Trumptman Wins! Obama forced to talk about the issues.

[tonton]

Well, it seems like Obama was forced to actually use his mouth to say the words that he said on his website, instead of talking about "change".

Yes, Nick, I'm talking about a plan.

Obama talks specifics (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/17/obama-takes-on-economy-pa_n_127021.html).

And it sounds good.

From there, Obama offers a bullet point rundown of his economic prescriptions: reforming the tax system, clamping down on lobbyists, fast tracking "a plan for energy 'made-in-America,'" and ending the war in Iraq. "Doing these things won't be easy," he concludes. "But we're Americans. We've met tough challenges before... I approved this message because bitter, partisan fights and outworn ideas of the left and the right won't solve the problems we face today. But a new spirit of unity and shared responsibility will."

[FloorJack]

Point of fact, no banks closed on wall street. Some wall street institutions were bought, some filed chapter 11, some got bridge loans. Nothing closed though. Obama is shooting for Great Depression II but that's not what's happening here.

[trumptman]

http://netanya.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/293_home_alone_121107.jpg

Wow. I predict this will be an effective approach. If he and his surrogates focus on this message between now and November, I suspect he will win as big as has been predicted and that people will wonder where all that mysterious racism went that was supposedly holding down his poll numbers.

Good job Barack Obama. Of course I don't agree with all of the points made but good job at promoting the larger plan, breaking it down into nice bites that will peak public interest and also for adding some meat to the bony old change and hope.

[BRussell]

Two points:

1) It's false to suggest that Obama is only now talking about specifics (I know tonton knows this). At every campaign event, he goes at great length about specific tax policies and health care and trade and energy etc. TV ads tend not to do this, because they need to be several minutes long in order to get into detail, but there's plenty of detail out there in his speeches and books and websites.

2) I have to admit to hating this kind of thing. This Obama ad is pretty good, but I know that the Clinton-era Democratic consultants want Obama to go into the Clinton mold of "give 6 specific little proposals that will help average Americans" thing - free library cards for everyone, a Mozart CD to every expectant mother, a 10% coupon for college students to pay for books! I'm a middle class (OK middle-to-upper class) guy, and I'm not thinking "what's in it for me?" I want a president who thinks about the national interest, in the broadest sense, not minor gifts like some car salesman throwing in free rustproofing. I hope Obama doesn't start doing that shit.

[icfireball]

http://netanya.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/293_home_alone_121107.jpg

Wow. I predict this will be an effective approach. If he and his surrogates focus on this message between now and November, I suspect he will win as big as has been predicted and that people will wonder where all that mysterious racism went that was supposedly holding down his poll numbers.

Good job Barack Obama. Of course I don't agree with all of the points made but good job at promoting the larger plan, breaking it down into nice bites that will peak public interest and also for adding some meat to the bony old change and hope.

Going to consider voting for Obama then?

On a side note, I don't see how you, as a teacher, could condone any presidential candidate (John McCain) that supports No Child Left Behind.

[FloorJack]

...


I want a president who thinks about the national interest, in the broadest sense, not minor gifts like some car salesman throwing in free rustproofing. I hope Obama doesn't start doing that shit.

The way he pitches is tax cut is that way. He says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of tax payers. Problem is something like 40% of tax payers either don't pay taxes or get a rebate. How do you cut taxes for 95% of tax payers when 40% don't pay anything? You give even more of a rebate.

[screener]

The way he pitches is tax cut is that way. He says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of tax payers. Problem is something like 40% of tax payers either don't pay taxes or get a rebate. How do you cut taxes for 95% of tax payers when 40% don't pay anything? You give even more of a rebate.
?
95% of tax PAYERS.

[hardeeharhar]

The way he pitches is tax cut is that way. He says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of tax payers. Problem is something like 40% of tax payers either don't pay taxes or get a rebate. How do you cut taxes for 95% of tax payers when 40% don't pay anything? You give even more of a rebate.

Actually, this is a falsehood. Obama's plan calls for a tax credit for WORKING individuals...

[ROFF]

The way he pitches is tax cut is that way. He says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of tax payers. Problem is something like 40% of tax payers either don't pay taxes or get a rebate. How do you cut taxes for 95% of tax payers when 40% don't pay anything? You give even more of a rebate.

I suppose that if 40% of taxpayers pay no tax then 60% do. So he could cut taxes on 95% of the 60% that do pay taxes. Not to difficult really.:)

[tonton]

The way he pitches is tax cut is that way. He says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of tax payers. Problem is something like 40% of tax payers either don't pay taxes or get a rebate. How do you cut taxes for 95% of tax payers when 40% don't pay anything? You give even more of a rebate.

Um... you don't get a rebate unless you've paid. It's not like you get money for free.

Every paycheck in the US, employees get a certain percentage of their income withheld for tax. This is tax that they've paid. The maximum rebate they get is equal to the amount withheld. In which case they can be considered not to have paid any taxes at the end of the year.

And yes. Obama was referring to 95% of tax payers. I.e. paid tax. I.e. their rebate was less than what was withheld from their monthly salary. What's so hard to understand about this?

[trumptman]

Going to consider voting for Obama then?

On a side note, I don't see how you, as a teacher, could condone any presidential candidate (John McCain) that supports No Child Left Behind.

No because I don't like his positions on health care, energy and the budget.

Sidenote: NCLB does need to be adjusted but it has done some profound good in forcing forward the standards movement. The trade-offs have been worth it.

[BRussell]

Well first the idea that 40% don't pay anything is a false Republican talking point. That may be true of federal income taxes, but there are tons of other taxes. Secondly, I believe Obama's tax plan calls for a tax credit to offset payroll taxes, which about half of Americans pay more of than income taxes, and is one of those taxes that Republicans conveniently leave out when they say things like "40% of Americans don't pay any taxes."

[trumptman]

Well first the idea that 40% don't pay anything is a false Republican talking point. That may be true of federal income taxes, but there are tons of other taxes. Secondly, I believe Obama's tax plan calls for a tax credit to offset payroll taxes, which about half of Americans pay more of than income taxes, and is one of those taxes that Republicans conveniently leave out when they say things like "40% of Americans don't pay any taxes."

So you think removing people from their medicare and S.S. obligation is a good thing?

[tonton]

So you think removing people from their medicare and S.S. obligation is a good thing?

If they can't afford it because they're being exploited by unscrupulous employment practices, yes.

The fact is, there is wealth redistribution happening, and it's from the pockets of the poor and middle class into the bank accounts of the rich. The CEO who takes in 20 million or more a year because he forces his managers to pay continually lower salaries and provide continually fewer benefits in the name of "efficiency", so the shareholders (who do no actual work for the company except provide capital) reward the CEO.

This is the way our system works, folks. And without regulation and some sort of correction, it would continue unfettered, until the workers are the closest things to slaves, simply because they don't have any choice but continue working.

[BRussell]

So you think removing people from their medicare and S.S. obligation is a good thing? I was just trying to point out what the actual plan says.

[trumptman]

I was just trying to point out what the actual plan says.

Nice new location by the way.:lol:

I think this will be found to be another one of those "evil" Republican plans the Democrats were "tricked" into.

Removing people from the tax rolls on these will not allow the government to call them insurance programs anymore. They will be pure income redistribution programs. (which they are already but the the lie is easier to buy when everyone has to pay) This makes it much easier to argue to eliminate them.

[icfireball]

No because I don't like his positions on health care, energy and the budget.

Sidenote: NCLB does need to be adjusted but it has done some profound good in forcing forward the standards movement. The trade-offs have been worth it.

You like McCain's position better? And doesn't it scare you shitless that McCain, who would be one of the oldest presidents in history, would pick someone (Palin) who has zero foreign policy experience, and actually... hasn't even had a passport until just a year ago?

What about Obama's health care plan do you dislike? Even though it increases spending on health care, Obama's budget pays for it while still reducing the deficit. Unlike Hillary's plan, it's not required... it just makes it affordable.

OR the budget? I'm fairly certain Obama's tax policies are going to be better for the economy... and better for you.

And energy? Obama's opinions on energy are fairly moderate... and many energy experts have said that drilling now won't have an affect for at least 30 years.

[trumptman]

You like McCain's position better? And doesn't it scare you shitless that McCain, who would be one of the oldest presidents in history, would pick someone (Palin) who has zero foreign policy experience, and actually... hasn't even had a passport until just a year ago?

What about Obama's health care plan do you dislike? Even though it increases spending on health care, Obama's budget pays for it while still reducing the deficit. Unlike Hillary's plan, it's not required... it just makes it affordable.

OR the budget? I'm fairly certain Obama's tax policies are going to be better for the economy... and better for you.

And energy? Obama's opinions on energy are fairly moderate... and many energy experts have said that drilling now won't have an affect for at least 30 years.

I do like McCain's positions better. No it doesn't scare me shitless that he picked Palin, quite the opposite.

I specifically dislike the fact that Obama's plan claims to pay for many things with savings and that any analysis I have read of that notes the numbers with regard to savings are impossible to obtain. Also I think the cost containment claims are bogus and will lead to reduced services. Most analysis I have read that investigates this deeply and honestly comes to those conclusions as well.

I've already talked about my views on taxes. S.S. and Medicare are sold as insurance programs. Everyone pays in and everyone takes out. You stop that belief and watch them crumble even more quickly.

Obama's energy proposals are not realistic in my view. The most realistic and clear approach is actually nuclear power. The best soundbite thought I can give you on that (since this is a sidebar) is that 30 years of generating a very large percentage of France's electrical needs has created waste large enough to fill a single floor of a large office building. Reprocessing allows 90% of the uranium to be reused again. It is carbon neutral and uses existing infrastructure. Anyone pushing hard for it gets my vote.

[jimmac]

I do like McCain's positions better. No it doesn't scare me shitless that he picked Palin, quite the opposite.

I specifically dislike the fact that Obama's plan claims to pay for many things with savings and that any analysis I have read of that notes the numbers with regard to savings are impossible to obtain. Also I think the cost containment claims are bogus and will lead to reduced services. Most analysis I have read that investigates this deeply and honestly comes to those conclusions as well.

I've already talked about my views on taxes. S.S. and Medicare are sold as insurance programs. Everyone pays in and everyone takes out. You stop that belief and watch them crumble even more quickly.

Obama's energy proposals are not realistic in my view. The most realistic and clear approach is actually nuclear power. The best soundbite thought I can give you on that (since this is a sidebar) is that 30 years of generating a very large percentage of France's electrical needs has created waste large enough to fill a single floor of a large office building. Reprocessing allows 90% of the uranium to be reused again. It is carbon neutral and uses existing infrastructure. Anyone pushing hard for it gets my vote.

That's all fine and good but McCain has a long history of voting with Bush. Look where things are. Is there really anything more to say?

Remember 6 years out of the last 8 Total control for the republicans.

Face it. They've already had their shot.

[BRussell]

I specifically dislike the fact that Obama's plan claims to pay for many things with savings and that any analysis I have read of that notes the numbers with regard to savings are impossible to obtain. Also I think the cost containment claims are bogus and will lead to reduced services. Most analysis I have read that investigates this deeply and honestly comes to those conclusions as well. I'm sure those same analyses tell you that McCain wants to cut taxes by about 1/3 more than Obama. If you're concerned about the budget (which, if you've been voting for Republicans over the years, I'd find hard to believe...), then neither Obama nor McCain have proposed solid plans to reduce the deficit significantly, but Obama is clearly better, primarily because McCain wants to cut taxes so much more.

[FloorJack]

Um... you don't get a rebate unless you've paid. It's not like you get money for free.

Every paycheck in the US, employees get a certain percentage of their income withheld for tax. This is tax that they've paid. The maximum rebate they get is equal to the amount withheld. In which case they can be considered not to have paid any taxes at the end of the year.

And yes. Obama was referring to 95% of tax payers. I.e. paid tax. I.e. their rebate was less than what was withheld from their monthly salary. What's so hard to understand about this?

I think you are confusing tax refund with tax credit (i should have used the word credit and not rebate). Tax refund is when you over pay your taxes, most often because too much was withheld, and you get a refund. Many people qualify for the earned income tax credit. You can claim a credit on the taxes that you've paid. If that credit brings your tax bill into negative territory then you get that money. The government is giving you back more than you've paid. The are increasing your annual income.

Considering that in 2005 33% of filers paid no taxes (estimated to be 40% in 2008) 66% (60%) of the filers are paying taxes. You guys are telling me that Obama is going to cut the taxes on those 66% (60%), target the middle class and keep taxes level or increased on the "rich".

:no:

Now that this information is out there its clear that Oabam doesn't mean that he's going to lower taxes for 95% of the 66% (60%). Unless he reduces payroll taxes (third rail) OR increases the EITC to reach into the 33% (40%) that don't pay now.

It's all gimmicky "vote for my I'll put money in your pocket" BS.

[tranquill]

It's interesting how the Israelis view Obama. He receives much support
both from Jewish liberals and arguably the right-wing AIPAC, but his
middle name bothers Israelis a lot. Also, there are doubts whether he is
really a Muslim apostate. Here is an article which analyzes Obama's
similarity to early Zionists:
http://samsonblinded.org/blog/obama-against-jewishness.htm What do you think of the parallels?

[@_@ Artman]

It's interesting how the Israelis view Obama. He receives much support
both from Jewish liberals and arguably the right-wing AIPAC, but his
middle name bothers Israelis a lot. Also, there are doubts whether he is
really a Muslim apostate. Here is an article which analyzes Obama's
similarity to early Zionists:
http://samsonblinded.org/blog/obama-against-jewishness.htm What do you think of the parallels?


http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/explhead.gif

Obama love trumps Jew hate. That's powerful election love. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein19-2008sep19,0,6091394.column)

[NOFEER]

The way he pitches is tax cut is that way. He says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of tax payers. Problem is something like 40% of tax payers either don't pay taxes or get a rebate. How do you cut taxes for 95% of tax payers when 40% don't pay anything? You give even more of a rebate.

its called "welfare" and redistribution of income, marxist.

[BRussell]

I think you are confusing tax refund with tax credit (i should have used the word credit and not rebate). Tax refund is when you over pay your taxes, most often because too much was withheld, and you get a refund. Many people qualify for the earned income tax credit. You can claim a credit on the taxes that you've paid. If that credit brings your tax bill into negative territory then you get that money. The government is giving you back more than you've paid. The are increasing your annual income.

Considering that in 2005 33% of filers paid no taxes (estimated to be 40% in 2008) 66% (60%) of the filers are paying taxes. You guys are telling me that Obama is going to cut the taxes on those 66% (60%), target the middle class and keep taxes level or increased on the "rich".

:no:

Now that this information is out there its clear that Oabam doesn't mean that he's going to lower taxes for 95% of the 66% (60%). Unless he reduces payroll taxes (third rail) OR increases the EITC to reach into the 33% (40%) that don't pay now.

It's all gimmicky "vote for my I'll put money in your pocket" BS. Again, it's just not true that 40% (or 33%) of people don't pay taxes. They pay plenty of taxes - sales taxes, gas taxes, payroll taxes, state income taxes, etc., most of which are so regressive that the federal income tax is used (EITC) to reduce their impact.

[Northgate]

Imagine if we bailed out the homeowners instead of waiting for the collapse. People would still have their homes. Banks would be receiving the mortgage payments. The system would've held.

But that would be communism, I guess. And Republicans have been pounding it into our heads for generations that we can't possibly do something as irresponsible as helping out the citizens first.

After all, no one forced them to sign their contracts with the banks, right? Those home owners are all culpable for their actions, right?

Banks, however, are not.

Interesting, that.

[icfireball]

I do like McCain's positions better. No it doesn't scare me shitless that he picked Palin, quite the opposite.

I specifically dislike the fact that Obama's plan claims to pay for many things with savings and that any analysis I have read of that notes the numbers with regard to savings are impossible to obtain. Also I think the cost containment claims are bogus and will lead to reduced services. Most analysis I have read that investigates this deeply and honestly comes to those conclusions as well.

I've already talked about my views on taxes. S.S. and Medicare are sold as insurance programs. Everyone pays in and everyone takes out. You stop that belief and watch them crumble even more quickly.

Obama's energy proposals are not realistic in my view. The most realistic and clear approach is actually nuclear power. The best soundbite thought I can give you on that (since this is a sidebar) is that 30 years of generating a very large percentage of France's electrical needs has created waste large enough to fill a single floor of a large office building. Reprocessing allows 90% of the uranium to be reused again. It is carbon neutral and uses existing infrastructure. Anyone pushing hard for it gets my vote.

TRUMPTMAN:

Statement:

At a town hall meeting Wednesday in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Sen. John McCain repeated a standard line from his stump speech in support of nuclear power, telling voters that it's "clean and it's safe and we can recycle — excuse me — reprocess and we can store. My opponent is against nuclear power. … "

The Facts:

Sen. Barack Obama tells crowds that his policy "as president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."

The Obama-Biden New Energy for America plan, posted on the Obama Web site in June, has a bullet-point section involving diversification of energy sources entitled "safe and secure nuclear energy."

Watch: What is Obama's position on nuclear energy?

"Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option," the plan said.

Obama does say that nuclear fuel and waste security, waste storage, and proliferation must be taken into account "before an expansion of nuclear power is considered."

[Northgate]

Facts. Meh. Pesky little things. No bother. ;)

[icfireball]

P.S. – Trumptman, you had better not ignore this. You're always complaining people don't post facts. Here you are.

[trumptman]

P.S. – Trumptman, you had better not ignore this. You're always complaining people don't post facts. Here you are.

Dude. I totally spend time doing things like eating, sleeping, and crapping.

You sir have to wait.:lol::lol:

Welcome back Northgate too.:p

icfireball

You and I are going to disagree with this and it has nothing to do with what each candidate has put on their website or even what they say. There was a post somewhere on here where I talked about both campaigns being comprehensive and how finding the priorities within those comprehensive lists was the true job of an informed voter.

A quick example that you can probably relate to well, Obama stands for change. McCain stands for change. You probably have a very strong opinion about which one truly stands for change even though both have the words change on their websites and in their speeches.

So please understand that when Obama says "safe and secure" that those are qualifiers and in his particular case they mean no new nuclear power until we prove we have a place "safe" enough to keep the waste. Obama opposes Yucca Mountain and so since we have no place safe to store it, that ultimately means we have no new nuclear power plants.

That is my take on it based on his positions.

[Bergermeister]

McCain's change means he changes his stance and mind several times a day.

[icfireball]

Dude. I totally spend time doing things like eating, sleeping, and crapping.

You sir have to wait.:lol::lol:

Welcome back Northgate too.:p

icfireball

You and I are going to disagree with this and it has nothing to do with what each candidate has put on their website or even what they say. There was a post somewhere on here where I talked about both campaigns being comprehensive and how finding the priorities within those comprehensive lists was the true job of an informed voter.

A quick example that you can probably relate to well, Obama stands for change. McCain stands for change. You probably have a very strong opinion about which one truly stands for change even though both have the words change on their websites and in their speeches.

So please understand that when Obama says "safe and secure" that those are qualifiers and in his particular case they mean no new nuclear power until we prove we have a place "safe" enough to keep the waste. Obama opposes Yucca Mountain and so since we have no place safe to store it, that ultimately means we have no new nuclear power plants.

That is my take on it based on his positions.

The fact is neither McCain nor Obama support nuclear power specifically more than the other except the fact that Obama supports alternative (not fossil fuels) energy more than McCain. The Obama campaign admitted that to accomplish their goals, they will likely have to rely on nuclear energy. Safe and clean are essentially words used to appease people who are afraid of nuclear energy. And let's face it... while nuclear is very economical at the current point, it has the potential to be very dangerous. The worst a wind turbine can do is come spinning off it's axis, hurtling towards the ground, to kill the crowds of onlookers below...