The following is taken directly off of Obama's campaign website. With all the talk about Obama, I think its time we start picking apart some of his statements and alleged policies that he claims he will implement if he is elected to office. First question that doesn't seem to be asked of the good natured Obama is who he considers to be included in the working families. A second problem and a falicy on that numerous politicians especially Democrats like to do is claim that tax credits are tax cuts. That is simply not the case. The tax credits that he is speaking of will not reduce the tax burden of "working families". In fact the same amount of money will continue to be withheld from their paychecks. I don't know about the rest of you, but where I live I could very easily spend $500 on a single trip to the local grocery store. $1,000 isn't even rent, or for that matter a house payment for many of us living in CA. So sorry, Mr. Obama, a tax credit of either $500, or $1,000 is not a tax cut. That is already possible. All one needs to do is fill out the 1040 EZ form. Seriously, how does Mr. Obama plan to simplify tax filings for "Middle Class Americans"? Will he have a different filing form for those he chooses to classify as "Middle Class Americans"? Who does he define as "Middle Class Americans"? Guess what, for those of us do taxes, we are already able to do that from one year to the next because most of the tax software that is out there automatically transfers the previous years return information. Even Turbo Tax does that. Simplifying the tax forms doesn't necessarily equate with a reduced burden on "Middle Class Americans". For one thing it could simply mean there are fewer things that we as "Middle Class Americans" can write off on our taxes, thus reducing the amount of time we spend completing our tax forms. I'd be curious those of you who are Obama supporters. Do you have the answers to any of my questions? I can't seem to find the answers at Obama's campaign website. His statements sound nice, but they are simple generalities. His terms are very easily relative. For all we know his definition of a "Middle Class American" is someone making $20K per year or less.
Something from B. Hussein's economic plan that really disturbs me: The government needs to be forcing all employers to provide pensions to their employees now?
What's even worse is that direct-deposit IRA might be something that is 100% contribution from the employee themselves and with no participation from the employer... there by reducing even further the amount of take home pay some workers are taking home.
To be fair, I'd tend to prefer a candidate who has a healthy recognition that things can change in the future and only speaks in generalities over a candidate who goes around saying things like "Read my lips: no new taxes." That said, you make some fair points, and I'm skeptical of a lot of what you quoted. It is, as you point out, too weasel-wordy. Just a tip, if you have some really damaging dirt on someone, you shouldn't need persistent name-calling when attacking him. Eventually everyone else may decide you can't discuss the subject clear-headedly. It might make a difference here if you were claiming Obama had a penchant for murdering people he saw as a threat to his power, or was secretly developing nuclear technology for use against others, or something. As it stands, you're probably just wasting effort.
There's little in Obama's economic plans that isn't disturbing. Domestically, Obama, Clinton, and McCain are all equally objectionable. Foreign policy wise, Clinton is probably slightly less objectionable than McCain or Obama, who both want to spread democracy at the point of a gun. I mean, yeah, Clinton does to, but to fewer countries. I think it's pretty clear that primary voters in general are idiots.
He's a nice guy. We also don't need to concern ourselves with specific. This election is all about Hope and Change right?
You know that has to be one of the most truthful, accurate statements to have been posted in a while. Especially with the Democratic Party and that whole Super Delegate bullshit that makes up 20% of their selection process. We have people like Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi's daughter that are super delegates who get to pick and choose whomever schmoozes them the best in this primary process. Talk about a major ego boost for those who are selected, the power they wield within the party itself and the power they hold of changing the course of the party even if it opposes the will of the party itself.
To an extent it is up to the voters. But, the voters can only vote for the knuckle heads the party is willing to back and present to them. Republicans are stuck with the wannabe Democrat like McCain. The Democrats are stuck with "Hope and Change" Obama, or First Lady/Hostess Experience Hillary. They are not necessarily the choice of the voters themselves so much as the options that the parties themselves are allowing the voters to choose from. Let's face it, with that whole super delegate bullshit, Democrats actually have less of a choice in the process than do Republicans.
I'd much prefer that people be forced to put away money for retirement rather than have to rely on the future non-existent social security.
Social Security is in fine shape financially--unlike Medicare--and it's not going anywhere. It will be tinkered with at the margins over the years, but it's here to stay. There is no Social Security crisis, contrary to Obama's adoption of winger talking points. Besides, people are so stupid that they don't even max out matched contributions for their 401ks. If free money can't get people to save for retirement, then nothing's going to force them to short of legally mandating savings. And in the absence of Social Security such accounts would be highly regulated to assure that they have a certain percentage of low risk investments such as government bonds in order to keep people from truly disastrous and unlucky investment decisions that will require bailing out their retirements with government money or watching them starve in old age. By the time you're done you've got a system that's just as mandatory as Social Security but has the fault of being less efficient because of the individual account management of the low risk portions of retirement accounts.
Sudan, Haiti, the Congo... Name a trouble spot, he wants US troops there, either under a US or UN flag. And let's not forget his threats against Pakistan.
I'm not going to devote a whole lot of time to this, but Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, relying on future "investors" to pay the commitment to current ones. Ponzi Schemes are impossible to sustain and are illegal to do, unless you are the Federal government. If you don't believe it, try to tell me how taking 1/3 of a 30 year old's income and giving it to a 70 year old, then promising that, in turn, 40 years from now you'll take money from an (as yet) unborn 30 year old to give to the person makes any sort of rational sense.
I don't think it is any of the federal government damned business what people do for their retirement. I am also opposed to the continuation of social security too.
Not only has it turned into a Ponzi scheme but it is going to have a major meltdown in the future. The oldest of the Baby Boomers are just now starting to retire. All the Baby Boomers combined outnumber Generation X and Generation Y (or whatever the hell it's being called). There are not enough young people to take money from to give to all the Baby Boomers. The amount of Social Security taxes you pay is going to go through the roof or the system is going to just collapse. I'm thinking collapse because no one is going to be very happy paying huge amounts of money into Social Security. Edit: Also don't forget the huge amounts of legal and even illegal immigration into this country. All the kids produced from that will also be drawing Social Security checks and if people like the three presidential dork wannabes get into office all the ones who are currently illegal will get amnesty become citizens and they will now have access to Social Security. The system can not keep up no matter what Pardot says.
He won't "run away" from Iraq. Rather, he'll give all our troops blue helmets. Election promises accomplished... there will be no US troops in there. However, the UN troops in there will just happen to be comprised of the same people that were previously US troops. And then of course there's the rest of the world to "liberate"
Come on, jump on the Obama train. Hope and Change, you can say it. I promise it doesn't hurt. For it to hurt it would have to mean something.
Someone once had in their signature: Anyone who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire The idea that Obama is actually bringing change is an absurdity.
Hey you forgot that he is also bringing hope. That's an important component to his statement of change.
Nah, that's real, or at least subjective. You can't say he's not bringing hope if he does end up bringing hope to someone, somewhere. Change, on the other hand, is falsifiable, and in this case, false.
