties, and making little, and pay tax, sometimes you can be making up to $40K and pay virtually nothing.

Folks earning about $400K get a 2% cut, those earning about $100K get a 1% cut and a near-median earner of about $30K gets about 0.3%.

So if you now know that it was just campaign rhetoric, you should now be somewhat placated.

Not sure what you mean here...? Are you referring to President Bush's tax cuts or Senator Obama...?

Then what we've got now is protectionism of a dozen different kinds.

When Senator Obama talks about making trade more "fair," though he has to mean infringing on free trade, preventing a business from sending jobs to a different country or whatnot.

What you read - I think - is him saying he would "look into" that possibility (during one of the Primary debates).

And an interview.

That could also happen after McCain pulls troops out. Besides, what terrorists exactly are you talking about? And what "area" specifically are you talking about?

No one particular group at the moment. By the area, I mean mostly Iraq, but also the ME in general.

I think it would be safe to bet that he would have called Star Wars wasteful.

From my understanding, Star Wars allowed us to shoot down that stray satellite instead of allowing it to just crash.

How does anyone determine what is wasteful?

Point taken, however, I think certain common sense applies with regards to the military, for example ensure all the troops have the proper equipment and vehicles and armor, and the military the proper funding to maintain everything. Obviously if the Air Force wants 500 F/A-22s, that would be wasteful right now.

How would McCain decide what earmarks to cut? He said he will veto them all. Now since Israel gets virtually all of its economic and military aid via earmarks, this will eliminate nearly all aid that goes to Israel, which I can't imagine McCain wants.

I would imagine ones that are for big spending social programs (aside from the ones that are absolutely necessary).

How will McCain decide what earmarks are okay and which ones are excessive? Will he veto the $3 million earmark to study the DNA of bears in Montana (that's one of his favorites) while he permits the $3.2 million earmark that Palin requested, to study the DNA of seals in Alaska?

He will have to make choices, and cut down on all forms of excessive spending right now, in order to work to close the deficit.

And what was McCain's initial response?

To denounce the invasion, saying that Moscow needed to understand that this would have "severe, long-term negative consequences" for its relations with the West.

McCain called for emergency meetings of NATO's North Atlantic Council, of Group of 7 foreign ministers and for high-level U.S. consultations both with European allies and with countries like the Ukraine that he said faced Russian intimidation.

As for pronunciation, it tells you about a person's familiarity with the subject - if McCain claims to be intimately familiar with Georgia, he ought to know better than to refer to Abkhazia as Abskaya (reading off a teleprompter).

I agree.

This is the kind of attitude that created the mess in Iraq in the first place. When will you folks ever learn this?

I understand it fully, and it isn't something I am okay with per se, as McCain wasn't my choice for the Republican nomination; but, I feel he can get familiar with the specific groups fairly quickly.

It's not just me. I'm talking about Republican commentators like Peggy Noonan, Karl Rove and Mike Murphy.

I am not saying I would have chosen Governor Palin for the position of the Vice Presidency if I could have had my way, I would have preferred someone who was more proven, and from a stand-alone point, if one was comparing Governor Palin with someone like Mitt romney or Rudy Giuliani, I would consider her a joke as a comparison (wait until she's served at least four years as a governor).

But to call her a joke and support Senator Obama fully I do not understand.

Only when the corruption didn't involve herself. Obama was one of the key drivers of the ethics reform bill of 07. I think it's fair to say about Obama and Palin that they are both eager to root out corruption so long as they are not the people that take the fall for it.

Perhaps.

Please! Alinsky was dead for at least a dozen years before Obama even went to Chicago. And Davis just happened to be a neighbor and friend of Obama's grandparents - both of whom served in the Military during WWII. Was Obama's grandfather a liberal commie?

Reverand Wright was a Marine, Timothy McVeigh was a decorated Army veteran. From my understanding, Senator Obama was recruited by Saul Alinsky's disciples in Chicago.

Yet Falwell and Robertson have been people that the right see as saviors and icons.

I agree here, and I don't like those types whatsoever, but Senator McCain did not have such a person as his pastor for twenty years, or work for the disciples of some Nazi/KKK type.

Incidentally, Sen. Bob Byrd (D-WV) was a member of the KKK.

I do not like him because of that, nor do any of the Republicans I know.

And segregationists like Thurmond, Helms and Trent Lott were well respected among Republicans.

Trent Lott has been heavily criticized for his support of the Fairness Doctrine by folks like Limbaugh, Mike Savage, etc...as for Thurmond and Helms, I agree as well, and most of the Republicans I know do not like them for that aspect. You will find bad in both parties.

She seems to believe that books should be censored,

She never tried to ban books from what I can see.

believes in creationism and the rapture,

As long as she doesn't try to shove this view down people's throats, which she hasn't, I don't have a problem with this view. She isn't like the Republicans in Colorado recently who wanted to make it illegal to talk in public schools about I think homosexuality, something like that.

goes to churches that say the war in Iraq and the conflicts in the ME today are a part of the end times and that the last people on Earth before Armageddon will flock to Alaska.

Not a big issue to me. As long as she isn't pushing her views down people's throats, it shouldn't be a concern, and as long as her minister isn't some anti-American seeming radical. Senator Obama's church holds a committment to Africa, and has a pastor who holds some very conspiratorial views about the United States.

She believes that teens should not be taught about contraception

She isn't for "explicit" sex education programs, but she is for teaching about contraception and abstinence.

and thought is was a good idea to have her fifth child at the age of 44 (when the odds of giving birth to a child with Down Syndrome rises drastically to 1 in 30).

She likely became pregnant and did not want to abort it; remember, to a strict pro-life person, aborting even an embryo is the equivalent of murder.

She fires city officials as a loyalty test

Not sure what you mean here...?

and refuses to participate in an investigation that was unanimously agreed upon by a Republican majority legislature.

...that hates her for how she went against the party there.

She thinks we can drill our way out of the energy problem

No she doesn't, in her speech at the RNC she mentioned that the American people understand drilling isn't going to solve all our energy problems.

and her most developed thoughts on Iraq seem to be that we should pray that we're doing the right thing there.

She has said that essentially that we need to stay the course to win there.

Even if we grant that, where does that leave Palin. With zero thoughts on matters not related to Alaska?

She seems to have a working knowledge of energy issues and understands the importance of Iraq right now.

Sorry about the post number error. It was post #37 in the other Palin thread (Palin pick an insult...).

Will read it.

 

[Evo]

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. States who do not want the effects of a minimum wage would be free; if states find that they do not like the federal minimum wage being rescinded and think a minimum wage or minimum wage increase is needed, they can implement one.

Link to the studies that back this up.

You have been spewing a lot af "facts" without any backing. Do not post again until you link to mainstream studies that back you up.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Link to the studies that back this up.

You have been spewing a lot af "facts" without any backing. Do not post again until you link to mainstream studies that back you up.

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.

 

[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.