Déjà vu all over again?

[traderx]

The 1960 Presidential campaign featured the first televised debates. Pundits agree that Kennedy’s good looks, charisma and ease in front of the camera helped him get elected. By contrast, Nixon looked haggard, awkward and shot bullets of sweat at television screens.

After painfully watching McCain deliver a speech last night, his unrelenting monotone made me wonder if this election campaign won’t be a repeat of the 1960 campaign. Obama is at ease in front of a camera and uses the teleprompter like a pro. He has an interesting vocal delivery and has charisma. McCain is pale and boring by comparison. I think this fall will be a long season for Republicans.

[hnooe]

The 1960 Presidential campaign featured the first televised debates. Pundits agree that Kennedy’s good looks, charisma and ease in front of the camera helped him get elected. By contrast, Nixon looked haggard, awkward and shot bullets of sweat at television screens.

After painfully watching McCain deliver a speech last night, his unrelenting monotone made me wonder if this election campaign won’t be a repeat of the 1960 campaign. Obama is at ease in front of a camera and uses the teleprompter like a pro. He has an interesting vocal delivery and has charisma. McCain is pale and boring by comparison. I think this fall will be a long season for Republicans.

As superficial as this may seem, I do not think I can bear to listen to John McCain for 4 years for that very same reason you mention. Both Obama and Clinton speak with an intelligence and have communication skill far beyond what we have seen in recent years. McCain is a solid, patriotic, kindly old gentlemen, but even with good speech writers, the deivery, and therefore the message, is somewhat "off.' I would avoid as many debates as possible with Obama if I were McCain that is for sure!

[scooterbug44]

Speaking skills and charisma will definitely be a big factor - hopefully McCain won't have any more skin issues as a bandaged face next to Obama's youthful grin won't help either!

[Beach Runner]

I've also heard that some people think this is another Kerry-Bush race, an elitist versus someone more palatable to the masses.

[hnooe]

I've also heard that some people think this is another Kerry-Bush race, an elitist versus someone more palatable to the masses.

Bush is an Elitist with a redneck mask on--it served him well I must say. Barbara, Bush Sr, and his brother all have that educated, New England persona. Starting with the Texas governorship, and I think with Carl Rove's direction as personal "acting" coach, the stage was set for him and that has served Bush well......"aw, shucks."

[seagrovegirl]

Hubby and I had a discussion last night about McCain and Obama's style of speech. I agree, the McCain monotone is grating. Obama has a hesitation after every few words that I find painful and I'm always thinking "okay! get on with it!"

[traderx]

Hubby and I had a discussion last night about McCain and Obama's style of speech. I agree, the McCain monotone is grating. Obama has a hesitation after every few words that I find painful and I'm always thinking "okay! get on with it!"

You raise a good point. When Obama held a press conference to express his disappointment with Rev. Wright, he was too calm. His voice and delivery did not match his words. This part of him reminded me of Dukakis. It will be interesting to see if Obama is more animated in the debates. It would be a stark contrast to MonoCain. :biggrin:

[seagrovegirl]

MonoCain!!! Good one!

[LuciferSam]

I've heard that radio listeners favored Nixon, but TV viewers favored Kennedy. Here I think Obama has an edge on both media. To me there is something frightening and tyrannical about McCain's tone, and he needs to lose the "my friends" phrase. Both candidates need to make clear where they really stand on the issues, and not just in their book or on their web page.

[rapunzel]

I thought the following review (from http://http://www.dailykos.com/) was spot on:

"Oh, Go with the Green Background!"

"It'll make you look like the cottage cheese in a lime jello salad" Always a good look for an older gentlemen.

The aesthetics of McCain's speech, just mercifully completed before a slightly energized crowd of literally dozens, was awesome in how dreadful it was.


Who is setting up these events and making these decisions? I mean, to go to the Yat haven, white suburb of Kenner and speak in a small venue with a half-set up...a place where the biggest event of the year is the gun and boat show...and speak to an all white crowd, some of whom couldn't be bothered to remove their baseball caps...and call in New Orleans. And to do it on a night to set up a contrast to Obama at the site of the Republican Convention, on the night he secures the nomination.

He came off like a grumpy old man preaching to a choir of negative Nancies. He's paying someone to advise him to do things like this, and that person needs to be replaced pronto.

[traderx]

...He came off like a grumpy old man preaching to a choir of negative Nancies. He's paying someone to advise him to do things like this, and that person needs to be replaced pronto.

True dat.

[30ashopper]

As superficial as this may seem, I do not think I can bear to listen to John McCain for 4 years for that very same reason you mention. Both Obama and Clinton speak with an intelligence and have communication skill far beyond what we have seen in recent years. McCain is a solid, patriotic, kindly old gentlemen, but even with good speech writers, the deivery, and therefore the message, is somewhat "off.' I would avoid as many debates as possible with Obama if I were McCain that is for sure!

Actually McCain has shown in the past that he is a very good debater. In fact I'd argue that it's Obama who should (and I believe is) trying to avoid a large number of election debates. He has not performed as well as Clinton in those.

McCain's big problem is he can't deliver a good speech, which has always been an issue for him. He should be avoid that and stick with the small town forums he is good at. To make matters worse, it appears his campaign is being run by complete idiots who aren't paying attention to the other candidates.

Any sane human being would not have held that rally last night. The obvious differences between McCain with a old people in a room and Obama's and Clinton's rallys in huge auditoriums with cheering crowds was too painful to watch... and I told em so this moring when I mailed them.
:bang:

[30ashopper]

True dat.

Ditto.

[30ashopper]

I thought the following review (from http://http://www.dailykos.com/) was spot on:



Who is setting up these events and making these decisions? I mean, to go to the Yat haven, white suburb of Kenner and speak in a small venue with a half-set up...a place where the biggest event of the year is the gun and boat show...and speak to an all white crowd, some of whom couldn't be bothered to remove their baseball caps...and call in New Orleans. And to do it on a night to set up a contrast to Obama at the site of the Republican Convention, on the night he secures the nomination.

He came off like a grumpy old man preaching to a choir of negative Nancies. He's paying someone to advise him to do things like this, and that person needs to be replaced pronto.


The good news is, this criticism is out there and McCain can't possibly miss it. Fox of course, didn't have anything negative to say. That really made me mad too.

[Beach Runner]

Does anyone out there know if there is a correlation between being a great speaker and being a great president?

If I had been voting based on who was the best speaker, I would have definitely voted for Bill Clinton. He used to be such a smooth speaker who could also relate to the masses, despite his Ivy League education.

Lately ... well, I've read that he might have suffered a little brain damage due to his heart surgery. It happens.

[seagrovegirl]

Reagan was the best speaker! The USA needs a diplomat...which IMO includes being a good speaker.

[Margarita]

Does anyone out there know if there is a correlation between being a great speaker and being a great president?

If I had been voting based on who was the best speaker, I would have definitely voted for Bill Clinton. He used to be such a smooth speaker who could also relate to the masses, despite his Ivy League education.

Lately ... well, I've read that he might have suffered a little brain damage due to his heart surgery. It happens.

I have never based my vote on who is the best orator and it looks like this year is no exception.

[ItzKatzTime]

Although I am not a Republican I can honestly say that this morning I heard a "Town Meeting" where McCain was giving a speech in La. and he sounded 100% better then he did last night. They all have their times and nobody's voice grates on my nerves more then George W. Bush.

This morning at the AIPEC conference all three sounded strong like someone had lit a fire under them.

It's going to get really interesting!:clap:

[goofer44]

Does anyone out there know if there is a correlation between being a great speaker and being a great president?

If I had been voting based on who was the best speaker, I would have definitely voted for Bill Clinton. He used to be such a smooth speaker who could also relate to the masses, despite his Ivy League education.

Lately ... well, I've read that he might have suffered a little brain damage due to his heart surgery. It happens.

I am not being disrespectful but the tone of this thread is extremely superficial. One of the great presidents of the 20th century was Harry Truman....not known for his oratorical skills or charisma. Character, integrity and judgement were his strong points. Franklin Roosevelt, argueably one of our top 3 presidents, was physically challenged and was a shell of a man in 1945. Yet he is a giant in the eyes of history. The tone of this thread would have dismissed these 2 great men as insignificant because of their style or looks. Substance and character are the hallmarks of greatness. McCain has all the traits to be a great president. Obama has all the hallmarks of being a great president but I believe he needs more experience in the ways of govt and the ways of politics on a global scale. Lets listen to what the candidates say and ignore what they look like or what they are wearing or how tall and good looking they are. We are blessed to have 2 excellent choices this year....but I think we need to focus on their ideas and policies and not on their looks and style. I admire Obama greatly but I believe he is not ready now. Of course my opinion may change as the debates begin. I will keep an open mind. But my decision will be made of substance and not style.

[traderx]

I am not being disrespectful but the tone of this thread is extremely superficial. One of the great presidents of the 20th century was Harry Truman....not known for his oratorical skills or charisma. Character, integrity and judgement were his strong points. Franklin Roosevelt, argueably one of our top 3 presidents, was physically challenged and was a shell of a man in 1945. Yet he is a giant in the eyes of history. The tone of this thread would have dismissed these 2 great men as insignificant because of their style or looks. Substance and character are the hallmarks of greatness. McCain has all the traits to be a great president. Obama has all the hallmarks of being a great president but I believe he needs more experience in the ways of govt and the ways of politics on a global scale. Lets listen to what the candidates say and ignore what they look like or what they are wearing or how tall and good looking they are. We are blessed to have 2 excellent choices this year....but I think we need to focus on their ideas and policies and not on their looks and style. I admire Obama greatly but I believe he is not ready now. Of course my opinion may change as the debates begin. I will keep an open mind. But my decision will be made of substance and not style.

I will respond since I am the starter of this superficial thread.

Truman and Roosevelt were presidents before the television age which is the point of my opening post. McCain is a war hero and I believe to be an honorable man but he has a boring, monotone delivery. Obama will likely come across better on the tube. As for substance, I cannot comment. I have not seen enough of Obama to know what to expect.

For the record, I support neither of these men and will continue to support the Libertarian ticket.

[goofer44]

I will respond since I am the starter of this superficial thread.

Truman and Roosevelt were presidents before the television age which is the point of my opening post. McCain is a war hero and I believe to be an honorable man but he has a boring, monotone delivery. Obama will likely come across better on the tube. As for substance, I cannot comment. I have not seen enough of Obama to know what to expect.

For the record, I support neither of these men and will continue to support the Libertarian ticket.

Traderx

That is precisely my point. We should be LISTENING to what the candidates espouse and NOT so concerned about their style and appearance. Unfortunately we as a nation will never have the opty to have another Truman or Roosevelt or even Eisenhower because of the television age. Those fellows would never be elected to public office because of the image they projected. It is SAD. McCain must be very special because his character and genuiness comes across even though he could be described as a shlepper. He may be the last of his breed !! This is a defining election. We will now get the specificity of the Obama policies and they will be analyzed and dissected to the core. But our responsibility as citizens will be to LISTEN and not be swayed by superficialities.

[Margarita]

I am not being disrespectful but the tone of this thread is extremely superficial. One of the great presidents of the 20th century was Harry Truman....not known for his oratorical skills or charisma. Character, integrity and judgement were his strong points. Franklin Roosevelt, argueably one of our top 3 presidents, was physically challenged and was a shell of a man in 1945. Yet he is a giant in the eyes of history. The tone of this thread would have dismissed these 2 great men as insignificant because of their style or looks. Substance and character are the hallmarks of greatness. McCain has all the traits to be a great president. Obama has all the hallmarks of being a great president but I believe he needs more experience in the ways of govt and the ways of politics on a global scale. Lets listen to what the candidates say and ignore what they look like or what they are wearing or how tall and good looking they are. We are blessed to have 2 excellent choices this year....but I think we need to focus on their ideas and policies and not on their looks and style. I admire Obama greatly but I believe he is not ready now. Of course my opinion may change as the debates begin. I will keep an open mind. But my decision will be made of substance and not style.

Thank You!!!!!! I think we can all agree that Obama is better at delivering a speech - big deal.

[goofer44]

One of the other points I would like to raise is the incessant spin that accompanies our political process. There is entirely too much "noise" that needs to be filtered. All the spinmeisters distort and outright make up stuff. The voter needs to educated himself or herself and get the facts. This takes work and dedication. But isn't democracy worth the effort ? We need to be informed voters......nothing more or less.

[Geo]

I am not being disrespectful but the tone of this thread is extremely superficial. One of the great presidents of the 20th century was Harry Truman....not known for his oratorical skills or charisma. Character, integrity and judgement were his strong points. Franklin Roosevelt, argueably one of our top 3 presidents, was physically challenged and was a shell of a man in 1945. Yet he is a giant in the eyes of history. The tone of this thread would have dismissed these 2 great men as insignificant because of their style or looks. Substance and character are the hallmarks of greatness. McCain has all the traits to be a great president. Obama has all the hallmarks of being a great president but I believe he needs more experience in the ways of govt and the ways of politics on a global scale. Lets listen to what the candidates say and ignore what they look like or what they are wearing or how tall and good looking they are. We are blessed to have 2 excellent choices this year....but I think we need to focus on their ideas and policies and not on their looks and style. I admire Obama greatly but I believe he is not ready now. Of course my opinion may change as the debates begin. I will keep an open mind. But my decision will be made of substance and not style.

Don't underestimate the superficial. The lights, smoke and mirrors. The Hollywood. Granted many that discuss these issues on this board are smart enough to look beyond it and do form opinions and vote on issues. But IMHO, the majority of people in this country form opinons and act on the superficial...

And this is exactly why this is a great thread (again, IMHO).

I saw a video of Nixon that night after he first saw himself on the TV monitor. He said he wished he would have shaved.

[goofer44]

Geowickey

The fact that the superficial is the most important ingredient in the selection process of our political leaders is pathetic. We get what we deserve !!!

[scooterbug44]

We can biatch and moan about the 24 hour news cycle, its need to fill time, and manufactured drama and conflict, but because of it we will not elect an ugly or inarticulate president (again).

I believe it was the movie "American President" where they said (very paraphrased) "if we had TV we wouldn't have elected a president in a wheelchair" re :FDR.

I consider articulateness, the ability to speak extemporaneously, and eloquence some pretty good indicators of intelligence, but the sheeple are certainly believing the muddy e-mails and uber out of context sound bites.

[Here4Good]

I am not being disrespectful but the tone of this thread is extremely superficial. One of the great presidents of the 20th century was Harry Truman....not known for his oratorical skills or charisma. Character, integrity and judgement were his strong points. Franklin Roosevelt, argueably one of our top 3 presidents, was physically challenged and was a shell of a man in 1945. Yet he is a giant in the eyes of history. The tone of this thread would have dismissed these 2 great men as insignificant because of their style or looks. Substance and character are the hallmarks of greatness. McCain has all the traits to be a great president. Obama has all the hallmarks of being a great president but I believe he needs more experience in the ways of govt and the ways of politics on a global scale. Lets listen to what the candidates say and ignore what they look like or what they are wearing or how tall and good looking they are. We are blessed to have 2 excellent choices this year....but I think we need to focus on their ideas and policies and not on their looks and style. I admire Obama greatly but I believe he is not ready now. Of course my opinion may change as the debates begin. I will keep an open mind. But my decision will be made of substance and not style.

FDR was a great communicator - he had a regular radio show, called "Fireside Chats". He used these chats to convince the American people, who were frightened and skeptical, that his programs were the right thing to do. Despite being an aristocrat, he knew how to talk to people, and used the media very effectively.

I don't ask that the President be a great public speaker, but I do ask that he have the ability to convince us that he knows what he's doing and that the actions he is proposing are the right ones. I also ask that he be able to hold his own in discussions with other world leaders.

It's called politics, folks - if you can't communicate and convince, then stay the heck out.

[goofer44]

I know the biography of FDR as well as many of the other presidents. Do you honestly think FDR, HST, Eisenhower, or Calvin "the business of America is business " Coolidge could be elected president in the television age ??? I think not.

I referred to HST as lacking oratorical skills not FDR.

[Geo]

Geowickey

The fact that the superficial is the most important ingredient in the selection process of our political leaders is pathetic. We get what we deserve !!!

Yes. Ok. I get the feeling you are telling me this as if I don't agree with you.
:idontno:
But what you or I think about how things are doesn't change how things are...

The reality is that the superficial is important.

[Smiling JOe]

The 1960 Presidential campaign featured the first televised debates. Pundits agree that Kennedy’s good looks, charisma and ease in front of the camera helped him get elected. By contrast, Nixon looked haggard, awkward and shot bullets of sweat at television screens.

After painfully watching McCain deliver a speech last night, his unrelenting monotone made me wonder if this election campaign won’t be a repeat of the 1960 campaign. Obama is at ease in front of a camera and uses the teleprompter like a pro. He has an interesting vocal delivery and has charisma. McCain is pale and boring by comparison. I think this fall will be a long season for Republicans.

The only differences are that Kennedy had experience and Obama has almost no experience. One other noticeable difference is that Kennedy words, "ask not what your Country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your Country." Obama on the other hand wants to create more government dependency, getting people to ask what their Country can do for the people. The difference is HUGE.

BTW, I love the redundant thread title. I love the redundant thread title.

[Smiling JOe]

Goofer, I hear you loud and clear. It is difficult to separate the audible from the visual. There is much more truth in non-verbal communication than in verbal, but the disguise of make up and clothing, makes the picture a little fuzzy. I remember hearing Al Gore in a debate, and he sounded good. I later watched the debate on TV, and I thought he was lousy, and it wasn't because of the clothes or make-up. It was in his facial expressions, which seemed to be extremely childish, when reacting to the other candidates. The difference between simply listening and watching, was 100% different. Unfortunately, this is election season, so it is difficult for me to believe anything coming out of the mouths of these candidates. They will say what is needed to be said to win the election, no matter if it has incomplete truths or outright lies. Therefore, the only thing I can rely on is their previous history in poliTRICKS, as for really knowing the direction in which they will take us as a Country.

I look no further than Hollywood to get an idea of what people want. All of the top-paid actors could double as super-models. There are many intelligent people in the USA who do go for substance, but the sad truth is that there are probably more people who go for good looks and charming nature when pulling the lever at the voting booth. That wasn't the truth as little as ten years ago, but now with digital cameras everywhere, scandal and lies on the internet, the race all comes down to money, appearance, and soundbites.

[scooterbug44]

Did you mean "substance", not "abstinence"? :idontno:

It's not just a political superficiality issue - it has been proven that attractive people make more money and are more successful in many other areas of life.

Politics is a public relations and sales gig - so general attractiveness, good grooming, and speaking skills matter.

[elgordoboy]

Did you mean "substance", not "abstinence"? :idontno:

It's not just a political superficiality issue - it has been proven that attractive people make more money and are more successful in many other areas of life.

Politics is a public relations and sales gig - so general attractiveness, good grooming, and speaking skills matter.
Sounds like life. I like it better as abstinence lol.

[Smiling JOe]

oops. I meant "substance." Thanks.

[rapunzel]

And let's not forget the whole 'branding' aspect. Overnight, McCain's website morphed from black with a star, Times New Roman/Arial text with a neo-fascist, oppressive feel to this...

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/McCains_yellow_teeth.jpg

Which is a blantant bit of plagarism/graphics theft...I'm not sure what to call it...

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-06-04-believe.jpg

The non-traditional blue, the sun ray pattern, the red and white stripe....

Let's not pretend these things don't matter. Please understand, I applaud anyone who focuses on issues and makes their decisions accordingly, just like I applaud the shopper that compares materials and quality vs. cost and consults consumer reviews. But, I wouldn't want to own stock in company who's CEO paid no attention to branding, packaging, and marketing. Or one who just modeled his branding on the competitor's, for that matter.

[scooterbug44]

Obviously McCain ripped off Obama - he can't have thought up using red, white, and blue for a national political campaign all by hisself! ;-)

[traderx]

I feel like somebody found a Baby Ruth bar in the pool and everybody is pointing their finger at me...:rolling:

Seriously, I am not advocating a campaign of superficial sound bytes and spin. I just believe it is here to stay.

Yes, SJ, Kennedy was a candiate of experience and substance and a bonafide war hero to boot. Today's Democrats are not your father's Kennedy. Kennedy was conservative on defense and moderate to liberal on social issues.

An alarming percentage of registered voters cannot read and write; we graduate many seniors from high school who cannot locate South America on a world map; our students score dead last on standardized tests compared to the other G8 nations and Obama has the likes of NBC, ABC, CBS and the AP in his corner. Which other presidential candidate could have called a reporter "sweetie" and get a free pass? Obama has energized many young voters to register. Many of these new voters are the same ones who get their "facts" from movies ("the CIA killed Kennedy") and from the internet. I also doubt that most can name their state's Senators and Congressman. It is no wonder that substance was left at the train station.

It is interesting to note that George Bush was elected twice and I think it is fair to say that he lacks superior speaking skills. But, on tv, he came across as sincere and next to the robotic, arrogant Gore, he looked pretty good. Same with that arrogant elitist Kerry.

If the media will give Obama a free pass on "sweetie" I suppose they will ignore anything short of a capital crime.

My own son shocked me recently. He is a scientist and smart as they come. He is an excellent critical thinker and logical to a fault. I asked him whom he like for President.

"Obama".

"Why?"

"It's time for a change."

"Where does Obama stand on key issues?"

Silence.

He had no idea. He is just ready for a change. Well, and presumably some new sound bytes.

I believe there is the inevitable Bush fatique which besets a presidency after eight years. We lived through Clinton fatigue as well. McCain faces an uphill battle against Obama and the press. How many times will Obama and the press utter the phrase "a vote for McCain is a vote for a third term for Bush? It will be a miracle if McCain wins.

[rapunzel]

Obviously McCain ripped off Obama - he can't have thought up using red, white, and blue for a national political campaign all by hisself! ;-)

Scoot -- you're a design professional, so don't snark at me...you can see the font style, the starburst effect through the blue, the departure from royal/navy blue that is standard in campaigns. ;-)

I'm sure, however, that he thought up the "Leader We Can Believe In!" all on his own, though. I

[Smiling JOe]

I don't mean to be pointing fingers at your Baby Ruth. lol. I think it is interesting that Obama's campaign is on "change." Many think that he will change Washington, but he will just add to the powers of the Federal Gov't, making it even more difficult for anyone to change Washington. The only way to change Washington is to lighten up on all of the powers of the Fed. Gov't. The only true change which will come, will likely be twenty years from now when a Libertarian takes a seat in the Oval Office.

On the copying of the fonts and look of the advertising, it is obvious that it is copied. I will point out that McDonald's spends millions and millions of dollars on selecting the sites for their restaurants. Wendy's and BugerKing, don't spend money on that at all. They simply find a McDonald's and buy in close proximity, getting much of the benefit for no cost. Many other fast food burger joints even copied the use of yellow and red colors for their signs, because it works. No need to reinvent the wheel, if it is already rolling smoothly. Businesses do this everyday. I will say that McCain's new colors look much better than the one star on the green background he had for the back drop at his recent speech. I guess everyone seems to be trying to "go green" these days, even if they aren't "green."

[Mango]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-06-04-believe.jpg



I wonder why he didn't put your "Your Friend Till the End" ?

That would have cinched it for me.

[rapunzel]

I don't mean to be pointing fingers at your Baby Ruth. lol. I think it is interesting that Obama's campaign is on "change." Many think that he will change Washington, but he will just add to the powers of the Federal Gov't, making it even more difficult for anyone to change Washington. The only way to change Washington is to lighten up on all of the powers of the Fed. Gov't.


Real conservatives--and the vociferous rightists commenting on here are not among them--understand that it is not that individuals are the owners of property and the bearers of rights that exist before and apart from the involvement of the state. It is through the state that any right must be enforced, and that about which we do not need the state in some respect or other we need not call a right. So let's go ahead and check at the door this alarmist fear that any state involvement in matters it governs equals unfettered tyranny.

The criticisms of Barack Obama [that old song and dance about 'expanding government] being offered here forget the substantial respect that his proposals express for individual liberty. His health care plan would allow, but not require, individuals to buy health insurance policies offered by private companies and would subsidize the purchase of those policies by the poor. Moreover, the fact that Obama does not mandate insurance coverage for everyone is the primary difference between his plan and the one signed into law by Republican darling Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts.

Moreover, consider one solution Obama offers to the looming financial crises of those Americans facing retirement pensionless, with meager savings, or with declining value in their home equity. He proposes to make the first $50,000 of their yearly income tax free, encouraging them insofar as possible to work and increasing the reward for that work. Likewise, his other tax cuts are targeted to increase the rewards of work to Americans, whether it is by increasing the earned income tax credit or the child care tax credit. Even Obama's proposals to make college more accessible rely on an exchange of service for that benefit.

Not only does Obama's domestic policy create economic opportunity, it reflects the precise opposite of an "entitlement" approach and imagines everyday Americans not as the passive recipients of government assistance but as active parties, encouraged to work, encouraged to learn, and encouraged to serve their communities.

What kind of conservative--indeed what kind of person at all invested in the preservation and furtherance of republican forms of government--could look upon Obama's platform and not be, well, hopeful?

-- an anonymous comment from Economist.com posted this, and I thought it was very well stated.

[scooterbug44]

Wasn't trying to snark, just saying that political websites all tend to be pretty similar/formulaic.

Obama has already changed his design several times and I imagine McCain will change his again too - especially if folks think his webpage looks like Obama-lite.

http://www.idealcampaign.com/Portfolio.aspx

[rapunzel]

Ah....I'm so tired of politics....

This thread has made me want to take a vacation from politics....

And it's made me want to watch these...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=L8NDUxD77eE

"It's no big deal."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8dXkZbVkeAU

"Son, now I'm just going to tell you this one time...stay off the drugs."

[Smiling JOe]

rapunzel, what has that guy to say about Obama declaring in a recent debate that even though he is aware that lowering the rates will increase the gov't revenue, he wants to increase capital gains to 28% in order to "level the playing field?"

Comparing Obama's Health Care Plan to Romney's is about like comparing the nutritional value of McDonald's to BurgerKing's.

[BeachSiO2]

rapunzel, what has that guy to say about Obama declaring in a recent debate that even though he is aware that lowering the rates will increase the gov't revenue, he wants to increase capital gains to 28% in order to "level the playing field?"


More than half of my yearly income is subject to capital gains instead of payroll taxes. Doubling that will sure put a strain on my checkbook. :(

[rapunzel]

rapunzel, what has that guy to say about Obama declaring in a recent debate that even though he is aware that lowering the rates will increase the gov't revenue, he wants to increase capital gains to 28% in order to "level the playing field?"

Comparing Obama's Health Care Plan to Romney's is about like comparing the nutritional value of McDonald's to BurgerKing's.

Well, I'm on vacation in the Lounge...but, I don't think he ever said that. I believe the rate was to go back to what it was under Clinton, and probably lower -- 20% is the number I remember hearing him use.

When Clinton entered the White House, capital gains were capped at 28%, but were lowered to 20% during his administration. I think someone is taking the "back to where they were under Clinton" phrase and choosing the scariest number they can find for that right wing talking point.

Obama advocates a return to fiscal responsibility to stabilize our economy and the value of the dollar. He also advocates spreading the responsibility for paying for this war fairly. By levelling the playing field, he means spreading the cost of this war beyond the working classes.

A sound fiscal policy will keep the value of investments from falling, more than making up for a 5% increase in capital gains. I'll happily pay 5% more in capital gains if it means I can have an economy like we had under Clinton.

Why do so many libertarians/conservatives believe it is so wrong to tax wealth at a rate similar to that which we tax work?

[traderx]

...Why do so many libertarians/conservatives believe it is so wrong to tax wealth at a rate similar to that which we tax work?

Speaking as a Libertarian, it is simply because taxing the "wealthy" is part of an income redistribution sheme which is socialism. I believe in unfettered free enterprise and a tiny, little ol' bitty government. And for all Americans keeping as much of their hard-earned money as possible.

[BeachSiO2]

Why do so many libertarians/conservatives believe it is so wrong to tax wealth at a rate similar to that which we tax work?

I don't see it as a taxing wealth vs taxing work issue, actually I don't support either, but I'll get to that. Some people set up their lives to work based on a set amount of money coming from a variety of sources. By doing this in depth planning, we can maximize the return on our investment whether it be financial investments or hours we sit behind a desk working. When the rules of the game are changed, it can severely impact our quality of life. This is especially critical in an age where 401k's and the like are going to be our nest egg, or for some retirees these already make up a large percentage of someones income. Personally, I look at Social Security as charitable giving and do not expect it to be there when I get to the age at which the GOVERNMENT says I can retire.

I think this is why the Fair tax is gaining ground, and in my opinion is the way to go. I should be rewarded for being frugal with my money and pay taxes based on what I spend, not be penalized because I saved money when the capital gains tax was 15% and will have to use it when it is 20% or more.

[JustaLocal]

rapunzel, what has that guy to say about Obama declaring in a recent debate that even though he is aware that lowering the rates will increase the gov't revenue, he wants to increase capital gains to 28% in order to "level the playing field?"

Comparing Obama's Health Care Plan to Romney's is about like comparing the nutritional value of McDonald's to BurgerKing's.

He said "for purposes of fairness."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8)

In any case, I think the far left aims to "level the playing field."

[rapunzel]

I don't see it as a taxing wealth vs taxing work issue, actually I don't support either, but I'll get to that. Some people set up their lives to work based on a set amount of money coming from a variety of sources. By doing this in depth planning, we can maximize the return on our investment whether it be financial investments or hours we sit behind a desk working. When the rules of the game are changed, it can severely impact our quality of life. This is especially critical in an age where 401k's and the like are going to be our nest egg, or for some retirees these already make up a large percentage of someones income. Personally, I look at Social Security as charitable giving and do not expect it to be there when I get to the age at which the GOVERNMENT says I can retire.

I think this is why the Fair tax is gaining ground, and in my opinion is the way to go. I should be rewarded for being frugal with my money and pay taxes based on what I spend, not be penalized because I saved money when the capital gains tax was 15% and will have to use it when it is 20% or more.

But money in a 401K is not taxed in the beginning, and only the gains are taxed at the end, so the money is being taxed at a lower rate far below 20% or 15%, so the incentive to save remains.

Taxing the wealth is not "taxing the wealthy" -- some populist slogan, it's taking shared responsibility to get our deficit under control. Calling it socialist is as dishonest as calling huge, expanding government waging war on credit and running up massive deficits conservative.

Whatever, I'm on vacation from the Politics forum. Whoosh....off I go!

[goofer44]

He said "for purposes of fairness."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8)

In any case, I think the far left aims to "level the playing field."


In the youtube clip his example was "the top 50 hedge fund managers earning $29 billion". I would be for having a surcharge on people earning more than $ 2 million $5million $ 20 million or whatever number you want. To cite 50 top earners as an example contrasted to 100 million plus stock owners is an intellectually dishonest arguement. I earn my living through cap gains, muni interest, and dividends which are also taxed at 15%. I would have no problem with that rate being raised to 20%. There needs to be an across the board reform of our out of whack tax system.

[traderx]

...Taxing the wealth is not "taxing the wealthy" -- some populist slogan, it's taking shared responsibility to get our deficit under control. Calling it socialist is as dishonest as calling huge, expanding government waging war on credit and running up massive deficits conservative.

Okay, I will admit to throwing the Baby Ruth bar into the pool but I am not a conservative. :D

The quickhand definition of socialism is "from those according to their ability; to those according to their need".

Taxing the wealthy and redistributing the money to the poor is socialism. Note: I am not against helping the poor. I grew up in extreme poverty and we got timely help from the Salvation Army and others. I am totally behind charity and prove it with my checkbook every year. With due respect to Sen. Reid, I am just opposed to the government taking my money by force and spending it.

When it comes to balancing the budget, why must the solution always be to increase taxes? What about the idea of cutting spending?

[Gypsea]

We can biatch and moan about the 24 hour news cycle, its need to fill time, and manufactured drama and conflict, but because of it we will not elect an ugly or inarticulate president (again).

I believe it was the movie "American President" where they said (very paraphrased) "if we had TV we wouldn't have elected a president in a wheelchair" re :FDR.

I consider articulateness, the ability to speak extemporaneously, and eloquence some pretty good indicators of intelligence, but the sheeple are certainly believing the muddy e-mails and uber out of context sound bites.

I wish I shared your optimism but why wouldn't we elect an inarticulate president again sometime in the future just like we have in the last two elections?

As far as our next president, I'm just glad he will be a grownup! :biggrin:

[goofer44]

He said "for purposes of fairness."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8)

In any case, I think the far left aims to "level the playing field."


In the youtube clip his example was "the top 50 hedge fund managers earning $29 billion". I would be for having a surcharge on people earning more than $ 2 million $5million $ 20 million or whatever number you want. To cite 50 top earners as an example contrasted to 100 million plus stock owners is an intellectually dishonest arguement. I earn my living through cap gains, muni interest, and dividends which are also taxed at 15%. I would have no problem with that rate being raised to 20%. There needs to be an across the board reform of our out of whack tax system.

[BeachSiO2]

But money in a 401K is not taxed in the beginning, and only the gains are taxed at the end, so the money is being taxed at a lower rate far below 20% or 15%, so the incentive to save remains.

Taxing the wealth is not "taxing the wealthy" -- some populist slogan, it's taking shared responsibility to get our deficit under control. Calling it socialist is as dishonest as calling huge, expanding government waging war on credit and running up massive deficits conservative.

Whatever, I'm on vacation from the Politics forum. Whoosh....off I go!

Enjoy vacation...

[goofer44]

To the issue of fairness, Obama talked about the 50 highest paid hedge fund managers earning a total of $29 billion!!! To contrast that with 100 million shareholders is an intellectually dishonest arguement. The better arguement is to have a surcharge tax on those earning X millions of dollars and leave the cap gains tax where it is. I do not work. My income is derived from cap gains, dividends, muni interest and my wife's pension. I personally would have no problem if the rate for cap gains and qualified dividends were raised to 20%. We all need to make some concessions to get our fiscal house in order. The tax system is whacky and spending is out of control also.

[JustaLocal]

To the issue of fairness, Obama talked about the 50 highest paid hedge fund managers earning a total of $29 billion!!! To contrast that with 100 million shareholders is an intellectually dishonest arguement. The better arguement is to have a surcharge tax on those earning X millions of dollars and leave the cap gains tax where it is. I do not work. My income is derived from cap gains, dividends, muni interest and my wife's pension. I personally would have no problem if the rate for cap gains and qualified dividends were raised to 20%. We all need to make some concessions to get our fiscal house in order. The tax system is whacky and spending is out of control also.

I agree 100%!!! :clap:

Why punish the average invester when you are angry about the earning ability of a select few? This particularly when you have evidence it will harm overall revenue to do so. Cut off your nose to spite your face?

[scooterbug44]

I don't think we need a whole new tax plan, I think that we need to:

1) Take a good hard look at the current tax code and remove many ridiculous loopholes and exceptions

2) DEMAND that government at all levels stop its irresponsible and out of control spending

[Margarita]

From Newsmax Magazine - I think this sums it up.


President Obama and
the Coming Stock Market Crash
How destructive to the U.S. economy would a Barack Obama presidency be?

An exclusive Newsmax analysis warns: There could be a very rough time ahead.

Beneath Obama's flowery rhetoric lies a dangerous economic plan that will wreak havoc on the American economy.

Obama plans to return to the failed policies of high taxation coupled with an expansion of government spending.

Worse, Obama says he is absolutely committed to almost doubling the capital gains rate — something he will easily accomplish with a Democrat Congress.

In the coming months — when investors realize that Obama will raise the cap gains rate — there could be a stampede of asset sales as investors rush to take their profits now to avoid Obama's doubling of the tax rates next year.

All of these issues and more are explored in Newsmax magazine's special report "Obamanomics — the Coming Tax-and-Spend Nightmare," by Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund.

This Newsmax magazine special report gives Americans the first in-depth look at the Democratic presidential candidate's likely strategies — and how they will affect not just the larger economy, but your personal wealth as well.

Indeed, Obama makes no bones about his plans to go on a tax rampage. Not only would he increase the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to as much as 28 percent, he wants to allow the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which effectively raises taxes on Americans by tens of billions of dollars.

He also wants to do away with the $102,000 FICA payroll tax cap, which means anyone making over $102,000 would pay an additional 7 percent in taxes on earned income.

And the loan dividend tax rate George Bush implemented? Under President Obama it will be DOA!

[Beach Runner]

I want to go back to the good old days when credit card interest was a tax deduction. ;-)

[scooterbug44]

I love that it is financial Armageddon because he has mentioned reverting to previous tax rates and not continuing tax cuts! :roll:

[traderx]

Tax receipts during Clinton's watch increased 61% over his first year. During Bush's watch, government receipts increased 34% and that was after the Greenspan Y2K overreaction induced stock market crash. Spending under Clinton rose only 31% while spending under Bush increased by 45%.

Spending has much more to do with Congress than the President but having said that, Bush never vetoed a bill until recently.

The US Tax Code is 17,000 pages long if I recollect correctly. Can we agree that it is long enough already or should we increase it to 25,000 pages? :bang:

I could reduce the entire tax code to one page and make it fair for all.

This Baby Ruth bar tastes funny...:rolling:

[Margarita]

Tax receipts during Clinton's watch increased 61% over his first year. During Bush's watch, government receipts increased 34% and that was after the Greenspan Y2K overreaction induced stock market crash. Spending under Clinton rose only 31% while spending under Bush increased by 45%.

Spending has much more to do with Congress than the President but having said that, Bush never vetoed a bill until recently.
The US Tax Code is 17,000 pages long if I recollect correctly. Can we agree that it is long enough already or should we increase it to 25,000 pages? :bang:

I could reduce the entire tax code to one page and make it fair for all.

This Baby Ruth bar tastes funny...:rolling:


Exactly right - As a fiscal conservative I am very disappointed in Bush for not doing anything to cut spending. It was the reason that John McCain voted against the tax cuts (much to my dismay). Limit government spending and make the tax cuts permanent.

[30ashopper]

Just for reference, he stated originally that he wanted to raise cap. gains to 28%, much higher than H. Clinton. He later stated (and it still stands) on CNBC 25-28% claiming the experts he had spoken with stated that those rates would not impede investment.

Additionally, he has stated he wishes to raise the dividend tax from 15% to (I believe) 39.7%. That's a very big hike and may affect investment.

He has also stated he wishes to eliminate the social security tax cap. This has never been done before. It will convert SS from a moderately progressive tax to a very progressive one. I believe this alone will hit the economy quite a bit if he gets it through. (Although I don't think he will, moderate dems and reps will prevent it.)

Why don't we step around the discussion of whether or not Obama is a progressive who wants to raise taxes on people who make good income. He is, that's what he wants to do, it's that simple. This is the social Democratic stance - fair over free for the most part when it comes to income distribution, services, and trade. Some folks agree with that, some don't. It's an ideological difference.

I think though that a significant number of Obama supporters are not social democrats, but that they are caught up in the message, the look and feel, the race issue, and are not paying attention to policy. (Yay! Back on topic!) I think in the end they'll regret that. Some of us have seen what this kind of policy can do to the economy (assuming you were around for the 70's). I feel it's a lesson a significant number of Obama's followers have not yet learned or are ignoring. It's looking like they will get the chance to learn it again.

[traderx]

Back to the original point of this thread, Yahoo's current news story front and center is about the "playful fist bump" between Obama and his wife. Is it me or is the press just giddy about Obama?

Pasted below is the closing paragraph of the story.

Of course, no one would dare presume that a simple fist bump will elevate Senator Obama to the White House. But an article from New York Magazine (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/06/clinton_says_shell_drop_out_on.html?mid=daily-intel--yahoo-buzz) speculates that the knocking of knuckles may go a long way toward proving that the aspiring commander-in-chief is actually kind of hip. When was the last time you could say that about a presidential candidate and keep a straight face?

Hip? Substance? What substance? :idontno:

[pgurney]

The capital gains tax is not just about stocks. The capital gains tax is about selling an asset. It doesn't consider how long you've owned it (except for the difference between short and long term gains = 1 year) or the rate of inflation. In some people's cases it could be about selling a company, or intellectual property, in which you've had the honor of paying income taxes all along while developing those items for sale....again while paying income taxes to do so. It can be about receiving a meager royalty on something you've sold...while none of it considers the rate of inflation.

To tax wealth, while not taxing the wealthy, would mean that people who are not wealthy have wealth. That sounds like a slogan to me. I am not wealthy by any means, but if someone wants to increase capital gains taxes on me, because they consider it wealth....Well, I'm thinking they are out of touch.

It's a misconception to consider capital gains as "wealth". It's just a plan to redistribute what some people have worked hard as hell for.

[Bob]

you should pay more because you can not because you want to...where that ends, who knows, so have at it,,,no one on the left side of the aisle considers investment begats jobs...well at least subhuman poor paying jobs lately.

[pgurney]

you should pay more because you can not because you want to...where that ends, who knows, so have at it

Please clarify?:funn:

[rancid]

Why don't we step around the discussion of whether or not Obama is a progressive who wants to raise taxes on people who make good income. He is, that's what he wants to do, it's that simple. This is the social Democratic stance - fair over free for the most part when it comes to income distribution, services, and trade. Some folks agree with that, some don't. It's an ideological difference.

I think though that a significant number of Obama supporters are not social democrats, but that they are caught up in the message, the look and feel, the race issue, and are not paying attention to policy. (Yay! Back on topic!) I think in the end they'll regret that. Some of us have seen what this kind of policy can do to the economy (assuming you were around for the 70's). I feel it's a lesson a significant number of Obama's followers have not yet learned or are ignoring. It's looking like they will get the chance to learn it again.




I am person who supports Obama and will see my taxes go up under his presidency. However, I am "caught up" in his message of changing and improving our country for all citizens. If that costs me some money then so be it.

The economy of the last 8 years has benefited few at the expense of many. Furthermore, Republican tax policy is not as good aa it seems on the surface. Take health care for example. The last few years have seen a huge increase in uninsured people seeking care through emergency rooms at the expense of the public. This has led to sharp increases in health care costs and much of this is passed on to Americans through their health care premiums. I would take some universal healthcare and lowering of my healthcare costs in exchange for an increase in my taxes.

[30ashopper]

I am person who supports Obama and will see my taxes go up under his presidency. However, I am "caught up" in his message of changing and improving our country for all citizens. If that costs me some money then so be it.

The economy of the last 8 years has benefited few at the expense of many. Furthermore, Republican tax policy is not as good aa it seems on the surface. Take health care for example. The last few years have seen a huge increase in uninsured people seeking care through emergency rooms at the expense of the public. This has led to sharp increases in health care costs and much of this is passed on to Americans through their health care premiums. I would take some universal healthcare and lowering of my healthcare costs in exchange for an increase in my taxes.

Boy, well, I disagree with your reasoning on healthcare costs but I'm in no mood to get into a healthcare debate tonight! It's almost the weekend! :wave:

:chill:

[traderx]

The economy of the last 8 years has benefited few at the expense of many. Furthermore, Republican tax policy is not as good aa it seems on the surface. Take health care for example. The last few years have seen a huge increase in uninsured people seeking care through emergency rooms at the expense of the public. This has led to sharp increases in health care costs and much of this is passed on to Americans through their health care premiums. I would take some universal healthcare and lowering of my healthcare costs in exchange for an increase in my taxes.

If you want to understand the culprit behind the enormous increase in health care costs, draw a graph of health care costs and government health care spending. Then run a linear regression analysis on the data points. You will see an alarming correlation. However well-intentioned, whenever the government gets involved in fixing a problem, the costs go up and quality goes down.

[goofer44]

The 1960 Presidential campaign featured the first televised debates. Pundits agree that Kennedy’s good looks, charisma and ease in front of the camera helped him get elected. By contrast, Nixon looked haggard, awkward and shot bullets of sweat at television screens.

After painfully watching McCain deliver a speech last night, his unrelenting monotone made me wonder if this election campaign won’t be a repeat of the 1960 campaign. Obama is at ease in front of a camera and uses the teleprompter like a pro. He has an interesting vocal delivery and has charisma. McCain is pale and boring by comparison. I think this fall will be a long season for Republicans.


Traderx

I am going back to your thread starter !! This will be an exciting campaign because we may have 10 to 20 debates. NOT SPEECHES but debates. That is McCain's strong suit.......debating the issues of which he is a master of. It won't matter that MCCain will look pasty next to Obama or that he will look old and grumpy. McCain will be in his element. He won the Republican nomination because of his mastery of the issues and I suspect he will repeat the same in the debates with Obama. Obama is not good at debating, imho. I think his face to face debates with Hillary confirms that. McCain's experience and knowledge of the issues especially international issues will sure to impress. This will clearly be a case of experience and substance trumping puffery. The image and experience of McCain who is clearly the more qualified to be commander in chief will be quite obvious when the debates begin. I think the contrast of the 2 side by side will be startling. I like and respect Obama but I believe 3 1/2 years in the US Senate is not sufficient to run the world's biggest enterprise !!! McCain's time has come. I honestly believe there is very little comparison to 1960 other than the fact of a fresh new inspirational face has been thrust on the national scene. I believe the baby boom generation of which I am a charter member will overwhelmingly vote for McCain.

[traderx]

Goofer44,

Your points are well taken. I just wonder how the media's giddiness might carry over to the electorate and cause some town hall debate blind spots. Of course, Obama's candicacy is historic but heaven help McCain if he calls a reporter sweetie.


And oh yeah, back to the earlier news article about Obama being "hip" because he and Michelle touched their fists together. You wanna hear hip and cool? McCain married a woman who owns a beer distributorship. Now, that is cool.

[elgordoboy]

Can someone in the McCain camp ask him not to snicker- it reminds me of this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6be9AIB-ckk&feature=related

I say this with much love.

[ItzKatzTime]

The only differences are that Kennedy had experience and Obama has almost no experience. One other noticeable difference is that Kennedy words, "ask not what your Country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your Country." Obama on the other hand wants to create more government dependency, getting people to ask what their Country can do for the people. The difference is HUGE.

BTW, I love the redundant thread title. I love the redundant thread title.

:clap::clap::clap:

[Gypsea]

Goofer44,

Your points are well taken. I just wonder how the media's giddiness might carry over to the electorate and cause some town hall debate blind spots. Of course, Obama's candicacy is historic but heaven help McCain if he calls a reporter sweetie.


And oh yeah, back to the earlier news article about Obama being "hip" because he and Michelle touched their fists together. You wanna hear hip and cool? McCain married a woman who owns a beer distributorship. Now, that is cool.

Not quite SO cool. He was 43 and married, she was 25 and worth millions. Oh yeah, I guess sometimes guys think thats cool. :roll:

[traderx]

Not quite SO cool. He was 43 and married, she was 25 and worth millions. Oh yeah, I guess sometimes guys think thats cool. :roll:

Ooops, I had no idea that he was married at the time or that she was so much younger. No, that is not cool to me.

Now the beer...lol.

[Gypsea]

Traderx

I am going back to your thread starter !! This will be an exciting campaign because we may have 10 to 20 debates. NOT SPEECHES but debates. That is McCain's strong suit.......debating the issues of which he is a master of. It won't matter that MCCain will look pasty next to Obama or that he will look old and grumpy. McCain will be in his element. He won the Republican nomination because of his mastery of the issues and I suspect he will repeat the same in the debates with Obama. Obama is not good at debating, imho. I think his face to face debates with Hillary confirms that. McCain's experience and knowledge of the issues especially international issues will sure to impress. This will clearly be a case of experience and substance trumping puffery. The image and experience of McCain who is clearly the more qualified to be commander in chief will be quite obvious when the debates begin. I think the contrast of the 2 side by side will be startling. I like and respect Obama but I believe 3 1/2 years in the US Senate is not sufficient to run the world's biggest enterprise !!! McCain's time has come. I honestly believe there is very little comparison to 1960 other than the fact of a fresh new inspirational face has been thrust on the national scene. I believe the baby boom generation of which I am a charter member will overwhelmingly vote for McCain.

Goofer, which McCain do you think will campaign against Obama ~ maverick McCain or McBush? Other than his personal life, I liked McCain when he was a maverick ~ before he sucked up to Bush.

[Gypsea]

Ooops, I had no idea that he was married at the time or that she was so much younger. No, that is not cool to me.

Now the beer...lol.

Agreed ~ the beer distributorship is cool. :cool:

[jdarg]

Not quite SO cool. He was 43 and married, she was 25 and worth millions. Oh yeah, I guess sometimes guys think thats cool. :roll:

Now if she had been 43 and he had been 25....we would call her a cougar, right?:lol:

[DD]

Now if she had been 43 and he had been 25....we would call her a cougar, right?:lol:

:biggrin:

[Geo]

The only differences are that Kennedy had experience and Obama has almost no experience. One other noticeable difference is that Kennedy words, "ask not what your Country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your Country." Obama on the other hand wants to create more government dependency, getting people to ask what their Country can do for the people. The difference is HUGE.

BTW, I love the redundant thread title. I love the redundant thread title.

Everything is relative. I trust what you say that Obama has less experience than JFK without verifying. But hopefully you aren't missing the point...

There was a stark contrast between the charisma of JFK and RN during that debate. And there was a stark contrast between Obama's speech (and the whole vibe with the venue, crowd, etc.) and McCain's on that same night...

Experience (or lack thereof) for any of the parties doesn't change that. This is the point of the thread, IMHO...

G

[LuciferSam]

The capital gains tax is not just about stocks. The capital gains tax is about selling an asset. It doesn't consider how long you've owned it (except for the difference between short and long term gains = 1 year) or the rate of inflation. In some people's cases it could be about selling a company, or intellectual property, in which you've had the honor of paying income taxes all along while developing those items for sale....again while paying income taxes to do so. It can be about receiving a meager royalty on something you've sold...while none of it considers the rate of inflation.

To tax wealth, while not taxing the wealthy, would mean that people who are not wealthy have wealth. That sounds like a slogan to me. I am not wealthy by any means, but if someone wants to increase capital gains taxes on me, because they consider it wealth....Well, I'm thinking they are out of touch.

It's a misconception to consider capital gains as "wealth". It's just a plan to redistribute what some people have worked hard as hell for.

Even if people didn't work hard for it, should luck be taxed? I don't think so. I think Obama's got some explaining to do.

[30ashopper]

Goofer, which McCain do you think will campaign against Obama ~ maverick McCain or McBush? Other than his personal life, I liked McCain when he was a maverick ~ before he sucked up to Bush.

Gypsea - that was a cheap shot and you know it. Is that the kind of race the Dems want this fall? Is that the kind of campaigning Obama stands for? If so, nothing has "changed".

[Gypsea]

Gypsea - that was a cheap shot and you know it. Is that the kind of race the Dems want this fall? Is that the kind of campaigning Obama stands for? If so, nothing has "changed".

It's not meant to be cheap. It's just an honest question. My first choice this fall would be for the maverick McCain but clearly he was going towards his base in the primary. Which group will he campaigning for in the general election? If he stays with the Bush policies he will lose many people in the middle. I would then be for Obama. Just trying to see which way he will be leaning. Still hoping to see his maverick ways return.

[Margarita]

Goofer44,

Your points are well taken. I just wonder how the media's giddiness might carry over to the electorate and cause some town hall debate blind spots. Of course, Obama's candicacy is historic but heaven help McCain if he calls a reporter sweetie.

And oh yeah, back to the earlier news article about Obama being "hip" because he and Michelle touched their fists together. You wanna hear hip and cool? McCain married a woman who owns a beer distributorship. Now, that is cool.

Can you even imagine if McCain had been the one to say that he had been to all 57 states. The media would have had a field day - declaring that this was an obvious indication of dementia.

[jdarg]

It's not meant to be cheap. It's just an honest question. My first choice this fall would be for the maverick McCain but clearly he was going towards his base in the primary. Which group will he campaigning for in the general election? If he stays with the Bush policies he will lose many people in the middle. I would then be for Obama. Just trying to see which way he will be leaning. Still hoping to see his maverick ways return.

I think so many people feel this way. I remember Bdarg and I talking about him several years ago- how he was a "maverick" and seemed to think for himself. "Wow", we thought, "here is a guy that seems to get it", especially in the way he could work with everyone, not just Republicans. We felt quite optimistic!

Of course that all changed - I guess he probably had to "adjust" to make certain groups happy. I still admire McCain on several levels, but he can't be my guy.

I am dreading this campaign. Two very fine men will be ripped to shreds.

[BeachSiO2]

I think so many people feel this way. I remember Bdarg and I talking about him several years ago- how he was a "maverick" and seemed to think for himself. "Wow", we thought, "here is a guy that seems to get it", especially in the way he could work with everyone, not just Republicans. We felt quite optimistic!

Of course that all changed - I guess he probably had to "adjust" to make certain groups happy. I still admire McCain on several levels, but he can't be my guy.

I am dreading this campaign. Two very fine men will be ripped to shreds.

I agree his rhetoric had to change to win the primary but his Senatorial actions are still those of working to find compromise. Keep in mind he is a strong leader in the Group of 14 that is bipartisan and has worked to bring some issues to the forefront in the Senate. Some of which I don't like (McCain-Feingold for one) but still demonstrate that he "worked for actual changes" as a senator. His voting record and actions as a Senator have been "maverick" which is why he had to go more conservative to win the primary.

Contrast that to someone who says they are for change yet I have been unable to find many occasions in his three years as a senator where he didn't vote party lines or where he sponsored substantial bipartisan legislation. If what I read is correct his voting record is more than 90%+ democratic.

I guess my point is that I am glad it is moving out of the primary season where substance and actions will become more important then oration and rhetoric. It should be exciting for all of us to truly see specifics of not only how people say they are going to do things but what they have done.

IMO, BOTH candidates have some explaining to do and there are still a substantial number of undecideds out there to be educated by facts. I look forward to spirited discussions between such different candidates to see who will be the better leader. I just hope that the negative personal attacks don't overshadow the substantial differences in message and ideals that they both have.

[goofer44]

It's not meant to be cheap. It's just an honest question. My first choice this fall would be for the maverick McCain but clearly he was going towards his base in the primary. Which group will he campaigning for in the general election? If he stays with the Bush policies he will lose many people in the middle. I would then be for Obama. Just trying to see which way he will be leaning. Still hoping to see his maverick ways return.

I did not take it as a cheap shot. Perfectly valid question. I think that McCain is moving back to the Maverick McCain. He has been distancing himself from Bush and the Bush policies. His latest comments on the surge, the prosecution of the war, the lack of a veto pen, his consistency against earmarks, and his repudiation of the extreme right wing religious leaders are all vintage McCain. McCain is shrewd enough to know that his Maverick McCain persona is the meat and potatos of his success and of his bipartisanship respect. I look forward to a spirited and respectful campaign.

[rapunzel]

I agree his rhetoric had to change to win the primary but his Senatorial actions are still those of working to find compromise. Keep in mind he is a strong leader in the Group of 14 that is bipartisan and has worked to bring some issues to the forefront in the Senate. Some of which I don't like (McCain-Feingold for one) but still demonstrate that he "worked for actual changes" as a senator. His voting record and actions as a Senator have been "maverick" which is why he had to go more conservative to win the primary.

Contrast that to someone who says they are for change yet I have been unable to find many occasions in his three years as a senator where he didn't vote party lines or where he sponsored substantial bipartisan legislation. If what I read is correct his voting record is more than 90%+ democratic.


Well, I was particularly impressed with the legislastion he proposed in the Senate yesterday -

The Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 is the culmination of a bipartisan effort by Senator Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) and Senator John McCain co-sponsored the bill. Yes, Obama's such a shark, so ready to rip people to shreds that he let McCain sign on as a co-sponsor.

The new bill would build upon and improve previous efforts by Senators Obama and Coburn to provide public access to federal grant and contract information through the USASpending.gov web site. Among other things, it would require copies of each federal contract and details of the bidding process to be published online.

The provisions of the bill were outlined in a joint press release on June 3.

"People from every State in this great Nation sent us to Congress to defend their rights and stand up for their interests," Sen. Obama said in a prepared floor statement. "To do that we have to tear down the barriers that separate citizens from the democratic process and to shine a brighter light on the inner workings of Washington. This bill helps to shine that light."

While most government agencies have cooperated with the contracting transparency requirements that were adopted in 2006, some intelligence agencies have dragged their heels in opposition. The Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which used to disclose their unclassified contracts, actually withheld such information from the USASpending.gov database in 2007 and 2008.
from http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/06/obama_introd.html

The good news is that, regardless of the outcome of this election and whether we continue on the road to becoming a country without a middle class -- and those are so pleasant to live in -- perhaps some of us should think of moving to Haiti or Malawi ?-- we will see a change in the influence peddling that has become the business of our government.

[BeachSiO2]

Good post Punzy and this is exactly what I was talking about and why I am glad that the primary season is over. It's time to move past rhetoric, speeches and primary partisanship to see what people are actually doing.

[Gypsea]

Well, I was particularly impressed with the legislastion he proposed in the Senate yesterday -

The Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 is the culmination of a bipartisan effort by Senator Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) and Senator John McCain co-sponsored the bill. Yes, Obama's such a shark, so ready to rip people to shreds that he let McCain sign on as a co-sponsor.

from http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/06/obama_introd.html

The good news is that, regardless of the outcome of this election and whether we continue on the road to becoming a country without a middle class -- and those are so pleasant to live in -- perhaps some of us should think of moving to Haiti or Malawi ?-- we will see a change in the influence peddling that has become the business of our government.

:wub: it when they can work together!!!

[30ashopper]

Well, I was particularly impressed with the legislastion he proposed in the Senate yesterday -

The Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 is the culmination of a bipartisan effort by Senator Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) and Senator John McCain co-sponsored the bill. Yes, Obama's such a shark, so ready to rip people to shreds that he let McCain sign on as a co-sponsor.

from http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/06/obama_introd.html

The good news is that, regardless of the outcome of this election and whether we continue on the road to becoming a country without a middle class -- and those are so pleasant to live in -- perhaps some of us should think of moving to Haiti or Malawi ?-- we will see a change in the influence peddling that has become the business of our government.

I think you'll get a transparency/coruption fighting president in both of them. Now that's a good sign! Now if we could just swap out every congressman we'd be in business. :D

[Margarita]

I think you'll get a transparency/coruption fighting president in both of them. Now that's a good sign! Now if we could just swap out every congressman we'd be in business. :D

Or at the very least do away with the 60 BILLION dollars of earmarks that they squander away every year with our taxpayer dollars :bang:

[BeachSiO2]

Or at the very least do away with the 60 BILLION dollars of earmarks that they squander away every year with our taxpayer dollars :bang:

I agree that some of the $60 billion goes to bad projects, but some of it is truly a rebate to low income, or rural communities of the money that their own citizens paid in federal taxes. Plus the overall budget in 2007/08 is over $3 trillion. Is the 60 billion (aka less than 2% of the total budget) really the problem? I think the overall tax scheme is the problem.

Here's something that almost no one realizes. In 2006/07, the budget negotiations led to the passage of a number of omnibus bills where the majority of line item appropriations (earmarks) were not included and thus the money was doled out by the government agencies. Keep in mind the amount of money was NOT reduced, the funding mechanism was altered. In regards to one issue, transportation, the majority of money was appropriated via the agency. Now, here's the kicker. How much of that money went to a small handful of major metropolitan areas, and how much went to rural communities like northwest Florida. Let me tell you, almost none to small communities and almost all to larger metropolitan areas. Is that fair and equal government? If earmarks were truly removed, the budget would not decrease. Any politician that says that they will reduce the overall spending due to earmarks is LYING, and if not we are only talking about TWO PERCENT max.

So what they are really saying is we will reduce the amount of money that lower income and more rural communities will be reduced because I guarantee that Phoenix and Chicago will be well taken care of if govenment agencies have their druthers (bye bye forever Hwy 331 bridge).

IMO, it is sad that the government that allocates 100% of our tax dollars is tricky enough to make the general public think that 2% is the problem. I think its time for us all to get a reality check and demand that we all get a "rebate" back for the money we pay in and not just the bigger cities.

[Margarita]

I agree that some of the $60 billion goes to bad projects, but some of it is truly a rebate to low income, or rural communities of the money that their own citizens paid in federal taxes. Plus the overall budget in 2007/08 is over $3 trillion. Is the 60 billion (aka less than 2% of the total budget) really the problem? I think the overall tax scheme is the problem. Here's something that almost no one realizes. In 2006/07, the budget negotiations led to the passage of a number of omnibus bills where the majority of line item appropriations (earmarks) were not included and thus the money was doled out by the government agencies. Keep in mind the amount of money was NOT reduced, the funding mechanism was altered. In regards to one issue, transportation, the majority of money was appropriated via the agency. Now, here's the kicker. How much of that money went to a small handful of major metropolitan areas, and how much went to rural communities like northwest Florida. Let me tell you, almost none to small communities and almost all to larger metropolitan areas. Is that fair and equal government? If earmarks were truly removed, the budget would not decrease. Any politician that says that they will reduce the overall spending due to earmarks is LYING, and if not we are only talking about TWO PERCENT max.

So what they are really saying is we will reduce the amount of money that lower income and more rural communities will be reduced because I guarantee that Phoenix and Chicago will be well taken care of if govenment agencies have their druthers (bye bye forever Hwy 331 bridge).

IMO, it is sad that the government that allocates 100% of our tax dollars is tricky enough to make the general public think that 2% is the problem. I think its time for us all to get a reality check and demand that we all get a "rebate" back for the money we pay in and not just the bigger cities.

There is massive corruption associated with earmarks. It may not be "the" problem but it is definitely part of the problem. IMO

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361061,00.html

[BeachSiO2]

There is massive corruption associated with earmarks. It may not be "the" problem but it is definitely part of the problem. IMO

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361061,00.html

I looked at your link and like I said in the outset of my post, there are definitely some bad projects out there. However, it appears by what they at least listed on the web page, this was before the new transparency rules went into effect. Now, the sponsor is required to attach his or her name onto the spending bills. So, most members will be less likely to face the public scrutiny of requesting those bad projects. Plus, it will make it easier to track down whether or not the projects benefit a particular member.

[Margarita]

I looked at your link and like I said in the outset of my post, there are definitely some bad projects out there. However, it appears by what they at least listed on the web page, this was before the new transparency rules went into effect. Now, the sponsor is required to attach his or her name onto the spending bills. So, most members will be less likely to face the public scrutiny of requesting those bad projects. Plus, it will make it easier to track down whether or not the projects benefit a particular member.

Agree

[Smiling JOe]

beachsi02, earmarks may not account for much of the wasteful spending, but they are part of the problem of overspending. Sure, there is money spent on needed projects, but there is money needed in the bank account of the people who pay Federal taxes. If the Congress would tighten up all the way around, as we people are doing in down times, we could actually cut the deficit. Instead, the Gov't continues to spend more, inflation increases, people are being laid off work, people are not getting salary/wage increases to keep up with inflation. That crap doesn't work well on a graph over time. The gov't needs to figure out what the gov't can afford, and make some sacrifices just like the average tax payer is doing.

[BeachSiO2]

beachsi02, earmarks may not account for much of the wasteful spending, but they are part of the problem of overspending. Sure, there is money spent on needed projects, but there is money needed in the bank account of the people who pay Federal taxes. If the Congress would tighten up all the way around, as we people are doing in down times, we could actually cut the deficit. Instead, the Gov't continues to spend more, inflation increases, people are being laid off work, people are not getting salary/wage increases to keep up with inflation. That crap doesn't work well on a graph over time. The gov't needs to figure out what the gov't can afford, and make some sacrifices just like the average tax payer is doing.

I couldn't agree with you more, and Margarita also, about the overall size of the budget. I guess my point was that in the current system, I think we are all being led to believe that if we could solve "the earmark problem" then things would be much better. This is what the media reports since its easy and could be put into a couple of quick sound bites. Well, with the new transparency rules I believe you will see more of the "bad" projects disappear, but I am not confident that the overall budget will reduce and it has to because it is unsustainable. Glad we are all on the same page, I just wanted to flesh out some of the intricacies of the process.

[Smiling JOe]

I completely understand.

[Margarita]

I completely understand.

Me too :D

[traderx]

Link below is to a page in the Heritage Foundation website which breaks out the federal budget. Here is an interesting tidbit: I just read elsewhere that the number of people receiving welfare is between five and six million. Let's assume six million. In 2006, we spent more than 192 billion dollars on Medicaid which is means-tested healthcare benefits. This means we spent $32,000 per person on federally funded healthcare to welfare recepients. This is the same federal government which is going to provide us with "free" healthcare?

And this does not include cash payments per Title VII or food stamps. I also don't think it includes the cost of administration, i.e., federal government employees who administer social entitlement programs, IT costs, state reviews, etc. I assume that "income security programs" means welfare cash payments. If you divide the $215 billion we spend in this category, that equals $36,000 per. Honestly, I don't know if the six million number is the number of families or individuals; I believe it is families.

So, thus far, just between providing health care and cash to needy families, we spend $68,000 per family!!!! And I can assure you there are more expenses I have not included. As more and more folks line up for government solutions, be careful what you wish for.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/Issues/issuearea/Budget.cfm

[Margarita]

Link below is to a page in the Heritage Foundation website which breaks out the federal budget. Here is an interesting tidbit: I just read elsewhere that the number of people receiving welfare is between five and six million. Let's assume six million. In 2006, we spent more than 192 billion dollars on Medicaid which is means-tested healthcare benefits. This means we spent $32,000 per person on federally funded healthcare to welfare recepients. This is the same federal government which is going to provide us with "free" healthcare?

And this does not include cash payments per Title VII or food stamps. I also don't think it includes the cost of administration, i.e., federal government employees who administer social entitlement programs, IT costs, state reviews, etc. I assume that "income security programs" means welfare cash payments. If you divide the $215 billion we spend in this category, that equals $36,000 per. Honestly, I don't know if the six million number is the number of families or individuals; I believe it is families.

So, thus far, just between providing health care and cash to needy families, we spend $68,000 per family!!!! And I can assure you there are more expenses I have not included. As more and more folks line up for government solutions, be careful what you wish for.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/Issues/issuearea/Budget.cfm

Thanks for the link. I've added it to my favorites.

[Bob]

in 5 years the Pentagon says we've spent 600 billion in Iraq. This figure does not count the cost of the government going forward for all the soldiers disabled physically and mentally. I see a huge opportunity here to save not only money, but lives. We may finally leave when W leaves, but to hear D.C. speak, we're stuck.

[traderx]

in 5 years the Pentagon says we've spent 600 billion in Iraq. This figure does not count the cost of the government going forward for all the soldiers disabled physically and mentally. I see a huge opportunity here to save not only money, but lives. We may finally leave when W leaves, but to hear D.C. speak, we're stuck.

I suspect we are stuck there for a while; however, we have plenty of other opportunities to save defense money. We have men and woman stationed all over the world including Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. I am clearly in favor of a strong defense but not acting as the world's policeman. Besides, if the Europeans hate us so much, fine, let them defend themselves.

[DuneLaker]

Politics is a mean, nasty business. The best candidate does not always win. Lincoln's campaign was very ugly. Clay was defeated by Polk. TV does have an impact. A low turnout would probably be good for the country. Having to answer a questionnaire on relevant topics before you voted will probably never happen, but you would have an informed voter instead of a bought one. Please don't vote if all your political information comes only from TV commercials, soundbites or simple campaign themes.

[30ashopper]

I suspect we are stuck there for a while; however, we have plenty of other opportunities to save defense money. We have men and woman stationed all over the world including Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. I am clearly in favor of a strong defense but not acting as the world's policeman. Besides, if the Europeans hate us so much, fine, let them defend themselves.

We are actively drawing down troop levels, the military estimates pre-surge levels by July with more troop cuts likely in the fall and next year. I'd be willing to bet we'll be down around 70,000 by next summer. By comparison we have around 41,000 in Japan, 36,000 in Korea, and around 65,000 in Germany. I think if you put it into perspective, by next year we'll either be at typical ally deployment levels, or alternatively, we're "stuck" in a lot of places including Iraq. Whether or not we should be in any of these places is open for discussion, but I think the idea that we are somehow "stuck" in Iraq isn't being entirely honest about the current situation and outlook.

[elgordoboy]

I suspect we are stuck there for a while; however, we have plenty of other opportunities to save defense money. We have men and woman stationed all over the world including Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. I am clearly in favor of a strong defense but not acting as the world's policeman. Besides, if the Europeans hate us so much, fine, let them defend themselves.
Is it your impression that we have troops in these places to protects these places interests?

[elgordoboy]

We are actively drawing down troop levels, the military estimates pre-surge levels by July with more troop cuts likely in the fall and next year. I'd be willing to bet we'll be down around 70,000 by next summer. By comparison we have around 41,000 in Japan, 36,000 in Korea, and around 65,000 in Germany. I think if you put it into perspective, by next year we'll either be at typical ally deployment levels, or alternatively, we're "stuck" in a lot of places including Iraq. Whether or not we should be in any of these places is open for discussion, but I think the idea that we are somehow "stuck" in Iraq isn't being entirely honest about the current situation and outlook.
Nice examples. How long before we can similarly start squeezing Iraq's nads for payback in trade and such?

[traderx]

Is it your impression that we have troops in these places to protects these places interests?

The same two countries started both World Wars so there is no mystery as to why we have troops in Germany and Japan. I am tired of the US being the policeman of the world. Besides, we catch nothing but grief from our "allies" in Europe and Asia. I say bring the troops home. The US is there to protect the interests of the US and our allies. I say let them pull the weight for a while.

We have to make cuts to get the federal budget down to $100 billion. :D

[30ashopper]

Nice examples. How long before we can similarly start squeezing Iraq's nads for payback in trade and such?

I don't know. If McCain wins this fall, I'd say give them time and let them spend oil revenue on reconstruction minus some financial support for our troops. The oil we'll have to pay market price but get first dibs and some control over production levels - which would be nice since we won't get kicked around by OPEC as much.

If Obama wins this fall we'll be pulling every troop out in a year and a half. In that case it'll really depend on what we leave behind. I doubt we'll have much say on things.

[30ashopper]

The same two countries started both World Wars so there is no mystery as to why we have troops in Germany and Japan. I am tired of the US being the policeman of the world. Besides, we catch nothing but grief from our "allies" in Europe and Asia. I say bring the troops home. The US is there to protect the interests of the US and our allies. I say let them pull the weight for a while.

We have to make cuts to get the federal budget down to $100 billion. :D

I think western european troop decreases are reasonable and I think we are actively doing that now. But I don't think your going to save much from that. Asia probably not, we need a strong presence there due to China and North Korea.