Why Obama Can't Close the Sale

[MacDawg]

I looked for a place to post this amid all the McCain/Palin bashing threads and couldn't find a suitable venue... so... a new thread. While I don't expect many conservatives to venture in the PRSI to add their voice, at least it will give the rest of you a different slant to attack now.

Apparently, not everyone in the country is enamoured with Mr. Obama and the "changes" he is proposing.

Link to article in the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039919493892941.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries)

Why Obama Can't Close the Sale
By AL HUBBARD and NOAM NEUSNER
September 3, 2008; Page A23

Even before John McCain shook up the presidential race by tapping Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, polls weren't showing the late-August lead that Barack Obama (and many Republicans) expected. Why so?

It's not because of the brilliance of the McCain campaign. Rather we believe that -- despite the media's best efforts to exempt Mr. Obama's policies from critical examination -- American voters aren't sheep. They pay attention to the candidates and positions and make wise decisions about who should lead the country.

True, Mr. Obama enjoys several advantages. Republicans are struggling nationwide in head-to-head contests. Democrats lead in voter registration, and have a well-funded presidential candidate.

Yet Americans have not committed to Mr. Obama. Why?

Clearly, Mr. Obama's weakness on foreign policy is a factor. He has a knee-jerk preference for diplomacy with China, Europe and Russia over the security of the American people and our closest allies. He hasn't explained his shifting positions on Iraq and Iran, among other hot spots. And he felt compelled to make up for his experience gap with Mr. McCain by picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate.

But here's the thing: It's not that Mr. Obama hasn't been specific enough in his governing plans. To the contrary, he has been very specific about his tax policy, health-care and energy proposals. It's that voters are paying attention and appear not to like what Candidate Obama is saying.

Mr. Obama has proposed a massive tax increase on investors, business owners, and the "wealthy." At a time when the American people rate the economy as the central issue of the campaign, a tax hike doesn't make a lot of political sense. Voters know that a tax hike won't help the economy.

Moreover, Mr. Obama's tax plans would directly or indirectly harm U.S. investors by raising the capital gains and dividend taxes. More than half of U.S. households are equity owners, so Mr. Obama's proposal risks alienating half the population.

Mr. Obama claims to offer a tax cut to moderate-income families, but a significant portion of Mr. Obama's tax plan is a welfare giveaway costing more than $648 billion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center.

How so? He would authorize a hodgepodge of refundable tax credits covering everything from education, mortgage payments, child care and other items for people who do not pay income taxes now.

About 38% of U.S. households pay no income tax today. Under a President Obama (whose policies would shave 15.3 million households off the tax rolls) that share would grow to nearly half of all American households.

We have been repeatedly told that everyone should pay their fair share. So this sounds grossly unfair and like a return of tax-and-spend liberal economics. No wonder there is a lot of doubt about the wisdom of the junior senator from Illinois.

Mr. Obama's health-care proposal is not quite HillaryCare, but it comes close. A national health insurance, heavily subsidized by taxpayers, would be offered to the currently uninsured. Mr. Obama's instincts on health care are always to move more people onto rolls of government-paid and government-mandated insurance, while depriving the marketplace the oxygen it needs for greater innovation, life-saving cures, and efficiency.

Americans have heard the refrain for government-provided health care before and know an expensive government giveaway when they see it.

Mr. Obama's energy policy is to drill less, consume less, tax more, and spend more. With barely a nod to nuclear energy -- the only meaningfully large, carbon-free source of domestic energy -- he is promising a massive increase in domestic, noncarbon-based energy from sources that produce only a fraction of our energy now.

He has also proposed massive tax increases on U.S. oil and gas companies while continuing to cut off vast swaths of U.S. territory to drilling.

Again, Americans are wiser than they are given credit. They know that if you restrict supply and tax production, prices go up.

The economic wisdom of Americans should not be doubted. They can see through Mr. Obama's proposals. They know that they will have to pick up the bill if Mr. Obama sends checks to people who already don't pay taxes; they know a centralized government-controlled health-care system will be more expensive, less efficient, and less friendly to patients and doctors. They know that the most effective way to bring down energy prices is by keeping all our energy options open, including more drilling in the U.S.

And they know that if a candidate has spent his entire career taxing more and spending more, that's what you'll get -- and more of it.

Mr. Obama is wondering why he can't shake Mr. McCain. His problem isn't his plans for the campaign. It's his plans for governing the country. Americans just aren't buying into them.

Mr. Hubbard was director of the National Economic Council and assistant to the president from 2005-2007. Mr. Neusner was the president's economic policy speechwriter from 2002-2004.



Woof, Woof – Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[.Andy]

I looked for a place to post this amid all the McCain/Palin bashing threads and couldn't find a suitable venue... so... a new thread. While I don't expect many conservatives to venture in the PRSI to add their voice, at least it will give the rest of you a different slant to attack now.
Must every conservative thread be prefixed with a immature whine about how repressed conservatives are?

[it5five]

Why Obama Can't "Close the Sale": He won't be elected for another two months.

[iJon]

Interesting read. Can't say I'm excited about tax increases either.

[Diatribe]

From the article: American voters aren't sheep. They pay attention to the candidates and positions and make wise decisions about who should lead the country.

Seriously? So I guess voting for Bush twice was the "wise" decision?

They lost all credibility after that sentence. But I do agree that Obama is not leading by as much as he should. Sometimes it feels like the American public is like a beaten wife that keeps going back for more...

[MacDawg]

Must every conservative thread be prefixed with a immature whine about how repressed conservatives are?

Wow... I didn't realize there WERE any other conservative threads...
thanks, that's good to know

Woof, Woof – Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[r.j.s]

I think that voters realize that Obama isn't going to bring about the change he preaches, and that the end of the day, he's just another politician. And McCain is no better.

Honestly, both choices suck.

[redwarrior]

Must every conservative thread be prefixed with a immature whine about how repressed conservatives are?
Yeah, you're right, Are "Republicans" Inherently Selfish? I think they are, is much more mature.

[mactastic]

Polls showed Carter and Reagan neck and neck, with Reagan "unable to close the sale" -- until he did, and in a big way.

Remember Dawg, unlike those who post here, most Americans are just now starting to pay attention to the presidential race. Labor day is traditionally when that switch takes place.

Besides, the WSJ opinion page is not exactly an unbiased source... ;)

[kavika411]

Yeah, you're right, Are "Republicans" Inherently Selfish? I think they are, is much more mature.

Nice.

[r.j.s]

Besides, the WSJ opinion page is not exactly an unbiased source... ;)

Neither is the mainstream media, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX News ...

[kavika411]

Neither is the mainstream media, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX News ...

Republicans don't believe a negative McCain story unless it comes from FoxNews. Democrats don't believe a negative Obama story unless it is written by someone with the last name Huffington. You Barr supporters don't believe a negative Barr story unless ... well, I've never heard of a Barr story, positive or negative. :p

[r.j.s]

You Barr supporters don't believe a negative Barr story unless ... well, I've never heard of a Barr story, positive or negative. :p

That's because he doesn't spell his name O-b-a-m-a or M-c-C-a-i-n, and his policies have nothing to do with the way DC wants to do things.

[mactastic]

Yeah, you're right, Are "Republicans" Inherently Selfish? I think they are, is much more mature.
There's a reason I won't even read certain threads, much less post in them...

Neither is the mainstream media, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX News ...
Is the article in question from any of those sources? :rolleyes:

And if you can't distinguish between the political leanings of the op-ed page and the hard news section, I don't know what to tell you.

[kavika411]

That's because he doesn't spell his name O-b-a-m-a or M-c-C-a-i-n, and his policies have nothing to do with the way DC wants to do things.

Easy killer. Just having a good time. I'm a conservative atheist, which I believe makes a de facto Libertarian and, by extension, a supporter of Barr. I voted for Harry Browne back in 2000. My vote was heard around the world.

[leekohler]

That's because he doesn't spell his name O-b-a-m-a or M-c-C-a-i-n, and his policies have nothing to do with the way DC wants to do things.

It might also have to do with the fact that he's a nut case, but hey...;)

[iShater]

Gotta love Google and the power to find out more info about the authors. So are Bush White house economic advisers? And they don't like Obama? :eek: :cool:

[r.j.s]

And if you can't distinguish between the political leanings of the op-ed page and the hard news section, I don't know what to tell you.

I can distinguish between them, but much of the mainstream media is biased, even on their "hard news."

[r.j.s]

Easy killer. Just having a good time. I'm a conservative atheist, which I believe makes a de facto Libertarian and, by extension, a supporter of Barr. I voted for Harry Browne back in 2000. My vote was heard around the world.

I know, I wasn't trying to give you a hard time.

[mactastic]

I can distinguish between them, but much of the mainstream media is biased, even on their "hard news."
Links please.

[MacDawg]

Gotta love Google and the power to find out more info about the authors. So are Bush White house economic advisers? And they don't like Obama? :eek: :cool:

That was disclosed at the bottom of the article... no need to Google it :)

The question is, are the points valid, not necessarily who wrote it

Woof, Woof – Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[iShater]

That was disclosed at the bottom of the article... no need to Google it :)

The question is, are the points valid, not necessarily who wrote it

Woof, Woof – Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

ha! Tells ya that I stopped before reading the last paragraph! :eek: I stopped around 80% into it. :D

Let me go back and read the whole thing, then I will respond ;)

[r.j.s]

Links please.

Seen it first hand, much of my job is working with the media. When they come to you to cover one story and do interviews for that topic, then report it as something else, something that fits their political agenda (ABC World News did this to me on PTSD), they tend to lose a lot of credibility. If they had just been straight forward about it, then I would feel different.

[blackfox]

Not that the atrticle doesn't bring up valid points-of-contention (depending on your POV) - but when the authors have that background they have, I am not sure that Obama gets a fair shake...

To me, I find his "knee-jerk" diplomacy to be better than "knee-jerk" unilateral military action - and I don't see why the former makes us less safe.

As for taxes, more taxpayer get tax cuts under Obama's plan than McCains - though in the upper-middle tax brackets your cuts will be less. I don't see that being a horrible thing...

If, as the article says, 38% of Americans don't pay income tax - and that figure is likely to rise to nearly half under an Obama plan - well, by the articles' own characterization - that means nearly half of Americans are in pretty crappy financial situations, which means something isn't right in the economy. If there is such a disparity, then I don't see why progressive taxes shouldn't correct this inequity to a degree.

As for health care - there is no literature out that I am aware of that shows that Government healthcare is more expensive and/or less efficient than private - especially in relation to our current system.

As healthcare costs continue to skyrocket, I really think more and more people will consider backing Nationalized healthcare - if only because McCain's plan is likely to make their financial (and health) situation worse...

As for Energy - Obama has outlined a broader and more defined policy than McCain. Perhaps his 10-year Energy independence plan will fail - but maybe it won't.

I don't think Obama is perfect. But on policy, his are more concise and pragmatic than his opponents, imho.

[NT1440]

nice that every article bashing obama just simply states that his only plan on the economy is to raise taxes, and never mentioning that most of those raises are to the MASSIVE companies that would most likely just end up wiping their asses with it any way, or better yet, giving it to a CEO for finding a way to cut another 2000 people from the company.

also, i see nothing wrong with taxes as long as they go to funding whats important, u know things like healthcare, our collapsing educational system. Oh but what do i know, im just one of those wackadoos thats doesnt genuinely enjoy seeing our money go to war in the name of "victory".

u can claim to be the winner of a war, but was it worth crippling your country?

[mactastic]

Seen it first hand, much of my job is working with the media. When they come to you to cover one story and do interviews for that topic, then report it as something else, something that fits their political agenda (ABC World News did this to me on PTSD), they tend to lose a lot of credibility. If they had just been straight forward about it, then I would feel different.
That's not how this works here. If you make an assertion, you need to back it up. Otherwise I have no choice but to consider your assertion to be complete bollocks.

You might as well have asserted that you have Bigfoot on ice in a freezer...

[iShater]

blackfox actually did a nice summary.

1) Considering that the Bush admin (I know a bad compare) did two cuts to stimulate the economy, shifting the tax burden up to people who can afford it should do more good than damage a broken economy.

2) We have seen many threads with tons of links to research that a national healthcare system is cheaper. We have been in the private sector for eons, and it is not affordable to the average american anymore.

3) Drill more = more profits to the oil companies, and will not bring prices down. Why on earth would domestic producers charge less in the market place than foreign ones?

[r.j.s]

MASSIVE companies that would most likely just end up wiping their asses with it any way, or better yet, giving it to a CEO for finding a way to cut another 2000 people from the company.

By wiping their asses with it, do you mean giving to the shareholders? Yes, CEOs make a lot of money, but it's not like it's just handed to them, they do have to run the company.

[r.j.s]

That's not how this works here. If you make an assertion, you need to back it up. Otherwise I have no choice but to consider your assertion to be complete bollocks.

You might as well have asserted that you have Bigfoot on ice in a freezer...

I'm working on links, just wanted to share my personal experiences in the matter as well.

[iShater]

By wiping their asses with it, do you mean giving to the shareholders? Yes, CEOs make a lot of money, but it's not like it's just handed to them, they do have to run the company.

Actually more and more sounds just like that. Didn't even Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac CEOs get a boatload of money before getting the companies in the mess they are in now? and I mean by pushing hard to change limits, how much assets to hold on the bank etc?

link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25740405/)

[NT1440]

blackfox actually did a nice summary.

3) Drill more = more profits to the oil companies, and will not bring prices down. Why on earth would domestic producers charge less in the market place than foreign ones?

Oh its not the money, its the warm glowy feeling from knowing your continued addiction to oil (note, ALL oil) is being produced right here in the USA. Forget that it wont bring prices down, its MIA baby!

come on guys "USA! USA! USA!":rolleyes:


you have very good points ishater.

[r.j.s]

Actually more and more sounds just like that. Didn't even Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac CEOs get a boatload of money before getting the companies in the mess they are in now? and I mean by pushing hard to change limits, how much assets to hold on the bank etc?

link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25740405/)

Ok, most CEOs that aren't trying to screw the company and its shareholders. That guy was squeezing every penny possible from the company, legal fees, food for him and his wife, etc.

[Queso]

By wiping their asses with it, do you mean giving to the shareholders? Yes, CEOs make a lot of money, but it's not like it's just handed to them, they do have to run the company.
Lord Simpson ran Marconi into the ground, lost the shareholders over 95% of their capital, and still walked away with a seven figure sum because they terminated his contract. What was left of the company he ran was sold to Ericsson for a pittance, resulting in massive job losses, because the damage he'd done had destroyed it after over 100 years of trading.

Do you consider that money well earned?

[NT1440]

Ok, most CEOs that aren't trying to screw the company and its shareholders. That guy was squeezing every penny possible from the company, legal fees, food for him and his wife, etc.

There is absolutly no person that needs hundreds of millions of dollars to live in this world. Why do they complain when they are taxed more, when in reality losing that extra, lets say 2 million, will not affect there life in any way other than knowing that they paid the money? If i had more money than i could literally spend in my life, id think nothing of helping fund my country.

[r.j.s]

Lord Simpson ran Marconi into the ground, lost the shareholders over 95% of their capital, and still walked away with a seven figure sum because they terminated his contract. What was left of the company he ran was sold to Ericsson for a pittance, resulting in massive job losses, because the damage he'd done had destroyed it after over 100 years of trading.

Do you consider that money well earned?

How about most CEOs, the one's that don't ruin their companies? You are trying to make the exceptions the rule.

[r.j.s]

There is absolutly no person that needs hundreds of millions of dollars to live in this world. Why do they complain when they are taxed more, when in reality losing that extra, lets say 2 million, will not affect there life in any way other than knowing that they paid the money? If i had more money than i could literally spend in my life, id think nothing of helping fund my country.

Alright then, why stop with the CEOs? Let's take millions from actors/actresses, atheletes, and all the other rich, successful people in the world ...

[kavika411]

There is absolutly no person that needs hundreds of millions of dollars to live in this world. Why do they complain when they are taxed more, when in reality losing that extra, lets say 2 million, will not affect there life in any way other than knowing that they paid the money? If i had more money than i could literally spend in my life, id think nothing of helping fund my country.

All right. Let's resolve this once and for all:

How much money should a CEO be entitled to make and/or keep after taxes? The PRSI forum is replete with comments about how CEOs make too much money. Fine. How much should they make and/or keep after taxes? There is ZERO difference between a vapid politician holding up a baby and saying "I am pro-baby," and chorus of voices saying "CEOs make too much money." Neither are saying jack, and both are pushing easy buttons.

So, I ask, can someone stand up, and in a short sentence with nouns and verbs and preferably little emotion, say how much a CEO should be allowed to make and/or keep after taxes. Perhaps someone wants to suggest an algorithm; that's fine, too. Perhaps someone wants to say a figure whispered to them by their grandmother at her deathbed. That would be great.

Just anything other than "Well, I know what I DON'T want..." (It reminds me of those clowns who used to say, with regard to the definition of pornography, "I know it when I see it.")

[NT1440]

Alright then, why stop with the CEOs? Let's take millions from actors/actresses, atheletes, and everyone else that is rich ...

yes, tax them too, they can afford it/will never spend their large sums of money

[NT1440]

All right. Let's resolve this once and for all:

How much money should a CEO be entitled to make and/or keep after taxes? The PRSI forum is replete with comments about how CEOs make too much money. Fine. How much should they make and/or keep after taxes? There is ZERO difference between a vapid politician holding up a baby and saying "I am pro-baby," and chorus of voices saying "CEOs make too much money." Neither are saying jack, and both are pushing easy buttons.

So, I ask, can someone stand up, and in a short sentence with nouns and verbs and preferably little emotion, say how much a CEO should be allowed to make. Perhaps someone wants to suggest an algorithm; that's fine, too. Perhaps someone wants to say a figure whispered to them by their grandmother at her deathbed. That would be great.

Just anything other than "Well, I know what I DON'T want..." (It reminds me of those clowns who used to say, with regard to the definition of pornography, "I know it when I see it.")
i dont care when they make money. I DO care when they make more money than could ever be spent even with a lavish lifestyle, especially when its for finding ways to cut costs by firing workers, only to have those cut costs come back as a 7 figure bonus for doing so.

Yes you can have your money, but dont bitch about being taxed when in reality it doesnt even affect your lifestyle, should you choose to live either modestly or flashy.

[r.j.s]

yes, tax them too, they can afford it/will never spend their large sums of money

Why does everyone want to legalize stealing? You justify taking more money from these people, because they will not spend it all. So, going with the poster above, how much is too much? Where do we draw the line? Who decides whom receives the extra money?

[obeygiant]

I'm working on links, just wanted to share my personal experiences in the matter as well.

Well you need links for your personal experiences here, bub. That's how it goes down in the PRSI-hood. ;)

[kavika411]

...but dont bitch about being taxed when in reality it doesnt even affect your lifestyle, should you choose to live either modestly or flashy.

I'm not bitching about a thing. In fact, I'm probably the most placidly emotionless person in this forum. I am asking a cold, objective question, your answer to which proved the basis of my question, and confirmed the lack of endgame for people who agree with you.

[r.j.s]

Well you need links for your personal experiences here, bub. That's how it goes down in the PRSI-hood. ;)

One of the ABC experiences, they came to us asking about what we did for the families to help cope and this is what they turned it into. (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3410308)

[atszyman]

All right. Let's resolve this once and for all:

How much money should a CEO be entitled to make and/or keep after taxes? The PRSI forum is replete with comments about how CEOs make too much money. Fine. How much should they make and/or keep after taxes?

I'm not for putting a cap on CEO salaries although I would like to see an end to bonuses and parachutes where CEOs can walk away with 7-8 figure bonuses for quitting or getting fired after running a company into the ground. I also don't want to hear complaints about paying 2% more for dollar X+1 because it moved into a different tax bracket when most 2 income households make less than half of the top tax brackets starting point. Until a tax bracket hits 100% there is always incentive to earn more money since you will take more home, you'll just take a few cents less of dollar X+1 than you did from dollar X.

As you move up in salary less of a percentage of your income goes to transportation, property, sales and other regressive taxes. The progressive nature of the federal income tax is designed to flatten out these inconsistencies.

If you argue that the tax rebates spurred the economy then you also have to admit that by cutting taxes on the low end you can spur the economy by letting those who will consume more with the money have it, rather than those who can already consume as much as they want anyway. Increasing incomes on the low end will result in more consumers, increasing income on the high end just pads already fat wallets.

Of course the fact that most of the boards of directors are made up of other CEOs and executives. Eliminating such bonuses somewhere would probably lead to all of them losing their bonuses, and we've already established that everyone is greedy, not just Republicans.

[NT1440]

I'm not for putting a cap on CEO salaries although I would like to see an end to bonuses and parachutes where CEOs can walk away with 7-8 figure bonuses for quitting or getting fired after running a company into the ground. I also don't want to hear complaints about paying 2% more for dollar X+1 because it moved into a different tax bracket when most 2 income households make less than half of the top tax brackets starting point. Until a tax bracket hits 100% there is always incentive to earn more money since you will take more home, you'll just take a few cents less of dollar X+1 than you did from dollar X.

As you move up in salary less of a percentage of your income goes to transportation, property, sales and other regressive taxes. The progressive nature of the federal income tax is designed to flatten out these inconsistencies.

If you argue that the tax rebates spurred the economy then you also have to admit that by cutting taxes on the low end you can spur the economy by letting those who will consume more with the money have it, rather than those who can already consume as much as they want anyway. Increasing incomes on the low end will result in more consumers, increasing income on the high end just pads already fat wallets.

Of course the fact that most of the boards of directors are made up of other CEOs and executives. Eliminating such bonuses somewhere would probably lead to all of them losing their bonuses, and we've already established that everyone is greedy, not just Republicans.

Don't even bother, once they equate being taxed a few percent to stealing there is no point in trying to reason.

[r.j.s]

Don't even bother, once they equate being taxed a few percent to stealing there is no point in trying to reason.

You sound like someone who is quite jealous of others' success, and is just looking for some free money. It's greed all around.

[Cleverboy]

This is an interestingly ODD question that came up during the Primaries. Why can't Obama "close the deal"? Easy. Because America is a diverse place of diverse opinions and people. Because the last 2 elections we've had have outlined a stark and embattled division in the political landscape. Should the Democratic candidate be further ahead in what's seen as a "Democratic year"? Maybe. Pull me up a parallel reality where things went differently, and I'll check it out for you. Until then, pretending to know how history would have gone is silly.

I can imagine Clinton being the nominee, and the WSJ asking the same lame question, "Why can't Clinton close the deal? Why isn't Clinton like Clinton? Hmmmm." Would Obama have "closed the deal" faster if he only faced Edwards? Would Obama have "closed the deal" faster if he were now facing Romney? Hm. The world will never know.

Right now... Obama's snatched the 50% line in the polls for the first time, and we'll have to see if he can maintain it. Pretty significant milestone though. Why couldn't Gore close the deal? Why couldn't Kerry? There is a reason why Bush got elected twice, and its not an answer deserving of such a narrow-minded question as this one.

Why can't McCain "close the deal" with his base by himself? Why does he need someone else to hold-up and wave around? Why couldn't McCain pick his first choice for a running mate? Why ask why?

~ CB

[iShater]

One of the ABC experiences, they came to us asking about what we did for the families to help cope and this is what they turned it into. (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3410308)

Ok, you have to explain, cause this is was a great article about the sacrifices that are being made. Did they miss stuff? did they not include something they talked to you about? :confused:

[r.j.s]

Ok, you have to explain, cause this is was a great article about the sacrifices that are being made. Did they miss stuff? did they not include something they talked to you about? :confused:

They came to us asking for everything we did to make things better for the families left behind, they barely mention any of them, focusing instead on the sacrifices, not on what they told me they wanted.

[blackfox]

You sound like someone who is quite jealous of others' success, and is just looking for some free money. It's greed all around.

bollocks.

This "successful" person didn't make their money in a vacuum. While the system awards iniative, hard-work and sometimes luck, these are not guarantees - and some aspect of personal success is based on the societal context in which this person advances.

It is to everyone's advantage - the successful and the not-yet-successful - to have a healthy society in which the groundwork is laid for people to succeed.

It is not greedy to ask that those who have made "the American Dream" to reinvest in America, so others can have a fair shot.

[iShater]

They came to us asking for everything we did to make things better for the families left behind, they barely mention any of them, focusing instead on the sacrifices, not on what they told me they wanted.

Aaah, gotcha. This always happens bud, they have to collect as much information/background/footage/audio as they can for an article or a TV story, then they pick the information they need to be able to either say stuff, back stuff, or defend stuff. I did a TV interview, and I couldn't watch it for the same reason, even though everybody else thought it was great, but I knew the rest of the questions they asked and what they dropped, so I hated it. :o

[r.j.s]

It is not greedy to ask that those who have made "the American Dream" to reinvest in America, so others can have a fair shot.

It is greedy for those that aren't as successful to say: You have been too successful, and made too much money, now give me some.

[mactastic]

They came to us asking for everything we did to make things better for the families left behind, they barely mention any of them, focusing instead on the sacrifices, not on what they told me they wanted.
And THAT'S your evidence of a liberal media bias?

You're going to have to do better than "they left some stuff I wanted to see in their report on the cutting room floor" if you're going to assert that the media is overwhelmingly liberal.

How about some studies that compare the number of conservative guests versus the number of liberal guests over the past decade? How about comparing air time given to pro-war versus anti-war advocates? How about something other than "I say it's so"?

[r.j.s]

Aaah, gotcha. This always happens bud, they have to collect as much information/background/footage/audio as they can for an article or a TV story, then they pick the information they need to be able to either say stuff, back stuff, or defend stuff. I did a TV interview, and I couldn't watch it for the same reason, even though everybody else thought it was great, but I knew the rest of the questions they asked and what they dropped, so I hated it. :o

I know how things work, it is my job. What I'm saying is that they claimed to be there covering a different story - we did all this work for a different, but related, story.

[zap2]

That's because he doesn't spell his name O-b-a-m-a or M-c-C-a-i-n, and his policies have nothing to do with the way DC wants to do things.

Really? Because I've heard Kucinich and Ron Paul stories? Them both are very different from the D.C., yet they get a good amount of air time.

I'm not saying Barr, Kucinich and Paul have the fair deal with the media, they don't, but to me, it seems Barr isn't as popular as the two others, and they are all very far right or left(based on the US scale)

[blackfox]

It is greedy for those that aren't as successful to say: You have been too successful, and made too much money, now give me some.
Whatever.

I say potato...you should say potatoh, but instead you say some ************.

[miloblithe]

Why does everyone want to legalize stealing? You justify taking more money from these people, because they will not spend it all. So, going with the poster above, how much is too much? Where do we draw the line?

In the 2000 election cycle Bush repeatedly said something along the lines that it was a immoral that anyone was taxed more than 1/3 of their income in his efforts to reduce the top rate from 36% or so to 33%. This seemed to me like an extraordinarily arbitrary bit of math on which to base one's morals.

How much is too much? It depends on a lot of other factors. How much people pay in other taxes. It also depends on what people receive from their government. One of the fundamental responsibilities of governments, by the way is the protection of property rights (along with defense and law enforcement). I think it's pretty clear who benefits most from that role of government--and they should be taxed for it accordingly.

[buffalo]

Links please.

You would like a link from the MSM about how there is often bias in their reporting? Really???

[r.j.s]

And THAT'S your evidence of a liberal media bias?

You're going to have to do better than "they left some stuff I wanted to see in their report on the cutting room floor" if you're going to assert that the media is overwhelmingly liberal.

Never did I say liberal bias, I did say the media was biased:

Media Research Center (http://www.mediaresearch.org/)

and

Media Matters (http://www.mediamatters.org)

BTW: How come many liberals get away with making claims without backing them up (see thread on Republicans being selfish) but if anyone else makes any claim they immediately have to provide links?

[mactastic]

You would like a link from the MSM about how there is often bias in their reporting? Really???
Did I say the link had to be from the "MSM"? Really???

[redwarrior]

They came to us asking for everything we did to make things better for the families left behind, they barely mention any of them, focusing instead on the sacrifices, not on what they told me they wanted.
"They" want to show the soldiers' sacrifices, but not the vast improvements in the lives of the peoples they have risked their lives to help, even though they are many.

It is greedy for those that aren't as successful to say: You have been too successful, and made too much money, now give me some.
Thank you! The more money my business makes, the more people I can employ and pay well so they can pay their taxes. There is nothing wrong with me having plenty. I have worked hard for it, put out my neck to risk everything to make a company work so that we can do more for others and not just our small family! If anyone wants to tell me I'm too rich, they can kiss my ass and go back to work at McDonalds. /rant:)

[mactastic]

Never did I say liberal bias, I did say the media was biased:

Media Research Center (http://www.mediaresearch.org/)

and

Media Matters (http://www.mediamatters.org)
So they're all biased, but no opinion on which way they're biased, eh? Interesting take.

BTW: How come many liberals get away with making claims without backing them up (see thread on Republicans being selfish) but if anyone else makes any claim they immediately have to provide links?I couldn't tell you anything about that claim. That thread title is so odious that I haven't even bothered to read the thread itself, let alone post in it. If you have issues with people in that thread making unsubstantiated claims, call them out on it. You know, take some personal responsibility. But don't try to drag me into that mess by association.

[r.j.s]

So they're all biased, but no opinion on which way they're biased, eh? Interesting take.

Yes, they're all biased.


I couldn't tell you anything about that claim. That thread title is so odious that I haven't even bothered to read the thread itself, let alone post in it. If you have issues with people in that thread making unsubstantiated claims, call them out on it. You know, take some personal responsibility. But don't try to drag me into that mess by association.

Not really trying to drag you personally into it, you just called me out awfully quick (I was having trouble finding my links). It's just a trend I've noticed recently ...

[iShater]

Thank you! The more money my business makes, the more people I can employ and pay well so they can pay their taxes. There is nothing wrong with me having plenty. I have worked hard for it, put out my neck to risk everything to make a company work so that we can do more for others and not just our small family! If anyone wants to tell me I'm too rich, they can kiss my ass and go back to work at McDonalds. /rant:)

I hate to be the one to bring it to ya, but you are not rich :D

Are you referring to the CEO discussion? or the higher taxes on higher incomes?



Not really trying to drag you personally into it, you just called me out awfully quick (I was having trouble finding my links). It's just a trend I've noticed recently ...
He has a quick trigger when he is online. :)

[hulugu]

I looked for a place to post this amid all the McCain/Palin bashing threads and couldn't find a suitable venue... so... a new thread. While I don't expect many conservatives to venture in the PRSI to add their voice, at least it will give the rest of you a different slant to attack now....

Interesting article. I appreciate the input, however I do not appreciate your continuing complaints about this forum. Conservatives are free to start threads and make comments in them, independents and liberals are free to also post threads and make comments. If you feel that you're being oppressed in some way take it up with the moderators, but you have to stop this constant bashing of the Forum, wherein by this very thread, there are Conservative threads.

I just looked at the top 16 threads, and I counted 7 neutral, 5 liberal, 1 Alternate History, and 2 conservative threads (including this one). Most of the threads are about a newsworthy topic and become "liberal" simply because of the posters who are here and tend to make comments.

Yeah, you're right, Are "Republicans" Inherently Selfish? I think they are, is much more mature.

So, is this the "he started it" defense? I've refused to post in that thread—although I noticed some good posts by both "conservatives" and others when lurking—because I thought the question was unfair and frankly, flamebait. Frankly, there are more than a dozen "conservative" members running around, including yourself, MacDawg, Desertrat, Dmac77, Dukebound and others. There are also numerous independents as well, you just may not like their opinions on certain matters.

Seen it first hand, much of my job is working with the media. When they come to you to cover one story and do interviews for that topic, then report it as something else, something that fits their political agenda (ABC World News did this to me on PTSD), they tend to lose a lot of credibility. If they had just been straight forward about it, then I would feel different.

News-gathering is a tough job and there's a lot more going on than just collect the facts, especially in television news, where the focus of a story can change as information is collected. Sometimes the reporters and editors are idiots and sometimes they focus in on a particular aspect because they think it's more "interesting" (re: gets higher ratings) than another. I'm sure it sucks when it's your own story, but as far as I can tell, the story wasn't changed because of a "political agenda" but rather because one aspect was more interesting than another.

I could be wrong, but that's how I read the situation based on this and your later posts. One of the things that's often repeated is the media is biased and liberally biased. There's been some attempts to quantify this using statistical data, but AFAIK, no one has come up with data that suggests an intentional and consistent bias for "liberal" causes. As more data becomes available, I'll expect we'll see swings through the middle depending on the agency and a closer look will show a stronger connection to corporate ownership than anything else.

No links. This is all just my opinion.

[redwarrior]

I hate to be the one to bring it to ya, but you are not rich :D

Are you referring to the CEO discussion? or the higher taxes on higher incomes?


How do you know?:rolleyes: "Rich" is perception. :D

Actually I was referring to both, since I suddenly find myself in a different position from that in which I was raised.

[mactastic]

Yes, they're all biased.
So which is biased how? Any opinions besides "they're all biased"?

Not really trying to drag you personally into it, you just called me out awfully quick (I was having trouble finding my links). It's just a trend I've noticed recently ...
It's SOP (at least for those of us who have been here a while) to back up your assertions. People here really need to get back into that habit.

[mactastic]

How do you know?:rolleyes: "Rich" is perception. :D

Actually I was referring to both, since I suddenly find myself in a different position from that in which I was raised.
Well, unless you're making $5,000,000 or more a year, you're middle class according to John McCain. ;)

[ucfgrad93]

Frankly, there are more than a dozen "conservative" members running around, including yourself, MacDawg, Desertrat, Dmac77, Dukebound and others.

Hey, why am I relegated to others?:confused:

[redwarrior]

Well, unless you're making $5,000,000 or more a year, you're middle class according to John McCain. ;)
Haven't quite reached that mark yet, so at least I don't have to worry about being discriminated against here.:D

[r.j.s]

So which is biased how? Any opinions besides "they're all biased"?

I'm not going to go through and point out specific stories, or links, but that is my opinion. Different stories by the same outlet can be biased in different ways, it all depends.

[iShater]

How do you know?:rolleyes: "Rich" is perception. :D

If they start taxing on love, family, and all that is holy, then we must rebel!


Actually I was referring to both, since I suddenly find myself in a different position from that in which I was raised.

The CEO I have in mind is for large public traded companies, where the trends for CEO pay has been to go up (even base pay) even with companies are not doing well. Compared to the productivity gains by the average worker, compensation at the lower levels has not kept up.

This is a link from the AFLCIO, but it has information linked from government sources about studies, I couldn't find another one that summarized the points this fast:

link (http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/)

[NT1440]

You sound like someone who is quite jealous of others' success, and is just looking for some free money. It's greed all around.

im 17 and my dream job is being a nameless coder at a nice company (hopefully apple). Do you really think i care about making millions?

[hulugu]

How do you know?:rolleyes: "Rich" is perception. :D
....


This is a very interesting question. First, what's the average wage in America? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm) it's $40,690.

So for instance, the average wage in Arizona is $37,560, while the average wage in California is $45,990. New York State is $47,610.

Someone who makes around $50,000 is doing better than average and someone making $200,000 is doing very well. And, minimum wage earners are surviving with $14,500 (Federal wage as of 2008, some states and municipalities have higher wages).

Now, if we take the average American wage and compare it to the world (http://www.globalrichlist.com/), we can see that an average American wage-earner is in the top 2.97% of earners in the world.

So, yes wealth is perception, but how accurate is that perception?

[MacDawg]

Interesting article. I appreciate the input, however I do not appreciate your continuing complaints about this forum. Conservatives are free to start threads and make comments in them, independents and liberals are free to also post threads and make comments. If you feel that you're being oppressed in some way take it up with the moderators, but you have to stop this constant bashing of the Forum, wherein by this very thread, there are Conservative threads.

Ha! Ha! Hardly a bashing of the Forum or of posters within it. Methinks you are far too sensitive in that regard, especially in light of the flames I see that fly about on this board. I hardly feel oppressed and would have no issues to take up with the moderators at all. Actually, I am quite amused you feel that I am constantly bashing the Forum.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[NT1440]

It is greedy for those that aren't as successful to say: You have been too successful, and made too much money, now give me some.

its funny that you seem to think that taxes go directly to poor people. What is so bad about reinvesting in the healthcare and educational systems (amongst other things) that gave that person their shot to be successful?:confused:

to me all im hearing is people should take take take, how in the hell is THAT not greedy??

[hulugu]

Hey, why am I relegated to others?:confused:

I was trying to decide if you should be in the 'conservative' pigeonhole or the 'independent' one, and then I got distracted by something shiny. ;)

What's interesting to me is when a poster will suddenly veer to an opinion I didn't expect. Lee' for example surprised me in one of the 'smoking' threads, I ended up agreeing with MacDawg that the Palin thread was getting out of hand, and Desertrat made a comment that surprised me, although looking back it shouldn't have, on medical care for death row inmates.

I'm not sure what others think of me (nor does it matter) but I feel like I jackrabbit back and forth between camps, and that's why I don't like the assertion that the PSRI forum is oppressing conservatives.

[hulugu]

Ha! Ha! Hardly a bashing of the Forum or of posters within it. Methinks you are far too sensitive in that regard, especially in light of the flames I see that fly about on this board. I hardly feel oppressed and would have no issues to take up with the moderators at all. Actually, I am quite amused you feel that I am constantly bashing the Forum.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

I believe you've made at least five or six comments specific comments in this regard, so maybe it's possible that your statements may be giving this impression even if you don't mean it?

[MacDawg]

Hey, why am I relegated to others?:confused:

I knew where you stood Buddy... ;)

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[iShater]

I'm not sure what others think of me (nor does it matter) but I feel like I jackrabbit back and forth between camps, and that's why I don't like the assertion that the PSRI forum is oppressing conservatives.

You swung all over the place, so we lost track ;)


(flip-flopper!!! :p )

[r.j.s]

its funny that you seem to think that taxes go directly to poor people. What is so bad about reinvesting in the healthcare and educational systems (amongst other things) that gave that person their shot to be successful?:confused:

to me all im hearing is people should take take take, how in the hell is THAT not greedy??

Nothing is wrong with giving back, it's being forced to give back that I have a problem with, especially since I have no say in how those funds are used.

When did I ever say that taxes go to poor people? I can tell you from first hand experience that US government run healthcare would probably be a disaster. Look at medicare or the military healthcare system? I was recently told that I would have to wait more than a month for an appointment to see a doctor - for knee pain, when I have to run everyday.

The problem isn't the giving, it's the government.

[MacDawg]

I believe you've made at least five or six comments specific comments in this regard, so maybe it's possible that your statements may be giving this impression even if you don't mean it?

Perhaps... in that case maybe you will be so kind as to point out to me what you would consider as me bashing the Forum. That way I can be more aware ;)

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[Prof.]

I can't wait for all this political bashing **** to be over. On BOTH sides.

I'm not innocent tho :p

[NT1440]

This is a very interesting question. First, what's the average wage in America? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm) it's $40,690.

So for instance, the average wage in Arizona is $37,560, while the average wage in California is $45,990. New York State is $47,610.

Someone who makes around $50,000 is doing better than average and someone making $200,000 is doing very well. And, minimum wage earners are surviving with $14,500 (Federal wage as of 2008, some states and municipalities have higher wages).

Now, if we take the average American wage and compare it to the world (http://www.globalrichlist.com/), we can see that an average American wage-earner is in the top 2.97% of earners in the world.

So, yes wealth is perception, but how accurate is that perception?

well to be fair, the cost of living isnt the same all over the world, unless that linky has compensated by converting currencies, ill check it out in a second.

also, i cant really think of anyone thats actually surviving on minimum wage alone. It simply cannot be done in this country without additional income or support.

[iShater]

Nothing is wrong with giving back, it's being forced to give back that I have a problem with, especially since I have no say in how those funds are used.

...

The problem isn't the giving, it's the government.

There a lot of people that will skip if it is not part of the law to pay taxes, and I am sure people who can afford expensive lawyers to move stuff off shore do it more than no-so-rich people.

I agree that there is a problem with the government. When we spend close to half a trillion dollars on a war on false evidence (not to get off topic), that could be money used to balance the budget, spent on social justice issues, and still give a tax cut.

/end rant, time to go home.

[NT1440]

Nothing is wrong with giving back, it's being forced to give back that I have a problem with, especially since I have no say in how those funds are used.

When did I ever say that taxes go to poor people? I can tell you from first hand experience that US government run healthcare would probably be a disaster. Look at medicare or the military healthcare system? I was recently told that I would have to wait more than a month for an appointment to see a doctor - for knee pain, when I have to run everyday.

The problem isn't the giving, it's the government.

then we can agree that the system is heavily flawed and corrupt right?

would you mind paying those taxes if they actually went towards what they should??

[srl7741]

Perhaps... in that case maybe you will be so kind as to point out to me what you would consider as me bashing the Forum. That way I can be more aware ;)

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

Great thread. I gotta support Dawg on this one. I have read a lot of his stuff and don't ever recall him doing that. I say that b/c that is one thing about these forums that turns me off and forces me to click onto another thread.

Dawg for President! (kidding ya) :)

[r.j.s]

then we can agree that the system is heavily flawed and corrupt right?

would you mind paying those taxes if they actually went towards what they should??

Agreed.

I don't mind paying taxes. I don't want the government running/paying for everything either. Government should be as small as possible.

[mactastic]

I'm not going to go through and point out specific stories, or links, but that is my opinion. Different stories by the same outlet can be biased in different ways, it all depends.
So then what was your beef with me pointing out that the editorial page of the WSJ is a biased source?

Nothing is wrong with giving back, it's being forced to give back that I have a problem with, especially since I have no say in how those funds are used.
Would you support or oppose mandatory service to country through military or other means?

[r.j.s]

So then what was your beef with me pointing out that the editorial page of the WSJ is a biased source?

No beef, just pointing out that much of the media is biased.


Would you support or oppose mandatory service to country through military or other means?

I oppose forcing people into service, but I believe that people should choose to serve.

[hulugu]

Perhaps... in that case maybe you will be so kind as to point out to me what you would consider as me bashing the Forum. That way I can be more aware ;)

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif


Well, there was the above, and there was this:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5715340&postcount=49

So, setting aside all of the deflection which is common here, tell me plainly... is this, or is this not a fair assessment of both Mr. Helms AND the attitude of some on the PRSI board?

someone who believed strongly in his convictions
someone who fought fiercely for what he believed
someone who was capable of spewing vitriolic hatred towards those who did not think like he did
someone who could not understand why others would have a differing viewpoint
someone who was biased and closed minded
someone who would ridicule those who opposed him
someone with a sharp tongue and a focused agenda

After all, that was the whole point of the original post... not the tangents you have gone off on. I won't be baited into trying to defend the man. I agree, much of his life is indefensible.

Do you ever wonder why the PRSI Board is inhabited mainly by a handful of rabid posters? It isn't because of the intellectual prowess of those members, or the overwhelming weight of their arguments. It isn't because of the universally accepted positions they share or the unchallenged logic they use.

It is because most people grow weary of the attitudes I have listed above and simply don't bother any more.

[MacDawg]

Well, there was the above, and there was this:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5715340&postcount=49

Ah... I see now... making uncomfortable but accurate observations about the nature of some on the board is bashing the Forum. Got it now. ;)

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[r.j.s]

Wow, this thread is off topic ...

[MacDawg]

Wow, this thread is off topic ...

Bring us back home then brother... :)

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[mactastic]

the nature of some on the board...
Uh huh... SOME. Right. How does SOME reconcile with MAINLY?
PRSI Board is inhabited mainly by a handful of rabid posters
Mainly implies a majority, if not most of. Some implies less than a majority, if not a few.

[MacDawg]

Uh huh... SOME. Right. How does SOME reconcile with MAINLY?

Mainly implies a majority, if not most of. Some implies less than a majority, if not a few.

Ha! Ha! OK... how about many then (but not all) :p
That's old news


Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[mactastic]

Ha! Ha! OK... how about many then (but not all) :p
That's old news


Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif
I understand. Memory loss is an affliction that seems to be affecting more than just a few Republicans these days. But that, too, is old news.

[kavika411]

Ha! Ha! OK... how about many then (but not all) :p
That's old news


Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

I have agreed and disagreed with comments you have made. That said, at what point will you understand that there are some people who have nothing - and I do mean nothing - better to do than sweep this forum for seemingly-conservative posts to pull that person into an endless, lifeless, pointless debate?

(Only those "some people" will paint this particular post as an "all people" comment.)

[NT1440]

to steer back on track, why hasnt Mccain "closed the deal" ?

its rhetorical of course, we all know why, im just interested in the responses ill get

[kavika411]

why hasnt Mccain "closed the deal" ?its rhetorical of course, we all know why

Then humor us and tell us the answer. The OP provided an article on the subject. That was apparently, in your opinion, insufficient. Therefore, since "we all know why," why don't you tell us.

[MacDawg]

to steer back on track, why hasnt Mccain "closed the deal" ?

its rhetorical of course, we all know why, im just interested in the responses ill get

Ha! Ha! So... to get the "Why Obama Can't Close the Sale" thread back on track we ask "why hasn't McCain closed the deal?" Ha! Ha! :p

Sorry... I just found that rather amusing in light of all that has been said

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[r.j.s]

... we all know why ...

Link?

[NT1440]

Then humor us and tell us the answer. The OP provided an article on the subject. That was apparently, in your opinion, insufficient. Therefore, since "we all know why," why don't you tell us.

For the same reason Obama hasnt of course, the elections are in november....

[obeygiant]

to steer back on track, why hasnt Mccain "closed the deal" ?

its rhetorical of course, we all know why, im just interested in the responses ill get

Actually I think this election is McCain's to lose. Obama/Biden had a good convention and have lots of money so they're in a good spot. However the Dems aren't as far ahead as they should be in the polls. McCain and Palin now have to prove themselves to their base and inspire independents. They're of course hoping for the post-convention pop in the polls.

[kavika411]

For the same reason Obama hasnt of course, the elections are in november....

I will bother you with responses and questions no longer. Good luck on garnering the interest of others with your comments.

[mactastic]

Actually I think this election is McCain's to lose. Obama/Biden had a good convention and have lots of money so they're in a good spot. However the Dems aren't as far ahead as they should be in the polls. McCain and Palin now have to prove themselves to their base and inspire independents. They're of course hoping for the post-convention pop in the polls.
How far ahead in the polls should the Dems be right now? And how do you come to a figure like that?

[NT1440]

I will bother you with responses and questions no longer. Good luck on garnering the interest of others with your comments.

to be honest, yes it was a wieghted question, but i am just trying to revive this thread, its been a great discussion so far. Most of the other political ones lie dormant right now.

[BlackMax]

Interesting read. Can't say I'm excited about tax increases either.

With the increased fuel prices and the increased prices of everything else (groceries, consumables goods, travel, freight, etc.) because of the increased fuel prices, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to me to increase taxes AND reduce the households that pay taxes. Some folks are barely getting by as it is.

I've also heard Obama talk about sticking it to large corporations and the oil industry with increased taxes... What do you think those corporations and oil companies are going to do to cover the cost of those increased taxes (and maintain their profit margin)? That's right, pass it along to the consumer in the form of even higher retail, wholesale and fuel costs.

If nothing else it will be interesting... I just hope it is not too painful in the process.

[kavika411]

I've also heard Obama talk about sticking it to large corporations and the oil industry with increased taxes... What do you think those corporations and oil companies are going to do to cover the cost of those increased taxes (and maintain their profit margin)? That's right, pass it along to the consumer in the form of even higher retail, wholesale and fuel costs.

They will indeed, as is their right under current laws. Obama, of course, could push to change the current laws, either through increased regulation or nationalization, so that the oil companies could not lawfully pass those costs along to consumers.

[obeygiant]

How far ahead in the polls should the Dems be right now? And how do you come to a figure like that?

Well, the republican "brand" is doing very poorly right now for obvious reasons. The Democrats should be doing better than just statistical dead heat. McCain has obviously distanced himself from Bush to voters and swingers haven't decided. One of Obama's strategies is to connect McCain and Bush but I think its working well with dems but as yet hasn't convinced independents.

[BlackMax]

If, as the article says, 38% of Americans don't pay income tax - and that figure is likely to rise to nearly half under an Obama plan - well, by the articles' own characterization - that means nearly half of Americans are in pretty crappy financial situations, which means something isn't right in the economy. If there is such a disparity, then I don't see why progressive taxes shouldn't correct this inequity to a degree.

Does everyone believe it is the government's job to correct financial inequity? Is it the government's job to redistribute wealth?

If that is the case, what is anyone's motivation to excel and reach for the sky when it will only be taken away from you at gunpoint in the name of financial fairness?

Last time I looked our constitution does not guarantee financial success or financial equity. Isn't it each healthy, physically and mentally capable individual's responsibility to work hard and learn how to excel by their own means?

If you rely on handouts, breaks or subsidies from anyone or any institution as your primary means of livelihood (and not as a stop-gap measure), then you become a slave to that person or institution. It is unhealthy for both the recipient and the institution. This is why we kick our kids out of the house when they are young adults. Nothing is more pathetic than the healthy, capable 30 year old who still lives at home with his/her parents.

Everyone should pay taxes so everyone has a vested interest in what our government is doing and how their money is being spent. If everyone were paying taxes I guarantee you everyone would be a lot more conscious of how much and how often their tax dollars were wasted.

If you want to get everyone politically active and involved in the future and direction of this country, have 100% of American households pay income taxes.

[Melrose]

Seriously? So I guess voting for Bush twice was the "wise" decision?

They lost all credibility after that sentence.

By that same reasoning, then, US residents are mindless idiots waiting to be deceived... hmm. Doesn't say much for why Obama got so popular in the first place.

I find the race interesting from both sides. I don't take sides, but from a psychological perspective it's neat to watch and see how the two campaigns move in the final few moves of this political chess game.

[kavika411]

By that same reasoning, then, US residents are mindless idiots waiting to be deceived... hmm. Doesn't say much for why Obama got so popular in the first place.

If you expect reason and logic, you have come to the wrong place. :eek: ;)

[Melrose]

If you expect reason and logic, you have come to the wrong place. :eek: ;)

:D I knew I was forgetting something...

[BlackMax]

They will indeed, as is their right under current laws. Obama, of course, could push to change the current laws, either through increased regulation or nationalization, so that the oil companies could not lawfully pass those costs along to consumers.

Not possible, not without another civil war as these companies are owned by private citizens (stockholders). God forbid the day the USA becomes Venezuela and our President a Hugo Chavez wannabe. :eek:

[mactastic]

...when it will only be taken away from you at gunpoint...
Hey 'Rat! Here's one of those ones you were denying exist! Taxes are stealing from you at gunpoint...

Well, the republican "brand" is doing very poorly right now for obvious reasons. The Democrats should be doing better than just statistical dead heat. McCain has obviously distanced himself from Bush to voters and swingers haven't decided. One of Obama's strategies is to connect McCain and Bush but I think its working well with dems but as yet hasn't convinced independents.What polls are you looking at? Check pollster.com or fivethirtyeight.com for polling aggregates. They clearly show Obama ahead in both popular vote and electoral votes. It is hardly a "statistical dead heat" as you claim.

So I ask again... how far ahead should a Democrat be at this point? Five points? Ten points? Twenty points? And what formulation do you use to arrive at that number?

[BlackMax]

its funny that you seem to think that taxes go directly to poor people. What is so bad about reinvesting in the healthcare and educational systems (amongst other things) that gave that person their shot to be successful?:confused:

This is just my opinion, but investing more money in these industries (healthcare and education) as they are today is not going to fix them. We need to honestly examine WHY healthcare is so expensive and WHY our public schools are failing and then attack those issues.

One reason for the high cost of healthcare is the malpractice insurance many doctors have to carry. Tort reform would help here. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to sue your doctor if he/she cuts off the wrong leg, I'm saying you shouldn't be able to sue your doctor for $100 M if he/she cuts off the wrong leg because the cost of these type of exorbitant settlements ultimately gets passed off to you and me.

If you want to fix the public schools get rid of the teachers unions (this is my opinion again). I'm sure this statement is going to upset a lot of different folks, but from my time working as a tutor with public elementary schools I'm convinced the teachers unions are strictly about keeping union teachers employed and the teachers union in power... They are definitely not about the kids. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good public school teachers out there. Its just that the system, IMHO, is not focused on the kids, but rather it is focused on keeping the current system in place.

The charter schools in my area have been very successful (hundreds of children on the waiting list each year) and they are mostly high performing schools. Unfortunately, charter schools are capped at 10% of the county public schools here despite their performance and the huge waiting list to enroll.

The day kids are actually placed first in our public schools will be the day our public school issues are resolved.

[BlackMax]

Hey 'Rat! Here's one of those ones you were denying exist! Taxes are stealing from you at gunpoint...

It is when EVERYONE is not at least paying something into the system and has a vested interest in where and how THEIR money is being spent. ;)

[bobber205]

Clearly, Mr. Obama's weakness on foreign policy is a factor. He has a knee-jerk preference for diplomacy with China, Europe and Russia over the security of the American people and our closest allies. He hasn't explained his shifting positions on Iraq and Iran, among other hot spots. And he felt compelled to make up for his experience gap with Mr. McCain by picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate.


Really? Really?

I thought his response, especially to the Georgia-Russia crisis was very well measured and thought out. And funny enough, the rest of the world, including Europe, has the same opinion on what should be done. Even the White House hasn't thought the same thing as McCain.

[obeygiant]

So I ask again... how far ahead should a Democrat be at this point? Five points? Ten points? Twenty points? And what formulation do you use to arrive at that number?

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php

Averages
Obama 49%
McCain 44%

That just about within the margin or error. What's the trouble with understanding it? With the poor numbers for Bush, the Dems should be further ahead, IMO!

[hulugu]

Ah... I see now... making uncomfortable but accurate observations about the nature of some on the board is bashing the Forum. Got it now. ;)

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

Ah... I see now... making uncomfortable but accurate observations about the nature of some on the board is bashing the Forum. Got it now. ;)

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

Hmmm....which do you think is your favorite song? ;) :p

Spin Spin Sugar (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?i=48262145&id=48262550&s=143441) by the Sneaker Pimps.

Little Miss Can't Be Wrong (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?i=169627791&id=169627657&s=143441) by the Spin Doctors.

Or, The Rubberband Man (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?i=708440&id=708503&s=143441) by The Spinners.

Wow, this thread is off topic ...

Sorry about that, I'm definitely to blame for galavanting off into the weeds.

[r.j.s]

Sorry about that, I'm definitely to blame for galavanting off into the weeds.

Yeah, so am I.

[kavika411]

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php

Averages
Obama 49%
McCain 44%

That just about within the margin or error. What's the trouble with understanding it? With the poor numbers for Bush, the Dems should be further ahead, IMO!

Agreed. With Bush as universally reviled as he is (according to huffingtonpost.com, where I get all of my news and commentary), the Democrats should be able to put up Pee Wee Herman and pull in double digit leads. (Especially after Herman's movie theater "incident.")

[NT1440]

Agreed. With Bush as universally reviled as he is (according to huffingtonpost.com, where I get all of my news and commentary), the Democrats should be able to put up Pee Wee Herman and pull in double digit leads. (Especially after Herman's movie theater "incident.")

not when the republican base is as rabid as they are for anything with an R on it. Reguardless of stance, or substance for that matter. Apparantly they really love story time too. Did u hear the one about Mccain being a POW?

[yojitani]

I have to admit that questions of taxation don't interest me much. I noticed, however, that the writer of this article references the Tax Policy Center. The site seems to be down at the moment, but I was able to access this introduction, thanks to google's cache, to their report on McCain and Obama's tax plans. What is here does not seem to gel with the WSJ writer's claims. In fact, it looks like McCain's numbers don't balance well with his overall policy:





tpc > library > publications
library
A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans (Full Report)

Author(s): The Tax Policy Center

Availability: PDF | Printer-Friendly Version

Published: June 20, 2008

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full report in PDF format.
An Updated Analysis is available

Abstract

Tax and fiscal policy will loom large in the next president's domestic policy agenda. Nearly all of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 expire at the end of 2010 and the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) threatens to ensnare tens of millions of Americans. While a permanent fix palatable to both political parties has proven elusive, both candidates have proposed major tax changes. This report describes how we performed our modeling and analysis, outlines the major tax proposals, and discusses the implications of their policies for the revenue raised, taxpayer economic activity, and the distribution of the tax burden.
Introduction

Tax and fiscal policy will loom large in the next president's domestic policy agenda. Nearly all of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 expire at the end of 2010. The individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) threatens to ensnare tens of millions of Americans in a web of pointless complexity and higher taxes, but a permanent fix palatable to both political parties has proven elusive. And large projected increases in spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will put unprecedented demands on federal government revenue sources in the coming decades.

Fundamental reform of our tax system is one way to resolve these problems, but because reform creates both winners and losers, the leading presidential candidates have not addressed it seriously. Nonetheless, both candidates have proposed major changes to the nation's tax laws. Senator McCain would permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, increase deductions for taxpayers supporting dependents, reduce the corporate income tax rate, and allow immediate deductions for the cost of certain short-lived capital equipment. Senator Obama would permanently extend certain provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts primarily affecting taxpayers with incomes under $250,000; increase the maximum rate on capital gains and qualified dividends; and enact new and expanded targeted tax breaks for workers, retirees, homeowners, savers, students, and new farmers. Senator McCain proposes to extend and expand permanently the AMT "patch" that has prevented most individuals and families with incomes below $200,000 from being affected by the tax, and in our interpretation of his proposal, Senator Obama would also extend the patch. Each candidate would also increase the estate tax exemption and reduce the estate tax rate compared with current law in 2011 and beyond, although Senator McCain would cut the tax much more than Senator Obama. Finally, each candidate promises to broaden the tax base and reduce corporate loopholes. McCain lists eight breaks for oil companies as targets but, other than that, is short on details for his pledge to eliminate "corporate welfare." Obama identifies a variety of steps, including basis reporting for capital gains, taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and enacting sanctions on international tax havens that don't cooperate with enforcement efforts, but he would also need additional as-yet-unspecified policies to achieve his revenue target for base broadening.

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush's tax cuts, the true cost of McCain's policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.

Both candidates argue that their proposals should be scored against a "current policy" baseline instead of current law. Such a baseline assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT patch made permanent. Against current policy, Senator Obama's proposals would raise $300 billion, an increase of 2 percent, and Senator McCain's proposals lose $1.0 trillion (if fully phased-in and permanent), a decrease of roughly 2 percent. Senator McCain has stressed that deficits should be closed by spending cuts, but policies he identifies, such as limiting earmarks, would offset only part of the revenue losses attributable to his tax plan. As noted, both candidates may be overoptimistic in their revenue targets for closing tax loopholes-Obama probably more than McCain.

The two candidates' plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.

The impact of the tax code on economic activity under each candidate's policies would differ in several important ways. Under Senator McCain's proposed policies, the top marginal rates (35 percent on individual income and 25 percent on corporate income) would be significantly lower than under Senator Obama's plan (39.6 and 35 percent, respectively). McCain's reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and could completely offset any positive effect. In contrast, Senator Obama's proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior, particularly if the childless EITC and payroll tax rebate encourage additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals. However, he would also direct new subsidies at an already favored group-seniors -and an already favored activity-borrowing for housing-which could probably be better directed elsewhere.

Both candidates have proposed to change the tax treatment of health insurance in important ways. This analysis does not address those proposals, but we expect to evaluate both plans soon.

Section I of the report describes how we obtained information about the candidates' tax plans and how we performed our modeling and analysis. In section II, we outline the major tax proposals put forth, and in section III, we discuss their implications for the revenue raised and taxpayer economic activity. Section IV looks at their effect on the distribution of the tax burden.

[Diatribe]

By that same reasoning, then, US residents are mindless idiots waiting to be deceived... hmm. Doesn't say much for why Obama got so popular in the first place.


Well more than half the people didn't vote for Bush either, I never said all US residents are misguided. :p

Seriously though, how you can somehow try to portray McCain as the new kid on the block that's so different when the Republicans have effectively held the Oval Office for the last 8 years, the Senate for the last 5 years and also the Supreme Court is beyond me.

[blackfox]

Does everyone believe it is the government's job to correct financial inequity? Is it the government's job to redistribute wealth?

If that is the case, what is anyone's motivation to excel and reach for the sky when it will only be taken away from you at gunpoint in the name of financial fairness?

Last time I looked our constitution does not guarantee financial success or financial equity. Isn't it each healthy, physically and mentally capable individual's responsibility to work hard and learn how to excel by their own means?

If you rely on handouts, breaks or subsidies from anyone or any institution as your primary means of livelihood (and not as a stop-gap measure), then you become a slave to that person or institution. It is unhealthy for both the recipient and the institution. This is why we kick our kids out of the house when they are young adults. Nothing is more pathetic than the healthy, capable 30 year old who still lives at home with his/her parents.

Everyone should pay taxes so everyone has a vested interest in what our government is doing and how their money is being spent. If everyone were paying taxes I guarantee you everyone would be a lot more conscious of how much and how often their tax dollars were wasted.

If you want to get everyone politically active and involved in the future and direction of this country, have 100% of American households pay income taxes.

Well, who else in going to address the inequity issue?

Everyone does pay taxes - though not all pay income taxes. My point is that when 50% of the population is deemed poor enough to be entitled to tax rebates/no income taxes (it is now 38% under a GOP tax plan), then that is a sizeable amount of people, whose influence on the system cannot be ignored.

You can't just sweep the issues of the poor and near-poor under the rug under the heading of "fairness" in taxes - they exist, and by sheer numbers influence society and it's expenditures.

How much do we pay in terms of unintended consequences? How much do we subsidize prison growth because many poor or uneducated turn to crime? How much do our healthcare costs rise because the uninsured can't afford care, and default on the high cost of their eventual emergency care? How is our domestic market hurt when a sizeable % of people have little to no disposable income to reinvest in the market? How is the concept of basic civics and patriotism tested when so many people are forced to focus on the basic necessities?

Besides, there will always be poor people, people who are less-educated, less smart, less ambitious, less blessed- that is just how it goes. Some don't or can't want to "reach for the sky". They are still Americans, and their situations can't be ignored.

You take the good with the bad in society - and sorry, it's not often "fair".

[mactastic]

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php

Averages
Obama 49%
McCain 44%

That just about within the margin or error. What's the trouble with understanding it? With the poor numbers for Bush, the Dems should be further ahead, IMO!
But Bush isn't running! And McCain's constant stream of negative attacks are having an effect.

Also, "just about within the margin of error" means it's outside the margin of error, and is therefore a statistically significant lead.

Agreed. With Bush as universally reviled as he is (according to huffingtonpost.com, where I get all of my news and commentary), the Democrats should be able to put up Pee Wee Herman and pull in double digit leads. (Especially after Herman's movie theater "incident.")
Again, Bush isn't running. If Obama were running against Bush in this climate, the polls wouldn't even be close.

[obeygiant]

But Bush isn't running! And McCain's constant stream of negative attacks are having an effect.

Also, "just about within the margin of error" means it's outside the margin of error, and is therefore a statistically significant lead.


Again, Bush isn't running. If Obama were running against Bush in this climate, the polls wouldn't even be close.

Thats not a significant lead, whether or not you say so. We're not talking about Bush here but the ENTIRE REPUBLICAN BRAND (which is suffering because of Bush), which somehow McCain has separated himself from, despite stream of negative attacks from the Obama camp linking McCain to Bush.

BTW, mac, I found an Obama pin for you (second one down). here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6164203&postcount=52). You're punker aren't you?

[Queso]

Thats not a significant lead...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a 5% lead in the actual election give Obama a landslide in the electoral college?

[solvs]

Can't say I'm excited about tax increases either.
As pointed out, many a time, unless you're making 6 figures (even then sometimes) your taxes won't be going up, and may even go down. Look, I know we all hate taxes, but someone has to pay for everything. Especially since the current guy loves to spend, even while giving you all those tax cuts that are helping the upper class but raising the deficit. Someone's going to have to pay for those tax cuts we're getting now that aren't exactly helping our economy. But I suppose the GOP keeps saying it because it works. "They're going to raise your taxes". And 4 years later, the national debt is up and the economy is down.

So how's that tax rebate going, especially for long term growth?

I can distinguish between them, but much of the mainstream media is biased, even on their "hard news."
They are. Towards controversy. I can't believe that even after all that Rev Wright stuff, all while ignoring everything McCain said and did, people still buy the liberal media bias thing. One only needs to look at who mostly runs the AP now. He almost worked for the McCain campaign. There's a reason you can't find proof of overwhelming bias towards the left, because it simply isn't true.

which somehow McCain has separated himself from
You just answered your own question. Obama is saying McCain = Bush, and McCain is saying he doesn't. Even though he kinda does. Not to mention the race issue. It shouldn't be a big deal, but it is. I also know a lot of people who aren't happy with the way the country is right now, but don't exactly keep up with the news, and don't like Obama but don't know why. They believe the media narrative that he's "different" and hates America, and that he's going to raise all our taxes, and that McCain is an experienced maverick who will help us win the war on those evil terrorists hippy liberals want to appease. I'm being facetious, but only partially.

[r.j.s]

They are. Towards controversy.

Thanks. That's probably the best way to put it.

[NT1440]

Thanks. That's probably the best way to put it.

thats actually the first time its made sense in words. Ive been trying to get that point across for a long time, but couldnt form the right sentance around it lol.

[iJon]

As pointed out, many a time, unless you're making 6 figures (even then sometimes) your taxes won't be going up, and may even go down. Look, I know we all hate taxes, but someone has to pay for everything. Especially since the current guy loves to spend, even while giving you all those tax cuts that are helping the upper class but raising the deficit. Someone's going to have to pay for those tax cuts we're getting now that aren't exactly helping our economy. But I suppose the GOP keeps saying it because it works. "They're going to raise your taxes". And 4 years later, the national debt is up and the economy is down.

So how's that tax rebate going, especially for long term growth?


Unfortunately solvs, my family does fall into the category of being affected by that. Now with me saying that, you might really not care what I have to say but either way my opinion is the same.

I do release that taxes have to be paid but our government wastes all our damn money. Our government simply has too much overhead and they spend it on unnecessary things. Federal tax collections have increased over the past 4 years despite the tax cuts. The problem is spending and they are spending too much. Obama will just want to spend that much more of my money, including my capital gains from the stock I own. Depending on who gets elected will probably dictate when I sell my stock in the next 4-8 years.

Now just to get the record straight, I dislike both Obama and McCain. I like many of their qualities but probably despise most of them all together. I have no idea who I'll vote for because American's really don't have a good 3rd party voice that stands a chance in our current democracy.

If our government can't manage the money they have now I sure as hell don't want to give them more. They'll just spend it too.

jon

[leekohler]

Unfortunately solvs, my family does fall into the category of being affected by that. Now with me saying that, you might really not care what I have to say but either way my opinion is the same.

I do release that taxes have to be paid but our government wastes all our damn money. Our government simply has too much overhead and they spend it on unnecessary things. Federal tax collections have increased over the past 4 years despite the tax cuts. The problem is spending and they are spending too much. Obama will just want to spend that much more of my money, including my capital gains from the stock I own. Depending on who gets elected will probably dictate when I sell my stock in the next 4-8 years.

Now just to get the record straight, I dislike both Obama and McCain. I like many of their qualities but probably despise most of them all together. I have no idea who I'll vote for because American's really don't have a good 3rd party voice that stands a chance in our current democracy.

If our government can't manage the money they have now I sure as hell don't want to give them more. They'll just spend it too.

jon

Starving the beast doesn't work either. The beast just gets out the credit card. So your money is getting spent now with a nice big interest rate attached to it. It's all about accountability folks, not taxes. Once we figure that out, maybe we'll get somewhere. Or would you rather leave those bills for your kids?

[iJon]

Starving the beast doesn't work either. The beast just gets out the credit card. So your money is getting spent now with a nice big interest rate attached to it. It's all about accountability folks, not taxes. Once we figure that out, maybe we'll get somewhere. Or would you rather leave those bills for your kids?

Unfortunately not being accountable and not having good money management skills isn't a good enough reason for me to sign off on more taxes.

[solvs]

Obama will just want to spend that much more of my money
Actually, under McCain spending will go up as well, and according to almost everything I've read, the deficit will go up far more under McCain than Obama.

Now just to get the record straight, I dislike both Obama and McCain.
I have no love for either myself, actually used to be a McCain supporter, but one (though far from perfect) is infinitely better than the other, and it isn't McCain.

If our government can't manage the money they have now I sure as hell don't want to give them more. They'll just spend it too.
If the neocons would stop increasing the deficit so much, liberals wouldn't have to increase taxes to pay for everything. And yes, Obama probably will waste some money on things you won't like. But so will McCain. At least some of what Obama wants to do is responsible. Someone has to pay for the deficit spending we're doing now. Sorry it's you (and me probably) but we should stop electing those that make such things necessary. If the Dems start to waste more, we can kick them out the next time if the alternative is better. Lately, it hasn't been. The past couple of years, the GOP seems to actually be worse. Fiscal conservatism my butt.


To answer the thread question though, McCain has been relentless in his attacks (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/mccain-hires-go.html). And it's working (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13412.html). I hope Obama doesn't go too much dirtier (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/obama-camp-steps-up-attac_n_126014.html), and still relies on facts (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/the-winning-frame-has-eme_b_125642.html), but he does need to do something. He's been talking about getting stronger in his criticisms, better late than never I suppose.

[jplan2008]

Neither is the mainstream media, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX News ...

I'll actually agree with you there, but not for the same reasons you say so. The media is labeled "liberal," and no one minds, because then "center" can be defined as to the right of the media. The media is NOT liberal, they are on the right, they cowtow much more to Bush and McCain than to Obama or any Democrat. They are perfectly happy to let us think that the country is more conservative than they are, and they are perfectly happy to make elections about "character," even though the public wants to hear about issues.

Here's just one example of a long (sorry, can't be discussed with soundites or op ed pieces) study of polls that show that the reasons for Obama "not closing the sale" are NOT because he's "too liberal" on the issues for the average US citizen: from universal health care to abortion to "big government" to rights for gays, the public is actually more "liberal" than Obama. Nearly a majority (47%, compared to 35% who disagree) even agree with the statement "The government should reduce income differences." Egads! That sounds almost like ... ummm .. well, it's not rah rah capitalism, anyway. A strong majority believe that the taxes on both corporations and upper-income people are too low.

The ultra-conservative media won't let these issues really be debated. They throw out some tidbits here and there to perpetuate the "liberal media" label, but that's it.

http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/report

[atszyman]

I looked for a place to post this amid all the McCain/Palin bashing threads and couldn't find a suitable venue... so... a new thread. While I don't expect many conservatives to venture in the PRSI to add their voice, at least it will give the rest of you a different slant to attack now.

Apparently, not everyone in the country is enamoured with Mr. Obama and the "changes" he is proposing.

Link to article in the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039919493892941.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries)


Why Obama Can't Close the Sale
By AL HUBBARD and NOAM NEUSNER
September 3, 2008; Page A23

Even before John McCain shook up the presidential race by tapping Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, polls weren't showing the late-August lead that Barack Obama (and many Republicans) expected. Why so?

It's not because of the brilliance of the McCain campaign. Rather we believe that -- despite the media's best efforts to exempt Mr. Obama's policies from critical examination -- American voters aren't sheep. They pay attention to the candidates and positions and make wise decisions about who should lead the country.

True, Mr. Obama enjoys several advantages. Republicans are struggling nationwide in head-to-head contests. Democrats lead in voter registration, and have a well-funded presidential candidate.

Yet Americans have not committed to Mr. Obama. Why?

Woof, Woof – Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

Well I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure he just closed the sale.

[solvs]

Well I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure he just closed the sale.

That's just because you're in the tank for President Obama.

[it5five]

Best thread revival.

[solvs]

Best thread revival.

That's just because you're in the tank for threads.

Ok, I'll stop now.

[Thomas Veil]

Best thread revival.Seconded. :D

(What the heck is with the ad at the bottom of this thread? "Undefined. Undefined. Undefined. www.chevrolet.com" :confused: Looks like some robo-ad just went berserk.)

[Cleverboy]

Seconded. :D

(What the heck is with the ad at the bottom of this thread? "Undefined. Undefined. Undefined. www.chevrolet.com" :confused: Looks like some robo-ad just went berserk.)Thirded... ed.

Okay, time for me to sing the most appropriate campaign music in the spirit of this thread. Excuse me for a moment.

Like a fool I went and stayed too long
Now I'm wondering if your loves still strong
Oo baby, here I am, signed, sealed delivered, I'm yours

Then that time I went and said goodbye
Now I'm back and not ashamed to cry
Oo baby, here I am, signed, sealed delivered, I'm yours

Here I am baby
Oh, you've got the future in your hand
(signed, sealed delivered, I'm yours)

Here I am baby,
Oh, you've got the future in your hand
(signed, sealed, delivered, I'm yours)

~ CB

[yg17]

Well I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure he just closed the sale.


Facts have a liberal bias

:D

[mactastic]

Not only closed the sale, but slammed it shut, locked the lid down tight and gave it a good spanking to boot.

Of course, the WSJ editorial page is never one to let facts get in the way of a good partisan rant...

[Cleverboy]

Not only closed the sale, but slammed it shut, locked the lid down tight and gave it a good spanking to boot.
Of course, the WSJ editorial page is never one to let facts get in the way of a good partisan rant... You know... this was all part of the plan apparently. There's been speculation that the Obama campaign actually USED the "can't close the sale" myth, to lure McCain into spending TONS of money in Pennsylvania with that leaked memo about Ed Rendell's "worrying" and a supposed resurgence of GOP excitement in the state.

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-big-pennsylvania-head-fake.html
1. Obama's campaign learns McCain has just $37 million entering October.

2. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell says he's "nervous" that McCain is gaining ground.

3. Obama's team "leaks" an internal poll proving Rendell's anxiety.

4. McCain pulls back in other states to "flood" Pennsylvania with resources. I mean... is it me, or is that kind of gamesmanship just AWFUL to compete against. I mean, this alone would have helped magnify their victories as the RNC and McCain campaign pulled resources away from other places. Who really thought Pennsylvania was a possible win for McCain? 55% to 44% final tally? It burns!

~ CB