I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want. => Topic started by: boxman55 on May 10, 2008, 07:19:00 PM
-
A Black Columnist on Obama
Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun
It's an amazing time to be alive in America . We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the front-runner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential front-runner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial 'beauty.'
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on 'the rich.' How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, 'All praise and glory to God!' but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have 'hijacked' - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of 'bringing America together' means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.
It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilization war.
-
Ken Blackwell--- don't even need to comment.
-
what are you saying paris, that what he is saying is not true?
-
He's highly partisan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Blackwell
He's married into the Bush world view
-
He's certainly been the subject of much controversy and also of a number of lawsuits. It's always a bit amusing to me, as a Canadian, how dirty a word "liberal" seems to be south of our border while much of Europe seems not to struggle with it at all.
-
He's certainly been the subject of much controversy and also of a number of lawsuits. It's always a bit amusing to me, as a Canadian, how dirty a word "liberal" seems to be south of our border while much of Europe seems not to struggle with it at all.
Nice photo Monrein.
Ok back on topic.
-
but is what he says true?
-
He's highly partisan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Blackwell
He's married into the Bush world view
It doesnt matter if he is partisan because much of what he says is factual, not opinion.
Partisan only matters when it is about opinion.
-
Simply because Senator Obama's opinions are not what you consider to be "middle America" opinions, does not mean that they are wrong or in any way not valid.
-
they are not wrong in his mind, David but they are really to far to the left for at least me. Along with the fact that he is very inexperienced with very little history of being for or against anything based on his voting record...Boxman
-
our health care system is the strongest in the world.
By what measure? We don't have the best outcomes. We are the least economically efficient.
Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on 'the rich.'
He promises to reverse the Bush tax cuts which in a time of war were not asked for by those who benefited. Obama will take us back to the '90s level of taxation.
Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have 'hijacked' - hijacked - Christianity
Christian leaders have equated support of the Republican party with religiosity yet a majority of Catholics self identify as Democrats a change since 2004
These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.
Public opinion on the Supreme Court which shows that a plurality of people like the Court fine as is, but the number of people who think it's too conservative is substantially larger than the number of people who think it's too liberal.
http://www.pollingreport.com/Court.htm
Socialize medicine
Show me where Obama has said that the state should control the means of production or nationalize healthcare delivery - i.e. buyout or take over DaVita
Obama's fifty state voting drive is more than a voting drive: "On election day, Obama might have more than a million individuals volunteering on his behalf. That should scare the beejeesus out of the McCain campaign and the RNC." http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/pay_to_attention_to_obamas_vot.php
McCAin's base right now according to polls is among seniors who are largely saying they'll vote for him but there's no telling how many McCainiac seniors will be swayed by the Obama campaign pointing out that McCain has spent years waging war on Social Security and Medicare and basically thinks everyone should get on the "marry a wealthy heiress" retirement plan, but it's going to be more than zero people. Seniors have already heard a good deal of the sort of culture war attacks on Obama that are likely to be the biggest thing driving them toward McCain, but they've heard essentially nothing of the retirement policy attacks on McCain that are likely to be the biggest thing driving them toward Obama. Consequently, Obama's senior deficit is very big. But he's winning anyway, and though he'll probably never close the senior gap he'll almost certainly narrow it.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/04-week/
These foreign policy complaints seem to be saying that we should continue the disastrous policy of the last seven years of not talking to any state we have are opposed to - this policy can’t end soon enough. US foreign policy is in tatters and it will be a big job to try to fix - one thing that will be helpful will be dialog.
-
Why has he missed so many votes when he can email or text message them to congress.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/
-
he plans to raise taxes on everyone and everything not just the rich who pay most of the tax anyway. All the people who are considered lower middle or poor don't pay in anyway they just get. We also all know that raising taxes doesn't create growth for anything. Lowering them does. Proven fact...Boxman
Supreme court poll is a joke. You can skew any poll anyway
But Christian's still hold to their core beliefs
He has no foreign policy (at least I have not heard any) except his stand on Israel which he said he would not protect if Iran attacks
-
Bill, you are correct. Many columnists are out to present a one-sided viewpoint or to advance their own viewpoint for whatever reason. We, as informed citizens need to look at the candidates' positions from alternate sources in order to avoid having the information given to us through someone else's biased filter. Although it is sometimes difficult to obtain unbiased information, we should make a good faith effort to do so in order to be able to form our own opinions.
-
My point is David, what are his positions? I don't hear anything but his mantra "change" what the heck does that mean. Can you tell me?...Boxman
-
He has pages and pages of position papers and white papers and legislation he has authored, speech after speech on policy topics. If you haven't seen them you haven't looked - start with his own web site
-
He has pages and pages of position papers and white papers and legislation he has authored, speech after speech on policy topics. If you haven't seen them you haven't looked - start with his own web site
Thanks, Bill! I was just about to post this same advice! It is a good place to start, and the same can be said of the rest of the candidates for President. Don't simply accept as gospel what some columnist chooses to print. Do some research of your own, and you just may be surprised by what your find.
-
My point is David, what are his positions? I don't hear anything but his mantra "change" what the heck does that mean. Can you tell me?...Boxman
Seek ye and learn.
8)
-
Why has he missed so many votes when he can email or text message them to congress.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/
You must be physically present to vote. Where's this idea of emailing votes coming from?
-
Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on 'the rich.'
He promises to reverse the Bush tax cuts which in a time of war were not asked for by those who benefited. Obama will take us back to the '90s level of taxation.
Hmm the Bush tax cuts benefited everyone and in fact resulted in the rich actually have more of the burden in taxes paid.
Taxes under CLINTON 1999 Taxes under BUSH 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
So in effect Obama would like to nearly double the tax on some.
Also it should be noted that AFTER these tax cuts the US government took in more revenue in taxes because of the corresponding growth rate caused by these tax cuts than it has at anytime in its history. It is well noted that revenue coming into the federal government during Clintons terms was declining because these high taxes.
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue%20growth.jpg
-
Studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Administration itself show that tax cuts do not come anywhere close to paying for themselves over the long term. CBO and Joint Tax Committee studies find that, if financed by government borrowing, tax cuts are more likely to harm than to help the economy over the long run, and consequently would cost more than conventional estimates indicate, rather than less. Moreover, in its recent “dynamic analysis” of the impact of making the President’s tax cuts permanent, the Treasury Department reported that even under favorable assumptions, extending the tax cuts would have only a small effect on economic output. That small positive economic impact would offset no more than 10 percent of the tax cuts’ cost.
http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm
Raw revenue numbers don't tell the story - you have to look at where we are in the business cycle for one.
-
During Clintons terms the revenue was falling.
Its very clear after the tax cuts that revenue reached its highest level ever.
Also I doubt you will find anyone who will say they would like to give up the several thousand dollars they have got to keep and spend on their families for things they need and want and return to the time of paying it to the government.
-
I voted for a president that said "read my lips, no new taxes"----- and what happened?? Oh yeah, new taxes.
-
...It's always a bit amusing to me, as a Canadian, how dirty a word "liberal" seems to be south of our border while much of Europe seems not to struggle with it at all.
Not to all of us, Monrein. I kind of liked the statement that he's the next George McGovern. In 1972, I was marginally too young to vote, but plenty old enough to participate in his campaign. George McGovern has very recently endorsed Barack Obama for president. Regarding his mantra of "change", as a very general comment I favor him because he is the most different from who we have now. One of the more significant things a president can do is to set the mood of the government and the country. The current mood accepts invasions of sovereign nations, allows certain prisoners to be held without due process, turns a blind eye to torture, and accepts our privacy being legislated away. We have a problem with this when we see it in other countries, why is it okay here?
It is not okay. Monrein, I am more than happy to be called liberal. And, it is time for a change.
Alene
-
Sorry but I have no use for sovereign nations who advocate terrorist attacks on the United States. If Bin Laden had been a Nazi, he would have been caught and punished a long time ago. Terrorism is a current and imminent danger and i don't agree with the "turn the other cheek" philosophy.
-
Come on Bigsky in constant dollars 2000 saw higher tax receipts http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
In constant dollars 2005 tax receipts were at 1999 levels
I'm fine with Obama taking us back to 1999/2000
-
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election.
Even Fred Barnes the King of the Bush Pollyannas thinks the Republicans generally and McCain particularly are facing long odds. When you consider that McCain has faced very little criticisms from his left - its been almost all generated from his right during the prolonged Dem primary - this contention alone calls into question the judgment of the author quoted in the original post.
Read Fred's musings here http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/096pstor.asp?pg=1
-
Come on Bigsky in constant dollars 2000 saw higher tax receipts http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
In constant dollars 2005 tax receipts were at 1999 levels
I'm fine with Obama taking us back to 1999/2000
:rofl;
Hmm but yet with those tax polices in affect the revenue dropped the next year and continued to drop because of Clintons tax policies that were in affect. Hmm yet when Bush leaves office and if his tax policies are left in place the government revenue will hit even higher historic levels. Not drop in the sh*tter like Clintons policies caused to happen.
ALso in your constant terms tax receipts were higher than in 1999.
Also our GDP purchasing power in 1999 was only $33,900, In 2005 it was 42,000
-
I would love for someone to convince me to vote for someone by giving me all the facts about their candidate instead of putting down the opposition. I will gladly listen and learn. But, by putting someone else down or telling me I just don't know, doesn't convince me to vote for the other candidate. If all we do is "sling mud", how can we expect our candidates to run positive campaigns? Just my :twocents;
-
Come on Bigsky in constant dollars 2000 saw higher tax receipts http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
In constant dollars 2005 tax receipts were at 1999 levels
I'm fine with Obama taking us back to 1999/2000
:rofl;
Hmm but yet with those tax polices in affect the revenue dropped the next year and continued to drop because of Clintons tax policies that were in affect. Hmm yet when Bush leaves office and if his tax policies are left in place the government revenue will hit even higher historic levels. Not drop in the sh*tter like Clintons policies caused to happen.
ALso in your constant terms tax receipts were higher than in 1999.
Also our GDP purchasing power in 1999 was only $33,900, In 2005 it was 42,000
What a concept GDP growth happens. Think about where we'd be if growth durning the Bush administration equaled the growth during the Clinton administration.
http://au.biz.yahoo.com/080512/2/1qlzn.html
We'll be paying of the profligate policies of the last 7 years for a long time but there is no alternative.
It's easy to get lost in all the zeros so consider if we vastly simplify the situation and imagine we're talking about a $100 economy and a 19% tax rate.
Easy to see $19 will be paid in taxes leaving $81 for "the people" (also understand we're talking constant dollars - while there is inflation year to year these dollars are adjusted to be the same value year to year). Now suppose GDP grows 3% and we decide to increase taxes to 20%.
Our economy is worth $103 (3% growth) and we'll pay $20.15 in taxes, leaving $82.85 for the people.
Basically taxes can increase at the per capita rate of GDP growth without decreasing individual wealth. This idea of never being willing to pay a dime more in nominal dollars (dollars unadjusted for inflation) is wrong headed and with our current fiscal deficits we have to set our financial house on a solid footing. Well crafted taxes coexist with a growing economy very nicely - see the period '93 to '00. What this country needs to do is return to a period of tight labor markets and federal debt reduction.
-
Well crafted taxes coexist with a growing economy very nicely - see the period '93 to '00. What this country needs to do is return to a period of tight labor markets and federal debt reduction.
Please dont tell me you are trying to claim federal debt reduction under clinton. :rofl;
-
I comparing the performance under Clinton to the preformance under Bush.
-
*just a side note to all who believe 'polls'-- I work for a market research firm......polls are highly manipulative, often by the insistence of the person or organization that orders them. You can literally change peoples minds while giving a poll- I have seen it happen too many times. MOST polls are disgustingly biased, and most people with any intelligence get pissed and hang up in the middle when they realize it. That being said, there are many dumb people out there who, when fed the words correctly will spit them back out as their own 'opinion' .
-
There are polls that matter - when we vote. Democrat Travis Childers winning his special Congressional election last night in an extremely Republican Mississippi district on the heels of two other Democratic special election wins shows just how degraded the Republican brand has become. Five months is a long time in politics but from the viiew point of May 2008 it does look like there will be a political earthquake in November.