Is Obama worthy?

[The Big Dog]

[off topic]

The past couple pages on this thread have been absolutely outstanding reading. Please carry on!!!!

[/off topic]

[Mink]

Ferrous: "Sen. Obama's Economic Plan calls for an elimination of income taxes for those earning less than $50,000 per year."

Ferrous, I do believe Obama was talking about retired seniors.

back on topic, right Big Dog??

[jgaffney]

Bloverk sez...

Since when is change for the sake of change a good thing?

Remember, change for a dollar is still a dollar.

[jgaffney]

Mink sez...

Ferrous, I do believe Obama was talking about retired seniors.

Mink, you are missing some of the details. Even if Obama is successful in getting a tax package through the Congress that can target retired seniors making less that $50k/year, which will be a difficult target to hit, both economically and politically, most seniors in that income bracket are living off of.... what? Social Security and 401(k)s. Do you recall that Obama has also proposed to raise taxes on capital gains? What do you think constitutes most of the earnings in your retirement portfolio?

Any time a liberal says that (s)he wants to make the tax code "more fair," that means shifting the tax burden more and more onto the upper income brackets, resulting in a sizeable number of people who pay no taxes at all. Carried to the extreme, this will result in a permanent liberal majority who pay no taxes at all, yet can vote in any spending plan they want because "the rich" will be paying for it.

What you miss here is that the upper limits of "the rich" are much more mobile than you or I. Why do you think so many Hollywood stars don't have a permanent legal residence in the US?

[bolverk]

First, and foremost, why in the world are we having problems with our seniors not having enough money? That was the very reason Social Security was created originally. What is sucking the fund dry, may I ask. I mean, if you pay into a system your entire life, at more then 7% of your income, why is there a problem?

I want one of the Obama heads to explain it.

[jgaffney]

Me thinks Obama will be alienating some of his most rabid supporters soon. The WaPo has this, reported by Jjames Taranto:

A Washington Post editorial reports on a meeting between the Post's editors and Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, in which Zebari describes a conversation he had with Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee:

The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field."

This confirms the reporting of Al-Hayat, a London-based Arabic-language newspaper, which we noted Friday. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch also reports that Obama, who last set foot in Iraq in 2006, before the surge, "is considering going to Iraq soon to visit with troops and commanders," even though snarly Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign-policy adviser, says that the GOP argument that he should do so is "complete garbage."

Could it be that Obama is planning to pivot? That is, what if he goes to Iraq and declares upon his return that he has been persuaded that the surge has made a difference, that things are going much better, and that he is now convinced victory is both possible and crucial?

Any response from the Obama fans here?

[The New Guy]

i like the position obama has put himself in. a bit of a catch 22 you might say. after his visit he must either say that it is getting better (thereby admitting that the surge is successful) or say that it is not (thereby saying that US troops are incompetent).

i get the feeling that in true obama fashion he will find a way to say both things at once in order to appease both sides. he has a terrible habit of that.

[subdjoe]

No, he will make the trip, come home, make a half hour speech that sounds good and says absolutely nothing, commits himself to nothing, and solves nothing.

[Mink]

Obama will come back with an honest assessment and if he does find the surge isn't working, it will not be because of incompetent soldiers, but that it was a another bad plan......so what else is new?

Should he find the surge is working, it would mean a good sign....that the Iraqis are ready to defend their country and the sooner our men/women can finally come home.

[jgaffney]

Mink sez...

Obama will come back with an honest assessment and if he does find the surge isn't working, it will not be because of incompetent soldiers, but that it was a another bad plan......so what else is new?

Come on, Mink, say it: "the failed policies of George W. Bush." That's been the mantra of the Democrat Party since the runup to the 2004 Congressional elections, when they abandoned their support for the GWOT based on opinion polls that said opposition to the war was a winner with the radical left.

Nothing could be more devastating for the Democrat Party than success in Iraq. When that happens, I predict the response will be ... Change the subject!

[subdjoe]

Well, Barry has not come out with an honest assessment of anything so far. Nor a clear one. If you parse what he writes, it all pretty much cancels out except for raising taxes and spending more. That and banning guns seems to be all he is really in favor of. No problem that can't be solved at taxpayer expense, including those that we have nothing to do with. And, none except a few hand picked special ones are smart enough or disciplined enough to be trusted with firearms.

[bolverk]

More to Obama's word. Remember he promised to use only public funds to run for President? As long as the Republican nominee did the same. Well, McCain kept his promise and is using public funds, limiting himself on his campaign expenses to $85 million.

Not Obama, he has told another lie. Which should piss of the people who hate Bush, since lying is the one thing they claim to hate the most. Voting for Obama after doing this would make them hypocrites at the very least.

This all goes to prove that Obama, the first person to forgo public funds since Watergate, the reason public funds were started, he is willing to spend as much as he can, just to gain the Whitehouse. In other words, he is ready to sling the mud and lie through his teeth. Doesn't that sound like someone the progressives currently HATE.