Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 90

Thread: Support Barack Obama

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chasboots
    1. Any "middle class tax cut" is a euphemism for a tax increase on the "rich", a term which has had an arbitrary line of demarcation depending on who is using it. This is no different than re-distribution of wealth, a.k.a. socialism (a form of government the far-left liberals would love for us to have). Ronald Reagan had it right with "trickle-down economics". If you hamstring the top 10% of wage earners and corporations the added costs will filter (or trickle) down to the middle and lower classes who have to buy the goods and services these people make available. Furthermore, the increased revenue to the government will be used to fund ridiculous pet projects and entitlement programs, the latter of which they have a project track record for mismanaging.
    If this is true, why is Warren Buffett complaining the tax code is unfair because he pays a significantly lesser percentage of his overall earnings than his secretary does in taxes? Why have the rich gotten richer and the middle class and poor have gotten poorer during the Bush administration? Because under Bush the current redistribution of wealth has been from the lower and middle income wage earners to those making orders of magnitude more than they are.
    Most economists are saying that the only way to avert or mitigate the effects of a recession is consumer spending. If the middle class has the money, they are going to spend it on goods and services, increasing the velocity of money which will help buoy our sinking economy. The rich are now investing their money overseas in businesses that are siphoning jobs away from Americans or ETFs betting that the value of the dollar will go down.
    Why do you think we are in a housing crises mess? Its because bankers and hedge fund managers came up with a new scheme (sub-prime mortgages) to make themselves and their investors, who were flush with new money from the Bush tax cuts, tons of money as the teaser interest rates expired. We all know that turned out. A middle class tax cut, funded by an increase in taxes on the rich so that they pay something closer to the same percentage of their total income in taxes as that paid by the middle class, is the only way to turn our economy around.
    I hope the new president will stop printing worthless dollars and set America on a course to buy itself back from China. Unfortunately, we are probably going to have to pay a hefty premium over the fire-sale price Bush sold America for to the Chinese.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    387

    Default

    Reality Check:

    Obama has more years of elected experience than:

    1. Abraham Lincoln
    2. George Washington
    3. Dwight Eisenhower
    4. John Edwards
    5. Hillary Clinton
    6. Fred Thompson
    7. Rudy Guiliani
    8. George W. Bush when he was elected.

    JFK only had one term as a Senator at the Federal level when he was elected.

    Obama would be one of the best educated Presidents we have ever had, which means if nothing else, he is a quick study on many subjects.

    There is no other job in the world like the U.S. Presidency, and for every one except a former President, they will all be doing on the job training.

    We need someone like Obama who understands how Washington works, and yet is not beholden to his experience there. The point is, Obama's experience: his life experiences, his educational experiences, his experience providing leadership in organizing community groups in Chicago, his time as a state legislator, and his time as a U.S. Senator, all mean he has the right amount of experience to do the job, and yet not be consumed by all the Washington insiders. If he waits, as others have, he will be tainted and corrupted by Washington, and his time will have passed.
    Liberty without learning is always in peril; learning without liberty is always in vain. - JFK

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chasboots

    1. Any "middle class tax cut" is a euphemism for a tax increase on the "rich", a term which has had an arbitrary line of demarcation depending on who is using it. This is no different than re-distribution of wealth, a.k.a. socialism (a form of government the far-left liberals would love for us to have). Ronald Reagan had it right with "trickle-down economics".

    2. Whether it is universal health care of insurance coverage, the fact remains that Obama and the Democrats want the federal government involved. That's a big mistake. Just ask a Canadian or a Brit how far in advance they have to make a doctor's appointment or how much they want to come to the US for treatment. The problem with our healthcare system, which ALL of the candidates deftly avoid, is that the legal profession has done the most damage with frivolous law suits and subsequent awards. As a result, doctors, hospitals and pharceutical companies have had to increase their rates and fees to cover malpractice insurance.
    1. Socialism is not simply defined as re-distribution of wealth. Every type of economic system redistributes wealth. Although they are designed for the societal good, supporting things like public schools and universal health insurance does not make a person a socialist.

    2. We already have universal health care; no one is ever denied access to a hospital. The problem is cost, not the quality of the health care provided. The reasons the current system isn't working, is that people with no insurance wait until they absolutely have to go to the hospital, instead of seeking much less costly preventive care. As a result, the hospitals pass on the cost of the uninsured to the insured. WE ALREADY ARE PAYING for universal health care, which is why the free market is not bringing down costs. No matter how much insurance companies compete, they can't prevent the uninsured from not seeking preventive care. No matter how much hospitals compete, most people only have access to the hospital in their area, which means no competition. Besides, all hospitals need to provide minimum health care, which is still prohibitively expensive. What's the solution? Let people who already receive their health care from their employers keep their insurance, let those who can afford it on their own continue to shop around and let insurance companies compete for them, and let the government provide tax breaks, incentives, group bargaining, and assistance to insurance companies and the uninsured to get them insured and lower costs. Obviously, this is not a socialist model.

    3. Sometimes a larger tax break for the wealthy is a good thing, especially if we want to increase business investment. Sometimes a larger tax break for the middle class is a good thing, especially if we want increase consumer demand and stabilize the middle class. Since middle class wages have been stagnant for the last few years, and yet the wealthy have become even wealthier (CEO's who run a company into the ground and still walk away with hundred million dollar incomes), record profits, a great stock market, and yet the middle class is being squeezed. As a result, I believe it is appropriate at this time in our economy to shift larger tax breaks away from the wealthy to the middle class. Supply side economic strategies work sometimes, not all the time; it depends on the state of the economy. The problem with "trickle" down economics is just that, only a trickle ever makes it down to the middle class.

    In my opinion, Obama best recognizes and understands these issues.

    By the way, I support common sense, reasonable tort reform; however, I don't know what Obama's position is on this specific issue.
    Liberty without learning is always in peril; learning without liberty is always in vain. - JFK

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn
    a great stock market,
    Please tell me where I can find this great stock market. My portfolio is really taking a beating.

  5. #25

    Default Democratic and Independent Political Office in Warren County

    Iowa and New Hampshire had people calling their neighbors and friends
    to talk about the ideas of the people running for Office. Many more
    of the American States are having their residents do the same before
    the upcoming Primaries.

    New Jersey will be having a Primary in a few weeks.

    Right now there is no Public Discussion in Warren County for America.

    Right now it is not obvious that Warren County is part of the
    Democratic Process. Is "Someone" keeping our Constitutional
    Rights from us at the borders of Warren County?

    Is there an Office in Warren County for Clinton, Obama, Paul, or is it
    just the same as all of the other elections? No elections since their
    is no choice.

    Have you ever watched what goes on around the voting booths
    on an election day in Warren County?

    A very good example of the no vote, no choice, no term limit,
    "facist" style of government is Lopatcong. Lopatcong is supposed
    to elect a "new" Mayor in November. Will the no term limit, no
    election style continue in 2008?

    Will a private business and one Political Party continue to take
    what is meant for our children, ourselves, and our Senior Citizens?

    A candidate in Greenwich actually changed their Political Party
    affiliation to run for Office and win.

    If Warren County is actually not a part of an election process
    we should know now.

    It's not too late to talk to our neighbors and friends about their ideas and ours and vote responsibly in the upcoming Primary.

    A new President will not make a change in a County that has been
    "run" and is "running" by a few who serve themselves. See the
    comments on this Messge Board about the self serving in Warren
    County in 2008.

    If we are interested in any common goals paid for by our Taxdollars and provided for by non-Partisan Service of "Elected" and appointed Service Providers we need to reach out now.

    Great ideas with action sometimes start with bagels and pizza Union and
    Essex County transplants enjoy.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    387

    Default Re: Democratic and Independent Political Office in Warren Co

    Quote Originally Posted by biggeredtruck
    Right now there is no Public Discussion in Warren County for America.

    Right now it is not obvious that Warren County is part of the
    Democratic Process. Is "Someone" keeping our Constitutional
    Rights from us at the borders of Warren County?

    Is there an Office in Warren County for Clinton, Obama, Paul, or is it
    just the same as all of the other elections? No elections since their
    is no choice.
    I think this message board qualifies as a public discussion. Plus, I think people are discussing this election between friends and family members, which is how public discussions usually play themselves out. Although we probably won't see too many commercials because the NY, NJ, PA advertisement area is very expensive, but perhaps we'll see a few.

    As for the campaigns, I met with several Obama supporters who live in Warren County during an organizing meeting three weeks ago in Washington (Warren County, not D.C.). As a result, I've been phone banking to get volunteers from known Obama supporters. In the following weeks we plan on handing out flyers to registered Democrats and independents, plus putting up signs. Although Warren County is not brimming over with volunteers, there are Obama organizations (some very large) in all the counties. From my vantage point as an Obama supporter, except for Ron Paul, other campaigns have little to no organization in Warren County, or even NJ as a whole. As a result, I think Obama may get an upset here against Clinton. She is relying on the endorsements from 80% of the NJ Democratic establishment politicians; however, they've done very little in contacting actual voters.

    If anyone is interested in helping out, please PM me, or go www.BarackObama.com for further details.
    Liberty without learning is always in peril; learning without liberty is always in vain. - JFK

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn
    Reality Check:
    Obama has more years of elected experience than:
    1. Abraham Lincoln
    2. George Washington
    3. Dwight Eisenhower
    4. John Edwards
    5. Hillary Clinton
    6. Fred Thompson
    7. Rudy Guiliani
    8. George W. Bush when he was elected.
    JFK only had one term as a Senator at the Federal level when he was elected.
    Obama would be one of the best educated Presidents we have ever had, which means if nothing else, he is a quick study on many subjects.
    There is no other job in the world like the U.S. Presidency, and for every one except a former President, they will all be doing on the job training.
    We need someone like Obama who understands how Washington works, and yet is not beholden to his experience there. The point is, Obama's experience: his life experiences, his educational experiences, his experience providing leadership in organizing community groups in Chicago, his time as a state legislator, and his time as a U.S. Senator, all mean he has the right amount of experience to do the job, and yet not be consumed by all the Washington insiders. If he waits, as others have, he will be tainted and corrupted by Washington, and his time will have passed.
    The problem with your reality check is that most people are talking about his lack of proven, successful leadership experience on a major scale, not necessarily elected office.
    First, you are wrong about Lincoln. He served four terms in the Illinois House of Representatives and one term in the US House before being elected president. And, you are also wrong about John Kennedy. He had a FULL term as a senator AND two terms in the House. That's more than three times the national elected experience Obama will have when the next president takes office.
    Both George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower were very successful, high-ranking generals and their leadership skills on the battlefield were legendary.
    John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Fred Thompson all have more experience in the Senate. And, John and Hillary were both partners at their respective law firms, while Barak was only an associate attorney. Hillary also spent a few years as a Congressional legal counsel before marrying Bill and during her legal career she was recognized as one of the top 100 most influential female lawyers in America.
    Rudy Guiliani was the mayor of the largest city in the US and a very successful federal prosecutor.
    George Bush was the Governor of Texas for four years. So, while you are right about George's elected experience, he was the top dog in Texas compared to Barack's small fish in Illinois.
    Obama was a state senator for six years and only has a few years in the US Senate. When you consider his elected and leadership experience, he falls short of everyone on your list.

    I don't understand your comment about best educated. He has an undergraduate degree from Columbia (having transferred from Occidental College) and a law degree from Harvard (granted he was a the top of his class). Hillary has degrees from Wellesley and Yale Law School. John Edward's educational pedigree is a bit more pedestrian from North Carolina state schools. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. So, unless you are counting all his honorary degrees for speaking at college commencements, you need to explain why you think Barak would be one of the best educated presidents. (And don't say it's because he was a professor, you know the old adage -- those that can do and those that can't teach.)

    Finally, Obama is running as a Washington outsider (having spent very little time there), so do you really think he understands how Washington works? I'd say Hillary takes top billing on that. The problem is that nobody seems to be asking "where's the beef" with Obama. He has generated a lot of hype and unfortunately has begun to believe it himself. Barak has become arrogant and he doesn't know what he doesn't know, that's potentially a lethal combination in the Oval Office (although it's highly unlikely he could do any worse than Bush). Given another five to ten years of experience during which he accomplishes something of national importance, I think he might make a great president. As for becoming tainted or corrupted, if you really believed in him you wouldn't even consider that to be a possibility.

    Don't ask me who I support. I cannot get excited about any of the prospects. Where is Pat Paulsen when we need him most (yes I know he's dead)? :wink:
    "All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian." -- Pat Paulsen
    "I've upped my standards. Now, up yours." -- Pat Paulsen Presidential Campaign Slogan

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    387

    Default

    That was a strong post by ?The Truth?, which certainly made some valid points. Hopefully, by clarifying my thoughts you can get a better idea why I believe that although experience is not Obama?s strongest suit, it?s not the huge negative Hillary Clinton is trying to frame it as.

    When we look at anyone?s experience, we should try and get a full picture. We simply can?t look at their experience at the federal level only; what candidates learn at the local and state levels, as well as, in non-elected office, plays a large role in forming their temperance and leadership philosophy. In Obama?s case, I was comparing years of elected office he will have served if he becomes president (6 in the Illinois State Legislature, and 6 in the U.S. Senate), by that measure, upon election Obama will have more elected experience than everyone I listed in the previous post.

    Of course, the big question is, what has a candidate?s experience taught them? And, is what they learned the type of experience we need at this time?

    When looking at past presidents, being a general is no guarantee a candidate will be an effective president; it depends on what they learned in that position. In Washington and Eisenhower?s cases (even Lincoln?s although he was not a general), they learned to be coalition builders, diplomatic when necessary, exercise good judgment, and be decisive when needed (all qualities a president should have). In Grant?s and Jackson?s presidencies (although they were popular & effective generals), it is clear that they failed on many of these qualities. Likewise, being a governor or mayor does not guarantee they learned these skills either.

    What qualities and experience am I currently looking for in a President?
    Well, beyond the issues I support:

    Honesty, a strong understanding and a willingness to abide by the constitution, a coalition builder (domestic & foreign), an effective communicator, ability to exercise good judgment, ability to truly understand the issues that face everyday people, decisive when necessary.

    When we look at Obama?s experience as a civil rights lawyer, a community organizer, his time in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate, overall, he has better learned these qualities than all the other candidates. The problem is, you can?t fit this into an easy slogan, so it?s easy to attack him on this issue.

    Further, Obama?s exposure to various cultures and religions is a plus. It is a quality that serves leaders well, because they have the ability to understand various points of view, and see the big picture, which is necessary when it is time to make informed, balanced decisions and judgments.

    I?m by no means saying Obama is the perfect candidate,?who is?

    But compared to all the others, when I look at his stance on issues and how well he matches up to the qualities I laid out above, he is my top choice.
    Liberty without learning is always in peril; learning without liberty is always in vain. - JFK

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn
    In Obama?s case, I was comparing years of elected office he will have served if he becomes president (6 in the Illinois State Legislature, and 6 in the U.S. Senate), by that measure, upon election Obama will have more elected experience than everyone I listed in the previous post.
    Your math is off. He will only have four years in the Senate -- he was elected in 2004 and took office in 2005.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn
    Of course, the big question is, what has a candidate?s experience taught them? And, is what they learned the type of experience we need at this time?
    No, the big question is about his leadership skills, not his life experiences. And, by traditional measurements of accomplishment and success, he falls short of other candidates. A "good message" is one thing, but being able implement and deliver is more important.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn
    When looking at past presidents, being a general is no guarantee a candidate will be an effective president; it depends on what they learned in that position. In Washington and Eisenhower?s cases (even Lincoln?s although he was not a general), they learned to be coalition builders, diplomatic when necessary, exercise good judgment, and be decisive when needed (all qualities a president should have). In Grant?s and Jackson?s presidencies (although they were popular & effective generals), it is clear that they failed on many of these qualities. Likewise, being a governor or mayor does not guarantee they learned these skills either.
    Agreed, but I was responding to your implication that Barak is somehow better than those on your list. He's not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn
    What qualities and experience am I currently looking for in a President?
    Well, beyond the issues I support:
    Honesty, a strong understanding and a willingness to abide by the constitution, a coalition builder (domestic & foreign), an effective communicator, ability to exercise good judgment, ability to truly understand the issues that face everyday people, decisive when necessary.
    Honesty -- at this point I haven't seen any reason not to believe so -- however, I need to learn more about his drug use in Illinois (which is not an issue for me) and his subsequent denials (which, if he is lying, is). But, at this point, I agree he has this over Clinton and Edwards.
    a strong understanding and a willingness to abide by the constitution -- I've heard his words, but have no reason to believe that Clinton and Edwards would not support the Constitution.
    a coalition builder (domestic & foreign) -- I'm unaware of his foreign experience in this area and he has not done this on a large scale.
    an effective communicator -- I agree and he is the most charismatic.
    ability to exercise good judgment, ability to truly understand the issues that face everyday people -- These are subjective judgments.
    decisive when necessary -- Again, this is subjective. But, if what I have read (but not investigated personally) about his 50 votes as present rather than for or against, then he is hardly decisive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn
    When we look at Obama?s experience as a civil rights lawyer, a community organizer, his time in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate, overall, he has better learned these qualities than all the other candidates.
    That's a subjective judgment on your part, not necessarily factual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn
    Further, Obama?s exposure to various cultures and religions is a plus. It is a quality that serves leaders well, because they have the ability to understand various points of view, and see the big picture, which is necessary when it is time to make informed, balanced decisions and judgments.
    As first lady, Hillary served as a "good will ambassador" visiting many foreign countries and talking with their leaders and citizens. So, Barak doesn't have the corner on this.

  10. #30

    Default

    Obama's meteoric rise, beginning with the Democratic Convention in 2004, in national politics and his claim of independence has always troubled me. To rise that high that fast, you have to have some very powerful sponsors. Who are they? What is their agenda? Of the three front runners, Clinton is the only one that bucked the Democratic machine by remaining in the Michigan primary. So, I don't buy Obama's claim of independence.

    Obama?s criticism of Clinton for her voting record on the Iraq War when his has been identical to hers (expect on General Casey) since joining the Senate is disingenuous at best. He has also criticized her for voting to designate the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, but he skipped the vote so he didn?t have to go on the record. The problem with Obama?s criticism is that he sponsored a bill earlier in 2007 that did exactly the same thing. Let?s see, how do you spell hypocrisy?

    The Truth mentioned Obama?s 'present' votes while an Illinois senator. I took a quick look into the issue. Obama voted 'present' on 130 bills, including those that:
    • required adult prosecution for a minor firing a gun on or close to school property;
    • reduced the penalty from a felony to a misdemeanor for the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon and increase the penalty for subsequent offenses;
    • prohibited partial birth abortions;
    • required parental notification before a minor could have an abortion;
    • protect the privacy of sexual abuse victims by allowing them to petition to have the court records sealed (apparently he was the only senator to not support the bill); and
    • prohibit strip clubs and other adult entertainment stores to be located within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and childcare centers.
    He appears to be unwilling to take a position on very weighty issues. So, what's the definition of decisiveness?

    Finally, Obama?s criticism of Clinton?s comment about Lyndon Johnson signing civil rights legislation baffles me. Apparently, he thinks Martin Luther King acted alone. So much for coalition building, the politics of inclusion, and his understanding of how our government works.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •