Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[WhoWee]

How many statements do you make per day? How many of them are, in any way, a lie?

So then, are you untrustworthy?

One thing I noticed on the snopes article is that if you read on further a lot of those things that rate as "LIAR" in the e-mail, later rate as "True" or "Not False."

Not sure what you were saying by picking up this article, maybe you need to clarify, which brings me to my next point:



I haven't heard all that many statements from him that really need all that much clarification, but then again, when you are talking to 300+ million people, not every single person is going to understand the same exact phrase the same exact way every single time you say it.

To say that if a person's words need clarification he is not trustworthy or not truthful is really just saying that nobody can be trusted because nobody is perfect or can perfectly convey everything they say.

I'm sure you have been misunderstood more than once in your life (and you weren't even talking to 300 million people), so, should we all then say that you are untrustworthy? I don't think so.

This is one of my favorites:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-claims-america-one-largest-muslim-countries/

"Obama claims America is one of the largest Muslim countries"

Their explanation of the "Pants on Fire" rating:
"So Obama is trying to make a point that the United States is in touch with the Muslim world because it has a substantial Muslim population. But he dramatically overreaches by saying the United States would be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. Ranking 58 out of the world's 60 most populous Muslim nations does not a large Muslim country make. Indeed, by even the most generous estimate we found of 8 million, the United States still ranks 29 out of 60. As a result, we give Obama a Pants on Fire."

 

[russ_watters]

When I think of Obama (but please correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not a US citizen), I think of someone that

1) has a desire to, and is not afraid of, taking on difficult and potentially controversial issues.

2) is competent and honest (compared to other candidates).

First, I'd like to speak in absolute terms, not in comparison to other candidates: there are just too many and it is too difficult to resonably lump them all together. With that out of the way...

I think the answer to all three of those (and they really are three, not two) depends on the issue and to me that says that he is primarily a politician and not a leader. But they are inter-related. You just saw examples of each of those in the last page, but to rehash a little:

Yes, he takes on difficult and controversial ones. He also punts on some. Yucca mountain is an example. During the campaign, I believed he was shutting it down because he is anti-nuclear and thus incompetent. Now it appears to me that he shut it down for the political capital and is thus dishonest. So that's an example of him failing on two of three counts.

Next example, unemployment. He displayed spectacular incompetence in gauging the trajectory of the economy as soon as he entered office, with his now infamous pledge to keep unemployment under 8%.

Third, 'Gitmo. I had assumed that this was a throw-away campaign promise that he'd discard as soon as he entered office, making him dishonest. Instead, he actually signed an executive order to close the prison, making him honest, but woefully naive and incompetent. Frankly, I was shocked during the campaign at how naive Obama supporters were on this issue. It was pretty obviously an impossible promise to keep...in addition to being undesirable.

Fourth, openness and not being political (cracking down on earmarks, making healthcare hearings public, not allowing lobbyists in his administration, etc. I don't know if he purposely broke this promise or not, so I don't know if that's incompetence or dishonesty.

These two things together are already very hard to find in todays politicians in many countries, since they seem to become more populistic every year and thus super afraid of dealing with difficult long term issues.

You mean like the national debt? He's basically said we're screwed and he's not even going to try to fix it (Bobg had a nice summary of that issue for those who missed it).

...but from what I can tell from these forums this view does not seem to be shared in the US, so I'm interested in knowing what exactly you perceive the main issue to be.

Not sure how you got that impression - this forum is pretty heavily liberal. It may just be that the liberals are staying out of this thread because there isn't much positive to be said in it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

First, I'd like to speak in absolute terms, not in comparison to other candidates: there are just too many and it is too difficult to resonably lump them all together. With that out of the way...

So you spoke in absolute terms but never followed up with comparisons. So you didn't really intend to make any comparisons.

Yes, he takes on difficult and controversial ones. He also punts on some. Yucca mountain is an example. During the campaign, I believed he was shutting it down because he is anti-nuclear and thus incompetent. Now it appears to me that he shut it down for the political capital and is thus dishonest. So that's an example of him failing on two of three counts.

According to this:

Foremost is the challenge of winning public support. "Any way you look at it, this is a social confidence problem that needs to be addressed," says Charles Powers, a professor of environmental engineering at Vanderbilt University. Advanced technology, government funding, and political backing all will help, he says, but nothing is more important than fostering local support.

As Powers acknowledges, that's easier said than done. Take Yucca Mountain. When Congress picked Yucca in 1987, it did so without the blessing of the state, which quickly sued to stop the project. (It lost.) Ever since, Nevada officials, led by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have aggressively opposed storing waste at Yucca. Some argue the site is geologically inadequate. Others warn of falloffs in Las Vegas tourism. And in general, observers say, there's a mentality of victimhood—a sense that the federal government forced this upon the state.

http://www.usnews.com/news/energy/a...e-yucca-mountain-nuclear-waste-storage-debate

The survey of 600 likely Nevada voters conducted for the Reno Gazette-Journal found that 76 percent oppose the project and 57 percent say the issue will be important in making their choice for president

http://www.lvrj.com/news/11882701.html

So it seems your view is that Obama is dishonest if he doesn't force this on a State that doesn't want it. So then I assume your position is that Fed should ignore the will of the people; that your definition of a leader is "one who ignores the democratic process".

Next example, unemployment. He displayed spectacular incompetence in gauging the trajectory of the economy as soon as he entered office, with his now infamous pledge to keep unemployment under 8%.

After eight years of Republican control, given that Republican policies caused the crash, and after McCain denied the economy was melting down while it was melting down, which probably cost him the election, you blame Obama for not accurately predicting the depth scope of the Republican disaster? That is laughable.

Third, 'Gitmo. I had assumed that this was a throw-away campaign promise that he'd discard as soon as he entered office, making him dishonest. Instead, he actually signed an executive order to close the prison, making him honest, but woefully naive and incompetent. Frankly, I was shocked during the campaign at how naive Obama supporters were on this issue. It was pretty obviously an impossible promise to keep...in addition to being undesirable.

It was obviously impossible when faced with Republican opposition at every turn.

Fourth, openness and not being political (cracking down on earmarks, making healthcare hearings public, not allowing lobbyists in his administration, etc. I don't know if he purposely broke this promise or not, so I don't know if that's incompetence or dishonesty.

He isn't done yet. Did he promise when it would get done?

You mean like the national debt? He's basically said we're screwed and he's not even going to try to fix it

He says no such thing. That is a blatent lie.

Not sure how you got that impression - this forum is pretty heavily liberal. It may just be that the liberals are staying out of this thread because there isn't much positive to be said in it.

Heavily liberal? I would like to see evidence of that! As for there not being much positive to say, that is only true if the facts are misrepresented, as you have done here.

Here are some positive comments about Obama. The only objection was made without any point at all.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=457172

 

[WhoWee]

Heavily liberal? I would like to see evidence of that!

Perhaps he should have said "Progressive"?

 

[turbo]

Perhaps he should have said "Progressive"?

There are people who are humanitarians, and who are fiscally conservative. You cannot determine who they are by crude idealogical guidelines.

If you insist that people suck up to Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh in order not to be labeled "liberal", then perhaps you are a bit extreme in your political views. If that is the case, then are "liberals" infecting your world, or are you projecting a perverse world-view on your fellow forum-members?

 

[WhoWee]

There are people who are humanitarians, and who are fiscally conservative. You cannot determine who they are by crude idealogical guidelines.

If you insist that people suck up to Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh in order not to labeled "liberal", then perhaps you are a bit extreme in your political views.

When did I ever insist that anyone "suck up" to anyone? This thread is about President Obama's strategy for re-election in 2012. IMO - the President adheres to a liberal agenda and he has a great deal of support on the PF.

 

[turbo]

When did I ever insist that anyone "suck up" to anyone? This thread is about President Obama's strategy for re-election in 2012. IMO - the President adheres to a liberal agenda and he has a great deal of support on the PF.

He also has 60% support in the US public.

 

[russ_watters]

So you spoke in absolute terms but never followed up with comparisons. So you didn't really intend to make any comparisons.

Huh? Maybe you need to reread that...

So it seems your view is that Obama is dishonest if he doesn't force this on a State that doesn't want it. So then I assume your position is that Fed should ignore the will of the people;

No, it's dishonest if he misrepresents his reasons for doing it and dishonest if he commissions a study, then orders them not to consider Yucca.

Making that decision for political reasons just makes him more interested in playing politics than doing the right thing.

And by the way, Nevada is one state and it is undemocratic to favor them over the rest of the country just because they have a powerful Senator.

...that your definition of a leader is "one who ignores the democratic process".

You do understand that this is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, right? In a day and age when we could easily have a direct democracy if we wanted, the main reason to have a direct democracy is exactly that: to make tough decisions even if they are unpopular. Motivating people to accept something they need but don't want is the key trait of a leader:

A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don’t necessarily want to go, but ought to be.
~Rosalynn Carter

After eight years of Republican control, given that Republican policies caused the crash...

That's not a given. There is a shared responsibility, especiallly considering that Clinton signed some of the major enabling legislation without blinking.

...after McCain denied the economy was melting down while it was melting down, which probably cost him the election, you blame Obama for not accurately predicting the depth scope of the Republican disaster? That is laughable.

No, Ivan, it's realism. Neither Bush nor McCain are running for President next year, so Obama is going to have a difficult time running against them. He's going to have to run on his record and his record is that he badly underestimated the unemployment situation, tried to fix it and failed, and in so doing massively drove up the debt, and has since basically decided not to attempt to fix that. He's going to have trouble blaming McCain or Bush for all that.

It was obviously impossible when faced with Republican opposition at every turn.

Wow, still? Obama is CINC. He can move troops or prisoners with a word or a stroke of a pen (which is why he signed an executive order instead of writing a bill). The problem on this issue wasn't Republican opposition, it was conservation of mass. You can't just make prisoners disappear. I really thought even the die-hards would have realized by now that he was trying to do something that was physically impossible.

And by the way, I suppose you also forgot that Obama did at times have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

He isn't done yet. Did he promise when it would get done?

Huh? The healthcare hearings already happened and he declined to open them even after promising he would. This issue is over and done. Maybe you misread...

He says no such thing. That is a blatent lie.

Here's bobg's post: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3271041&postcount=30 If you haven't read it, you should - it's a classic.

Heavily liberal? I would like to see evidence of that!

Read any poll we've ever had on the subject! And that's not even including the fact that some of our hardest liberals will claim up and down to be "independent"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If you insist that people suck up to Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh in order not to be labeled "liberal", then perhaps you are a bit extreme in your political views. If that is the case, then are "liberals" infecting your world, or are you projecting a perverse world-view on your fellow forum-members?

That would be my guess.

I have been labeled here as a liberal when in fact I was voting for Republicans when one particular member was just a twinkle in his mother's eye. I was collecting signatures to get Perot on the ticket when that same member was about ten. My wife and I almost split because she was strongly liberal and I was strongly conservative. That I have been labeled as a liberal over the years here shows just how screwed up the perspective from the extreme right has become.

I do think that at this time we needed some liberal solutions because the Republican platform has utterly failed. But that doesn't make me fundamentally liberal. That distinction apparently exceeds the intellectual grasp of many people.

 

[russ_watters]

He also has 60% support in the US public.

It jumped 10%+ after the killing of Bin Laden. That'll pass.

 

[russ_watters]

I have been labeled here as a liberal when in fact I was voting for Republicans when one particular member was just a twinkle in his mother's eye.

And was that also the last time you voted for a Republican for President? Yeah, Ivan, I get that you were conservative.

I do think that at this time we needed some liberal solutions...

We know.

But that doesn't make me fundamentally liberal.

A temporary liberal is still a liberal. I'm curious about how long it takes for temporary to become permanent.

 

[turbo]

That would be my guess.

I have been labeled here as a liberal when in fact I was voting for Republicans when one particular member was just a twinkle in his mother's eye. I was collecting signatures to get Perot on the ticket when that same member was about ten. My wife and I almost split because she was strongly liberal and I was strongly conservative. That I have been labeled as a liberal over the years here shows just how screwed up the perspective from the extreme right has become.

I do think that at this time we needed some liberal solutions because the Republican platform has utterly failed. But that doesn't make me fundamentally liberal. That distinction apparently exceeds the intellectual grasp of many people.

I was canvassing for Goldwater when I was far too young to vote. Didn't matter - I was distributing bumper stickers and lawn-signs, much to the dismay of my father who was an FDR democrat.

Now, we have self-proclaimed "conservatives" that seem intent to drive the US into financial ruin on the basis of a failed ideology. Nice plan. Impoverish the poor and the middle class so that the wealthy can prosper. That will be good for the country in the long term, like aids-infected guys should always be able to have unprotected sex with their partners.

 

[WhoWee]

I was canvassing for Goldwater when I was far too young to vote. Didn't matter - I was distributing bumper stickers and lawn-signs, much to the dismay of my father who was an FDR democrat.

Now, we have self-proclaimed "conservatives" that seem intent to drive the US into financial ruin on the basis of a failed ideology. Nice plan. Impoverish the poor and the middle class so that the wealthy can prosper. That will be good for the country in the long term, like aids-infected guys should always be able to have unprotected sex with their partners.

How does one respond to such a post?

 

[turbo]

How does one respond to such a post?

With some realistic response, possibly?

 

[WhoWee]

With some realistic response, possibly?

You're talking about aids-infected guys having sex and I need to have a realistic response?

Let's get back on topic - President Obama's failing policies and his re-election campaign responses (60% approval noted).

 

[Al68]

I was canvassing for Goldwater when I was far too young to vote. Didn't matter - I was distributing bumper stickers and lawn-signs, much to the dismay of my father who was an FDR democrat.

Now, we have self-proclaimed "conservatives" that seem intent to drive the US into financial ruin on the basis of a failed ideology. Nice plan. Impoverish the poor and the middle class so that the wealthy can prosper.

Now that's a good one. You first say you supported Goldwater, now you're spewing the exact same fraudulent nonsense about conservatives that Democrats said about Goldwater, and for the exact same economically libertarian ideology you absurdly claim as "failed".

Seriously, who is your target audience on PF for this nonsense? Whoever it is should feel pretty insulted. It sounds like you're trying to indoctrinate mentally impaired children into a Marxist cult.

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/13/ron-paul-officially-announces-2012-presidential-bid/

 

[Ryumast3r]

And was that also the last time you voted for a Republican for President? Yeah, Ivan, I get that you were conservative.
We know. A temporary liberal is still a liberal. I'm curious about how long it takes for temporary to become permanent.

Wow... A lot of misconceptions in this post.

Simply because you vote for someone who's a Democrat does NOT make you a Liberal. There are many right-of-center Democrats.

Also, depending on which area you live in, the definition of Democrat vs. Republican changes.

Case-in-point: A Democrat in Utah is most certainly NOT a Democrat in California, and, in fact, a Republican in California is more like a Democrat in Utah.

Third thing: The Republican party, in recent years, has gotten more and more conservative. What does this mean? It means that people who used to vote Republican might no longer vote Republican simply because the party has literally moved out from under their feet. Twenty years ago the Republican party was supporting things like Universal Healthcare - the very things they now find themselves most against. They also actually were trying to pass a bill making it so that Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for President - even though now the Birther issue is being spread by those on the right side of the aisle (read: Republican).

People - and parties - change.

 

[WhoWee]

Wow... A lot of misconceptions in this post.

Simply because you vote for someone who's a Democrat does NOT make you a Liberal. There are many right-of-center Democrats.

Also, depending on which area you live in, the definition of Democrat vs. Republican changes.

Case-in-point: A Democrat in Utah is most certainly NOT a Democrat in California, and, in fact, a Republican in California is more like a Democrat in Utah.

Third thing: The Republican party, in recent years, has gotten more and more conservative. What does this mean? It means that people who used to vote Republican might no longer vote Republican simply because the party has literally moved out from under their feet. Twenty years ago the Republican party was supporting things like Universal Healthcare - the very things they now find themselves most against. They also actually were trying to pass a bill making it so that Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for President - even though now the Birther issue is being spread by those on the right side of the aisle (read: Republican).

People - and parties - change.

IMO - it might prove helpful if you read some of the thousands of political posts by the other PF members posting on this page before attempting to reach a specific conclusion?

 

[lisab]

IMO - it might prove helpful if you read some of the thousands of political posts by the other PF members posting on this page before attempting to reach a specific conclusion?

What's wrong with the conclusion that people and parties change?

 

[turbo]

What's wrong with the conclusion that people and parties change?

It seems to be a given on this board that someone who espouses common-sense policies (like universal health coverage or a single-payer insurance system to rein in the explosion in health-care costs) can NEVER have supported any Republican candidates ever. When I say that I canvassed for Goldwater and supported Reagan's candidacy (first-term), I am telling it just as it is. I should PM them my father's phone number, so he can explain how incredibly ticked he was that I was supporting Republican candidates, but he's in his mid-80's and doesn't need the aggravation. He's still not happy with me for voting split-tickets for decades, so we rarely discuss politics anymore. He can tick off the D's on his ballot, and I'll vote for the best candidates, IMO, and that's not worth the argument.

BTW, the very last time I was registered as a member of either party was in '88, and I registered as a Democrat so I could participate in the Dem caucuses. I wanted to try to keep Dukakis off the ticket and get Gephardt on, since he was a good supporter of organized labor. Didn't work.

Now, how long before some right-winger calls me a lying Marxist? That's the level of political discourse that is tolerated on these forums, and it's a shame.

 

[WhoWee]

It seems to be a given on this board that someone who espouses common-sense policies (like universal health coverage or a single-payer insurance system to rein in the explosion in health-care costs) can NEVER have supported any Republican candidates ever. When I say that I canvassed for Goldwater and supported Reagan's candidacy (first-term), I am telling it just as it is. I should PM them my father's phone number, so he can explain how incredibly ticked he was that I was supporting Republican candidates, but he's in his mid-80's and doesn't need the aggravation. He's still not happy with me for voting split-tickets for decades, so we rarely discuss politics anymore. He can tick off the D's on his ballot, and I'll vote for the best candidates, IMO, and that's not worth the argument.

BTW, the very last time I was registered as a member of either party was in '88, and I registered as a Democrat so I could participate in the Dem caucuses. I wanted to try to keep Dukakis off the ticket and get Gephardt on, since he was a good supporter of organized labor. Didn't work.

Now, how long before some right-winger calls me a lying Marxist? That's the level of political discourse that is tolerated on these forums, and it's a shame.

In an effort not to de-rail this thread - it sounds as though you'll be supporting President Obama for re-election turbo - because you favor his policies - correct?

 

[turbo]

Obama doesn't really need much of a strategy for 2012. The GOP is sowing the seeds of its own destruction by targeting Social Security and Medicare. Elderly people are very reliable voters, and they will not take kindly to any suggestion that they need to receive reduced benefits so that we can keep giving tax breaks to large energy companies, agri-giants, etc.

 

[turbo]

In an effort not to de-rail this thread - it sounds as though you'll be supporting President Obama for re-election turbo - because you favor his policies - correct?

Unless the GOP can come up with a viable candidate whose policies I can support, Obama will get my vote. It's that simple. I always vote, and I always study the candidates as thoroughly as I can. Right now, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney don't look too inviting, especially since Mitt is running as hard as he can from the mandated health coverage that he signed into law in Mass.

 

[WhoWee]

Obama doesn't really need much of a strategy for 2012. The GOP is sowing the seeds of its own destruction by targeting Social Security and Medicare. Elderly people are very reliable voters, and they will not take kindly to any suggestion that they need to receive reduced benefits so that we can keep giving tax breaks to large energy companies, agri-giants, etc.

my bold
Care to provide factual support for your assertion?

BTW - I agree that people receiving benefits don't want to hear ANY suggestion that they might have to cut back on anything. Also, you do realize that increasing taxes on business will ultimately lead to higher prices - which are passed on to consumers?

 

[turbo]

my bold
Care to provide factual support for your assertion?

Do you trust the Christian Science Monitor? I won't cite any of the dozens of stories picked up by Huffington Post, even though they come from independent news sources.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...Will-Social-Security-and-Medicare-be-affected

Politicians, after all, know that retirees are counting on Social Security and Medicare. And, oh yes, they vote.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Also, you do realize that increasing taxes on business will ultimately lead to higher prices - which are passed on to consumers?

That depends a lot on the details. If demand is relatively elastic with price then the business will end up eating the cost of the tax. If demand is relatively inelastic, then the consumers will bear a larger burden.

It is not true that the businesses will always be able to push the price on to the consumers.

 

[turbo]

That depends a lot on the details. If demand is relatively elastic with price then the business will end up eating the cost of the tax. If demand is relatively inelastic, then the consumers will bear a larger burden.

It is not true that the businesses will always be able to push the price on to the consumers.

Also, we have to recognize the fact that consumers often have choices. If prices rise because a big business loses its tax advantages, consumers may be able to shift to other suppliers or cut back. In stark contrast, tax-funded subsidies to big businesses can't be avoided by average taxpayers. They must be paid for and can't be avoided unless they are eliminated. It boggles the mind how people who call themselves conservatives can support this forced wealth-transfer, while prattling on about the joys of a free market.

 

[WhoWee]

Do you trust the Christian Science Monitor? I won't cite any of the dozens of stories picked up by Huffington Post, even though they come from independent news sources.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...Will-Social-Security-and-Medicare-be-affected

How does the Christian Science Monitor article support your assertion?

 

[WhoWee]

Also, we have to recognize the fact that consumers often have choices. If prices rise because a big business loses its tax advantages, consumers may be able to shift to other suppliers or cut back. In stark contrast, tax-funded subsidies to big businesses can't be avoided by average taxpayers. They must be paid for and can't be avoided unless they are eliminated. It boggles the mind how people who call themselves conservatives can support this forced wealth-transfer, while prattling on about the joys of a free market.

Who is "prattling on about the joys of a free market"? If taxes rise across the board to businesses - prices will ultimately increase. Government spending is not unlimited.

 

[Al68]

Unless the GOP can come up with a viable candidate whose policies I can support, Obama will get my vote.

How about a Republican candidate that advocates completely eliminating compulsory Social Security, eliminating the welfare state, drastically cutting the size of government, dramatic deregulation of businesses and the economy in general, stopping funding of the U.N., stopping federal interference into the states' internal affairs, repealing the Civil Rights Act, and basically undoing the New Deal wholesale? Sound like a good Republican candidate to you?

 

[turbo]

How does the Christian Science Monitor article support your assertion?

Do you want more?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/24/key-senate-republican-plan-slash-social-security-medicare-fabulous/

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/28/harry-reid-tells-republicans-keep-hands-social-sec/

 

[WhoWee]

Also, we have to recognize the fact that consumers often have choices. If prices rise because a big business loses its tax advantages, consumers may be able to shift to other suppliers or cut back. In stark contrast, tax-funded subsidies to big businesses can't be avoided by average taxpayers. They must be paid for and can't be avoided unless they are eliminated. It boggles the mind how people who call themselves conservatives can support this forced wealth-transfer, while prattling on about the joys of a free market.

I could be wrong, but I think GM is able to make this investment BECAUSE of a Government bailout followed by a nearly $45 Billion tax credit.

http://media.gm.com/content/media/u...t/Pages/news/us/en/2011/May/0513_flintbaycity
"GM Investing $109 Million to Keep or Add 96 Michigan Jobs"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/gm-tax-break-could-be-wor_n_778300.html
"GM Tax Break Could Be Worth $45 BILLION"

Doesn't this strategy by President Obama (to bailout GM then provide a huge tax credit) contradict your post?

 

[WhoWee]

Do you want more?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/24/key-senate-republican-plan-slash-social-security-medicare-fabulous/

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/28/harry-reid-tells-republicans-keep-hands-social-sec/

Actually, I asked how the Christian Science Monitor article supported your post - not for additional links?

 

[Al68]

Also, we have to recognize the fact that consumers often have choices. If prices rise because a big business loses its tax advantages, consumers may be able to shift to other suppliers or cut back. In stark contrast, tax-funded subsidies to big businesses can't be avoided by average taxpayers. They must be paid for and can't be avoided unless they are eliminated. It boggles the mind how people who call themselves conservatives can support this forced wealth-transfer, while prattling on about the joys of a free market.

Because conservatives are aware that Democrats are using the word "subsidy" fraudulently to refer to tax deductions for drilling expenses. They are not referring to money being collected from other taxpayers and given to oil companies. They are, as usual, fraudulently referring to a portion of a company's private sales revenue as if it were being "given" to them by government by virtue of not being confiscated. (a hallmark of Marxist propaganda, BTW).

And you would know this if you did a little research before you decided to [STRIKE]repeat their lies[/STRIKE] make such unsupported assertions.