Obama in 2008 part 2

Style over substance charge still may be valid IMO

from JoeUser Forums

My friend Cordellia thinks she might be in favor of Obama in 2008 depending on how things go.

I agree with her that it's hard to be certain without knowing who the choices are.  But having looked at his positions and statements, I'm pretty sure I couldn't vote for him even though I agree with him on a lot of his votes.


Let's see how we match up:

Abortion: Support

Affirmative Action: Strongly oppose

Rights for gays: Support

Teaching family values in public schools: No opinion

More federal funding of healthcare: STRONGLY oppose

Privatize social security: Support

School vouchers: Support

Death Penalty: Strongly support

Mandatory 3-strike laws: Oppose

Decrease taxation on wealthy: Support

Illegal Immigration: Oppose

Expand free trade: Neutral

Patriot Act harms civil liberties: Disagree, patriot act = good. No evidence
of loss of civil liberties.

Military spending: Support

Limits on campaign funds: Strongly oppose

Supports UN: Oppose

Replace coal and oil: Strongly support

Drug enforcement: Neutral

Allow churches to provide welfare: Support

I am not sure I could vote for an Obama based on his political views. But it's not clear yet.  For instance, I agree with him on a lot of his votes -- I don't agree with the interpretation the test takes of his votes.

I don't know if my views on immigration (where he's a total nut in my opinion) would disqualify him.

He also is clueless on economics. "Tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs" is a ridiculous statement. So who does he think creates jobs? The government?

He's also anti-2nd amendment.

He also thinks imprisonment should be about rehabilitation. I think imprisonment should be about taking bad people off the streets.

Overall, he's a guy who wants the government to have a lot more power and for individuals to have a lot less. There's no evidence that he knows how the real world works economically and seems driven by feeling more than his head.  He seems to like to appear compassionate by taking away other people's freedoms IMO.

So I guess no, I probably wouldn't vote for him.  I do agree he says nice things.

He said:

The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States.
End of quote

Blue states may pray to the same God but they it's the red states that are the ones who seem to actually deliver the goods.  23 of the top 24 states in terms of charitable giving per GDP were red states Coincidence?

There are very distinct cultural values in our country that can't be easily rectified. The left really needs to reconcile the statistical reality that as a general truth that they have substituted political belief for tangible action.  That is, to believe in a better world is actually more important than actually doing something to make the world a better place.

Obama's handful of actions so far seem to indicate that he is of that group -- he wants nice things to happen but he doesn't seem to understand how to make those nice outcomes occur.  Taxcuts for the rich don't create jobs he says. Okay. Who creates jobs then?  He is big into gun control even though there's a wealth of evidence that legal gun ownership makes society safer in the broader sense (those gangs in the innercity aren't buying their guns legally).

democrat
15,809 views 35 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here is a link to Obama's positions on Brad's list of issues.

The quote that has you most exercised -- "Tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs" -- appears to be some sort of summary or paraphrase by ontheissues.org. If you click on "7 full quotes on jobs" you see that this is their section heading describing this section from BaramaForIllinois.com:

Obama believes that there is no such thing as a "jobless recovery." Obama will champion policies that get our economy moving and people working instead of short-sighted tax-cuts for the rich that have failed to spark a recovery.


The campaign site has been taken down, and OnTheIssues didn't link so you can't look in the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. But even out of context, this looks like a criticism of the Bush tax cuts for not creating jobs and not an economic belief about whether tax cuts for the rich create jobs. (Typical politician: "oh, I'm not against all tax cuts for the rich -- just short-sighted tax cuts for the rich!"  Weasel.)
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tax cuts for the rich and corporations hasn't created jobs, and never will create jobs. All it has done is line the pockets of the fat cats. Trickle down hasn't worked, while corporate profits and CEO incomes are going through the roof, average worker real wages are falling. This will kill this country, mark my words, it can't go on how it has been going on without some serious reprocussions.

Even moreso, I believe that companies should federally be required to provide health insurance to their workers and worker families. It is incomprehensible that so many corporations don't offer health benefits to their workers in this day and age. We've moved from a republic, to capitalism, and now to corporatism. We need to make changes to set us back on the right path, as a country we've become far too enslaved to wall street and the corporate overlords.
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even moreso, I believe that companies should federally be required to provide health insurance to their workers and worker families.

Whoa whoa whoa, have you ever considered starting a company yourself? Think what a barrier that would be. But let's not change the subject too much, health care is a whole other issue.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
In 1999, I was in agreement with a lot of What Lieberman stood for.  A year later, I was against almost everything he stood for.  Obama's, indeed any politicians, current positions rarely translate into their campaign platform.  While I wont rule out Obama at this point, I cant say he is going to moderate some of the stances I strongly oppose in the next 2 years. 
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tax cuts for the rich and corporations hasn't created jobs, and never will create jobs. All it has done is line the pockets of the fat cats. Trickle down hasn't worked, while corporate profits and CEO incomes are going through the roof, average worker real wages are falling. This will kill this country, mark my words, it can't go on how it has been going on without some serious repercussions.


The jobless rate in America makes that theory false. If the tax cuts only line "fat cats" pockets then why is unemployment so low?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Corporate tax cuts are one of the few things that does create jobs. When companies make their financial growth predictions and plans the tax liability they face is one of the major factors that influences how much they plan to grow which translates into how many new employees they plan to hire.

Those who claim this doesn't work are obviously ignoring the fact that unemployment rates went down and new jobs created went up after the tax cuts. Raising taxes will only increase unemployment and slow economic growth.

They also seem to ignore the fact that Federal revenues actually increased as a result of the tax cuts.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

My friend Cordellia thinks she might be in favor of Obama in 2008 depending on how things go

What?? Did you not read the article? I state that I want to like him but I can't vote for him. Can't vote for him = not in favor of...or do *really* not understand politics?

You're a doodyhead. How's that for debate skills?

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)CordeliaDecember 11, 2006 09:44:01


You're a doodyhead. How's that for debate skills?


could this be a first?, a staff member being exiled by da boss? stay tuned ladies and gentlemen for the next exciting episode of Cordie takes on the bradster. hahahhah

Barak has to little experience to run the nation. Period.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

could this be a first?, a staff member being exiled by da boss?

This would not be a first.

But I'm not that easy to get rid of. I stick around...like remoras on a shark.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anyway, this whole post makes me think of my reaction to Al Gore in 2000. It was the first election I'd ever even considered voting for a Democrat, I was kind of just giving him a chance to be fair-minded. Then I heard he was against tort reform, and that was the final straw. How could he be a good president for me when he didn't share my values on something so basic?

Now I look back on that and see my mind wasn't really open to voting for him at all. I didn't even know why somebody might be against tort reform or even what the Republicans were calling "tort reform." I thought I was rejecting Gore based on the issues, but I was so uninformed about the issues I really wasn't giving him a chance. That's kind of what judging on the basis of "he - he doesn't think tax cuts create jobs!" feels like to me. Edit: Although ontheissues.org is still a much better way to evaluate a politician than listening to his speeches or campaign ads.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

What?? Did you not read the article? I state that I want to like him but I can't vote for him. Can't vote for him = not in favor of...or do *really* not understand politics?
You're a doodyhead. How's that for debate skills?

Look, the article you wrote was long and had lots of words and stuff. So I just made up what I think it said.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Tax cuts for the rich and corporations hasn't created jobs, and never will create jobs. All it has done is line the pockets of the fat cats. Trickle down hasn't worked, while corporate profits and CEO incomes are going through the roof, average worker real wages are falling. This will kill this country, mark my words, it can't go on how it has been going on without some serious reprocussions.

1) Then who creates the jobs?

2) In what way has trickle down not worked?

3) How do you define "real wages" as falling? Are you saying that the Average american worker of 2006 is living poorer than one in 1976? Would you go back in time to 1976 to live when "real wages" in your view were higher?

4) In what way will the current trend kill the country? What are the serious repricussions?

Statistically, the wealthiest Americans are the ones who start or run companies. The less money you confiscate from them, the more of their capital they have to continue to do what they do.

Incidentally, tax cuts aren't a gift. They are simply an agreement by the government to confiscate less of the money that people have earned. Having paid several figures in taxes this past year, I'm a bit sensitive at the thought of someone acting like this money belongs to them.

 

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Look, the article you wrote was long and had lots of words and stuff. So I just made up what I think it said.

Cordelia, Rule #1:  The Boss is always Right

Rule #2, See Rule #1!

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)CordeliaDecember 11, 2006 11:15:11


could this be a first?, a staff member being exiled by da boss?

This would not be a first.
But I'm not that easy to get rid of. I stick around...like remoras on a shark.


NO WAY!!! brad banned a staff member and did not fire him?
If so brad is my new hero!!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

So I just made up what I think it said.

Oh, well...that makes sense then. Fair 'nuff.

NO WAY!!! brad banned a staff member and did not fire him?

Nope, I'm not even blacklisted. Mwahahahaha!

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
unemployment was low during slavery too - which is pretty much what $5.15 an hour amounts to.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
unemployment was low during slavery too - which is pretty much what $5.15 an hour amounts to.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
unemployment was low during slavery too - which is pretty much what $5.15 an hour amounts to.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

TAX CUTS DO NOT CREATE JOBS. Fair economic policies do.

unemployment was low during slavery too - which is pretty much what $5.15 an hour amounts to.

And I ascribe that tax cuts ARE a fair economic policy.  Or more to the point, a system in which people perform some sort of labor in exchange for money that they keep.

Slavery is involuntary servitude. No one is forcing anyone to work at minimum wage.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol:
The left really needs to reconcile the statistical reality that as a general truth that they have substituted political belief for tangible action

Slavery is involuntary servitude. No one is forcing anyone to work at minimum wage


Draginol, Seriously, Do u really believe in these things or just trying to liven the discussion - ? if it is the second, then it is ok. if it is the first please tell me who was instrumental in doing (and who fought against) the following:
1- Creating Air/Water quality Standards
2- Creating Auto-Safety standards
3- Creating OSHA
4- The best High-way system in the world
5- Product and food Safety standards
6- The Space Program
7- Making the WWW and the Dot.Com revolution available to everyone
8- The Manhatten Project and the Nuclear program
9- The GI program
10- The SBA
11- The Voting Rights for all
12- Education equality to all
13- Higer Education affordable to many many talented people
14- International AID program
15-SS Program
16-well, i cant go on .... so please tell me a major program that was NOT started by Democrats.
As for working for minimum wage, please tell me why do you think people work 40-60 hrs a week for that kind of money? you think hunger may be a reason? or may be they just have too much time on their hands?
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
"unemployment was low during slavery too - which is pretty much what $5.15 an hour amounts to."

You posted this twice? Like Brad said, nobody is forcing anybody to work a minimum wage job. If that's all that is available you still have the "option" of...

not working,
starting your own business,
moving to an area with a higher economic baseline,
trading in some time for education and getting qualified for a better paying job,

Thought 5.15/hr suks, you there are lots of things you can do to find/get/start your own job that pays more.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Tax cuts for the rich and corporations hasn't created jobs, and never will create jobs. All it has done is line the pockets of the fat cats. Trickle down hasn't worked, while corporate profits and CEO incomes are going through the roof, average worker real wages are falling. This will kill this country, mark my words, it can't go on how it has been going on without some serious repercussions."

OMG, spoken like someone who truly never took college level economics. Of course tax cuts stimulate the economy. Whenever the government doesn't take x amount of money from a corporation or person, that money invariably gets invested in economic capital, spent on goods or services, or saved, and in the process of being saved is utilized by banks to invest.

Where do you think money for rich people goes? Duh into a bank, there is no giant vault like on "Ducktales" where uncle money bags keeps his shiny little gold coins piled up in gigantic piles, and the money sits and does nothing. No it goes to a bank, and the bank keeps a small amount there for withdrawls, but most of it in invested in low risk mutual funds, stocks, bonds, all kinds of investment options, that money is reinvested by companies, capital is invested, jobs are created to run machines that are purchased, those machines are made with work orders purchased by the companies to put the people working with those machines to work.

Tax cuts for anybody work. They always have, always will in capitalism, how well they work, how great the magnitude and rapidity of an economic turn around is dependent on where the cuts are made. But they still work.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Statistically, the wealthiest Americans are the ones who start or run companies. The less money you confiscate from them, the more of their capital they have to continue to do what they do."

Absolutely right, and not only statistically, practically as well. Tax cuts at the top, are very effective.