PDA

View Full Version : Interesting piece on Obama



virgoamm
03-16-2008, 10:49 AM
This (http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Count_Me_Out_5413.html) really made me think...

Melonie
03-16-2008, 11:35 AM
your link gives a fair picture of Obama's voting record in Washington. However, his voting record as an Illinois senator is equally interesting ...





... with one of the most interesting observations being the frequency with which Obama voted 'present' rather than yea or nay. Pundits of course argue that this allowed Obama to avoid taking a political position that was favored by one faction of his support base (for example urban black voters) but opposed by another faction of his support base (for example middle class union workers)

Perhaps most controversial are Obama's tax policies, which essentially involve removal of income taxes (or outright giveaways of tax money collected from higher earners) to those earning $50k a year or less. This is balanced by a call for vastly increased tax rates on capital gains, and by increased de-facto tax rates on anybody earning more than $50k per year. In a simplistic sense, this will sound very good to a large number of 'poor' American voters.

However, the flip side argument is that, when presented with vastly increased capital gains tax rates and the closure of other loopholes, the American 'rich' will simply shift their money out of America to maintain the high after-tax rates of return that the low capital gains tax and other loopholes currently make possible. However, the side effect of this 'exodus' of capital will be slower economic growth, higher borrowing costs for the 'poor' and 'middle class', a shift of investment from the taxable private sector to the tax exempt public sector, an additional loss of private sector jobs, an acceleration of outsourcing / relocation by American companies etc.

An associated flip side argument is that, when rapidly decreasing gov't benefits and rapidly increasing tax rates come into play when Americans earn more than $50k per year should Obama's proposals be implemented, a strong disincentive will be created for 'middle class' Americans to work harder, a strong disincentive will be created for 'middle class' Americans to save and invest etc. Arguably, this sort of strong disincentive already exists for 'poor' Americans who earn more than $25k or so per year, where additional earnings are almost immediately offset by the loss of social welfare benefit eligibility ... i.e. gov't policies providing enough of an incentive to cause 'poor' people to quit their jobs or work less hours when their incomes near maximum benefit eligibility thresholds. Obama's programs would essentially extend this disincentive to lower end of the curve 'middle class' workers and retirees as well.

jester214
03-16-2008, 11:42 AM
It's good to think... Just make sure you think about all the candidates and look at their full records... I still think that Obama is atleast open to change, whereas any changes Hillary is going to make, are changes we already know she'll make.

Melonie
03-16-2008, 11:53 AM
^^^ agreed, but this does not appear to be happening where ardent Obama supporters are concerned. Obama has gleaned 90%+ of the American black vote, for example.

This is also the basis for concern for the 'back room boys' within the democratic party. They see election poll results from midwestern states giving birth to a so called 'Archie Bunker' factor ... i.e. primarily non-black middle class democratic voters, many being union workers, doing enough research into Obama's voting record and proposed policies to figure out that, as 'middle class' Americans earning well over $50k per year, they will be significantly WORSE off financially should Obama be elected. The 'back room boys' recognize Obama's ability to deliver voting majorities in states with high percentages of black voters ... but these states would more than likely favor ANY democratic candidate over any republican candidate. In contrast, midwestern states are in danger of voting either democratic or republican, such that if a relative handful of middle class 'Archie Bunker' democratic voters decide to vote against Obama in their own self interest it may give the edge ... and the state's electoral votes ... to a republican candidate. This will arguably be a very tense issue i.e. Hilary vs Barack at democratic convention time.

jester214
03-16-2008, 02:03 PM
^^^ It's happening among almost no one in this election... Amazingly the only people who really are thinking are the Conservative Republicans, sadly their thinking wasn't enough to curb McCain.

margo80
03-16-2008, 03:49 PM
After President Bush, it's pretty clear how important it is to pick a good president. I mean, it's such an important job and the decisions made affect us all. I think Obama is using the "change" card too much. Everyone is wanting change-we are facing a crisis in this country on many levels (health care, state funding, housing, etc. How easy to gather support by proposing change! Yeha I'm in!

I just want results. If I'm hiring someone, I look at their record, I understand their goals, and look at their plan. I don't give a damn (and by law, can't) if they are black/white/male/female, etc. I wish it could be this clear and simple. We just desperately need a good president. In my primary, even though I like Obama, I feel like we need a proven, solid leader, so I voted for Hillary. When change happens, as in the proposals she has, it will be then and only then that I'll be celebrating the hoopla of "change". It makes me laugh, it's almost like saying, I want "happiness"...well, uh, okay. Don't we all. Now what?

TheSexKitten
03-16-2008, 04:01 PM
I, too, am tempted to like Obama, but this article just further confirmed my suspicions. Too much rhetoric, but underneath it all he's still just a politician. He's just got less experience so he's a bit less jaded (or so it seems), but is that even really a good thing?

jester214
03-16-2008, 09:24 PM
^^^ Yeah, but atleast he is talking about change... In my mind that's better than nothing...

virgoamm
03-16-2008, 09:37 PM
^^^ Yeah, but atleast he is talking about change... In my mind that's better than nothing...

Well, what margo80 said pretty much sums it up for me



I just want results. If I'm hiring someone, I look at their record, I understand their goals, and look at their plan. I don't give a damn (and by law, can't) if they are black/white/male/female, etc. I wish it could be this clear and simple. We just desperately need a good president. In my primary, even though I like Obama, I feel like we need a proven, solid leader, so I voted for Hillary. When change happens, as in the proposals she has, it will be then and only then that I'll be celebrating the hoopla of "change". It makes me laugh, it's almost like saying, I want "happiness"...well, uh, okay. Don't we all. Now what?

jester214
03-16-2008, 09:45 PM
Well, what margo80 said pretty much sums it up for me

My only problem with that is I don't think Hillary is a proven solid leader... I think she tries to give the appearance of being a proven solid leader, but I don't think the fact that she's a little bit more time as a senator and was a first lady really makes her anything more than Obama...

virgoamm
03-16-2008, 09:48 PM
Fair enough, everyone's entitled to their opinions. ;)

space_Cadet_28
03-17-2008, 04:21 PM
Uh, your linked article complained about him not being "left" enough. In a race with a republican mccain if you wanted to chose someone more to the left you would have to choose obama.

virgoamm
03-17-2008, 08:48 PM
Actually, it talked about him being more republican. You should probably reread it again to get the full picture. ;)

space_Cadet_28
03-17-2008, 10:16 PM
Actually, it talked about him being more republican. You should probably reread it again to get the full picture. ;)
But he can't be more republican than the actual republican. The article was stating he wasn't "left enough," but among the 3 major candidates he is the most left one I believe.

Many of the criticisms in the article are not realistic. No mainstream political candidate could do what the author wants him to do and still be a viable candidate.

TheSexKitten
03-18-2008, 04:21 PM
Many of the criticisms in the article are not realistic. No mainstream political candidate could do what the author wants him to do and still be a viable candidate.

I suppose so, because then he'd just be Kucinich or someone. So, not a politician but rather a really cool guy. Really cool guys don't get elected, politicians do! :D

Melonie
03-19-2008, 02:29 PM
Amazingly the only people who really are thinking are the Conservative Republicans, sadly their thinking wasn't enough to curb McCain.

not so amazingly, this was arguably the result of a mainstream media 'in-depth' analysis of Mitt Romney's religious convictions (which is just now starting to happen to Barack Obama), an organized 'crossover' vote by democrats / independents in certain primary elections to cast deliberate votes against Mitt Romney i.e. FOR John McCain (which is just now starting to happen against Barack Obama i.e. FOR Hilary) etc.