Questioning Obama's Critics: Why the Dislike?

[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?

 

[stewartcs]

Hahahah! Same opportunities. Oh, please.

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

This comment is nonsensical...it has no basis what so ever.

Society never let me get anywhere...I got where I am on my own.

CS

 

[turbo]

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

There are some very smart people who are making money, and there are some absolute dim-wits that are making money because their family connections or insider status has allowed them to game the system. Does anyone here think that if George W Bush had been born to a middle-class family, he would have clawed his way through the ranks to become a millionaire, and eventually the President? Show of hands, please. No? Didn't think so.

The point Buffett and others are making is that the people who are reaping huge financial rewards from our system have a duty to pay their fair share for the maintenance of that system. As long as taxes aren't levied unfairly, there is no inherent bias against the wealthy - they are simply asked to pay their fair share. The activities of our government (including the lobbyist-heavy pork-barrels) are overwhelming skewed to represent the interests of the wealthy and the powerful, so why should a receptionist or a cleaning lady have to pay a disproportionate tax on their income while the wealthy get tax shelters and loopholes?

 

[rootX]

Society never let me get anywhere...I got where I am on my own.
CS

Absolutely wrong!

 

[stewartcs]

There are some very smart people who are making money, and there are some absolute dim-wits that are making money because their family connections or insider status has allowed them to game the system. Does anyone here think that if George W Bush had been born to a middle-class family, he would have clawed his way through the ranks to become a millionaire, and eventually the President? Show of hands, please. No? Didn't think so.

The point Buffett and others are making is that the people who are reaping huge financial rewards from our system have a duty to pay their fair share for the maintenance of that system. As long as taxes aren't levied unfairly, there is no inherent bias against the wealthy - they are simply asked to pay their fair share. The activities of our government (including the lobbyist-heavy pork-barrels) are overwhelming skewed to represent the interests of the wealthy and the powerful, so why should a receptionist or a cleaning lady have to pay a disproportionate tax on their income while the wealthy get tax shelters and loopholes?

Their "fair share" should be the same percentage as everyone else’s - not more. Otherwise, it is disproportionate. If a very small handful of people have abused the system or done something illegal to gain an unfair advantage such that they have gained financially, then there should be another recourse to punish them - like the criminal justice system...not the tax code.

CS

 

[WarPhalange]

This comment is nonsensical...it has no basis what so ever.

Society never let me get anywhere...I got where I am on my own.

CS

You had public schooling, you had public roads, you had firefighters and you had police officers. You had standards for food and water, and standards for medicine.

Did you take out any federal student loans for school?


If your neighbor is a janitor, he does a very important job by cleaning. If there were no janitors, your job would be a lot harder and so would everybody else's. But go ahead and say that he's lazy and unambitious for trying to do his part.

 

[stewartcs]

Absolutely wrong!

Please elaborate since you apparently know my life better than I.

CS

 

[Astronuc]

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

Because the more money one has, the more resources one uses, and that naturally means less resources for others.

Steve Forbes and others have proposed a flat tax for everyone, i.e. everyone pays 15% or so. But is that fair. Is it fair for someone making $10,000 per year to pay $1500 in taxes, as compared to someone who makes $1,000,000 and pays $15,000 in taxes. Well if they both want to buy the same $20,000 car - the poor guy cannot afford, but the rich guy can pay cash.

What about health care. Something like cancer treatment or organ replacement might cost $30,000 to $100,000. The rich guy can afford to pay cash, but the poor guy cannot. The rich guy can afford a nice insurance policy at $1000/mo, but the poor guy cannot.

How does the economy ensure that all meet a certain standard of living, or should it?

Should we just provides goods and services based on the ability to pay?

Should we fix the expenditures on health care and do a lottery system, e.g. limit the number of treatments available and then allow patients who need that treatment to draw from a lottery?

Or should the economy (society) simply eliminate the bottom 5, 10, 20% of the population because the other 95%, 90%, 80% decide they don't want to support them?

 

[WarPhalange]

Their "fair share" should be the same percentage as everyone else’s - not more. Otherwise, it is disproportionate. If a very small handful of people have abused the system or done something illegal to gain an unfair advantage such that they have gained financially, then there should be another recourse to punish them - like the criminal justice system...not the tax code.

CS

Yeah, "something illegal". The point is that the system is wishy washy enough that you can never prove something illegal took place or that despicable practices are still legal.

Moreover, a hard tax percentage is down right stupid.

5% of $200 per week is NOT the same as 5% of $2000 per week. Bread costs the same no matter how much or little you make.

For someone making $200/week, $20 is the difference between a meal or starving that day. For someone making $2000/week, $200 is nowhere near crucial. So to say it's "fair" to have both parties pay 5% tax is ludicrous.

 

[stewartcs]

You had public schooling, you had public roads, you had firefighters and you had police officers. You had standards for food and water, and standards for medicine.

All of which could have been provided for with an equal tax burden...so what's your point?

Did you take out any federal student loans for school?

No.

If your neighbor is a janitor, he does a very important job by cleaning. If there were no janitors, your job would be a lot harder and so would everybody else's. But go ahead and say that he's lazy and unambitious for trying to do his part.

Said the man with no initiative.

BTW I used to clean toilets and pick up trash as one of the many jobs I had while paying my way through school.

CS

 

[Astronuc]

BTW I used to clean toilets and pick up trash as one of the many jobs I had while paying my way through school.

CS

Me too. I had a night job as a janitor, and during the day I washed dishes (lunch and dinner, and breakfast on weekends) in the food service at the university. The food service job got my room and board paid, and the janitorial job paid the tuition and books. I also worked part-time as an assistant plumber.

I didn't take loans because I didn't want to go into debt before I had a permanent job.

Later years, I found better paying construction jobs, so I could work summer and earn enough to pay for school and rent an apartment.

My parents couldn't afford to pay for my university, partly because I had younger siblings. But I was able to earn enough to help my parents support my siblings when they went to school - and I was glad to help.