Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective..sm
Posted By: ms on 2008-11-04
In Reply to:
Election 2008: Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective
By Liz Peek
Financial Columnist
Today we will almost surely elect Barack Obama President of the United States. A new generation will vote for Mr. Obama –- a generation that has grown up with the Internet. This new crop of voters has access to more information than any that came before, and yet has swallowed Obama’s impossible campaign promises and contradictory policies just as trustingly as those who in earlier times looked for a chicken in every pot.
Welcome to the disillusionment of another generation. I don’t anticipate this inevitable consequence of today’s election with any glee, believe me. To see young people turning out in droves to vote for this eloquent, attractive young man is inspiring. To hear them buy into his promises, though, is sobering.
For instance, we are told that the image of the United States has suffered mightily under George Bush, and that Obama is going to usher in a veritable global love-fest. Would those falling over themselves to herald our new president include the peoples of South Korea and Colombia –- allies both — whose much-needed free trade agreements with the U.S. Obama has opposed?
How about our neighbors in Canada or Mexico; will Obama’s promised re-write of NAFTA endear them to the U.S.? Is it possible that Obama’s opposition to free trade demonstrates his gratitude to labor unions –- groups that aroused his ire by donating to the Clinton and Edwards campaigns but suddenly were much more warmly welcomed when they began shifting funds his way?
Over a year ago I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column defending the status quo against the pressing demand for “Change” writ large. While politicians of all stripes were heralding new directions, they were ignoring, for example, that the U.S. has been blessed for many years with low inflation. Voters in their 30s and 40s could not be expected to remember the devastating inflation of the 1970s. They couldn’t be expected to understand how double-digit price hikes threw the fear of God into retirees on fixed incomes and created the same kind of paralysis in lending that we are witnessing today.
They might not connect the dots between Obama’s enthusiasm for the Employee Free Choice Act, a resurgence of unionization, and wage-driven inflation. They might not realize that restricting trade with China, re-writing NAFTA and barring adoption of free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea will indeed drive prices higher.
The United States has also enjoyed a period of stable employment. The new generation has never seen serious unemployment. True, they have witnessed shifts in employment as manufacturing jobs have been lost to lower-priced locales. But they have never seen unemployment rates go much above 6%, where it is now. In 1982, when unemployment reached 9.7%, Obama was 21 years old. I doubt he was much focused on the dismal state of the economy. Voters, however, were focused, and gave Ronald Reagan a mandate to set the country on a new course –- one which encouraged growth through lower taxes, expanded trade and deregulation.
That program was adopted by both Democrats and Republicans because it worked. People in their thirties and forties cannot imagine that raising taxes on successful people might harm the economy. That’s because they weren’t around to witness the exodus of talent from England –- a country wherein punitive marginal tax rates squashed incentives and drove out anyone who could locate elsewhere. Margaret Thatcher didn’t just join the Reagan Revolution –- she clung to it for dear life.
What young voters have seen, and have responded to, is the collapse of Wall Street. Because bankers, politicians and speculators conspired to create the worst investment bubble in modern times, we are about to abandon the policies that brought millions of people around the world into the middle class. Policies that gave people real hope –- not just its rhetorical facsimile. This is a tragedy.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/04/lpeek_1104/#more-2415
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Historical Perspective
I heard many calls today on talk radio from these naturalized US citizens who said to just take a look at what happened to these nations.
Think what y'all want, but I'll never forget what they've done to take the $ I make and hand it over to some jerk who pays nothing in taxes. Yeah, that's really fair.
One clip was played where a lady said she's so happy that she'll never have to pay a mortage, car payment, and even gas for her car! So this is okay? Next time I need gas $ or something, I'll just put my hand out and y'all can just empty your wallets. So if someone owns 2 acres and I own only 1/2, you have to pony up to even out the difference. Enjoy it and don't bitch about it if you voted for this naked socialist.
Good luck to charitable organizations. It should be interesting to see how many people continue to give once they've been completely raped for all they've earned.
Obama Tax Promises Up In Smoke
Obama plainly, clearly, and unequivocally promised "not one dime" of tax increase on the workers of America.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1
...and the point here is NOT whether you smoke or not. Even if you think that forcing the poor to quit smoking is a beneficial thing, the questions are:
1. Should Obama be held to his tax promises or not?
2. If he can raise these taxes, by what stretch of the imagination do you believe other increases will not follow?
3. Should the government use the power of taxation to enforce policies that it happens to think are beneficial? If you think so, how about taxing the next package of hamburger you buy a couple of bucks a pound unless it has less than 14% fat? And your next loaf of bread a buck or two unless it has 0% transfat? Or the next dozen eggs maybe five bucks for the cholesterol? After all, far more people in this country are obese than smoke.
If I were President, I'd hit every parent with a $10 per day tax if their kids forget to brush their teeth before going to bed (and I'd send jack-booted bed-tooth-inspectors to every house, too!). Now that would raise some serious coin, and improve the nation's dental health. Vote for me.
All the promises made by President Obama.
President Barrack Obama has made a huge list of promises. As you can see, some promises he has already broken and we aren't even into his presidency a whole week yet.
Foreign Policy
Domestic Policy
President Obama campaign promises
I hope our new President does go to work for our jobs, meaning all American jobs, as he promised. I did hear him make that promise, but it is not necessarily looking good at this point. To see his offshoring comments, can be seen at www.loudobbs.com.
Is it true that Obama's website has scrubbed his 25 campaign promises? sm
I heard they are no longer there, and have been scrubbed off. I looked and can't find them.
Any thoughts on this, or am I looking in the wrong place?
Some Obama campaign promises are put on hold as the economy sinks
More doom and gloom, and more campaign promises will not be kept.
Is it just me, or does our President Elect look less and less, with each passing day, like the man that so many put into this office....and more and more like the rest of knew him to be?
Some Obama campaign promises are put on hold as the economy sinks
BY CELESTE KATZ
DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
Sunday, January 11th 2009, 4:00 AM
Tackling the troubled economy is going to require Americans to sacrifice - and it means some campaign promises will have to be put on hold, President-elect Barack Obama says.
"Everybody's going to have to give. Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game," Obama said on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" set to air this morning.
Obama's comments came as the President-elect, who takes office Jan. 20, responded to a new national unemployment report by saying in his weekly address Saturday that he'll save or create 3 million to 4 million new jobs.
"Our challenge is going to be identifying what works and putting more money into that, eliminating things that don't work and making things that we have more efficient," Obama said on ABC. "I want to be realistic here. Not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped."
Obama agreed that his administration is going to involve some version of a "grand bargain" - changes in areas like tax reform, Social Security and Medicare will come at a cost.
Addressing the nation as his team released figures on the job situation, Obama said in his weekly radio and video address that 90% of the jobs will be created in the private sector. The remainder are "mainly public sector jobs" such as teachers, cops and firefighters.
The report released by Obama's team Saturday projected the creation of 678,000 new construction jobs and 408,000 manufacturing jobs by next year under an estimated $775 billion stimulus plan.
Among the sources of the new jobs Obama cited: designing more efficient cars and building solar panels, infrastructure roles such as repairing roads and bridges, and jobs in the health care and education sectors.
Obama said economists predict that if Congress doesn't agree on a large-scale stimulus plan, the U.S. will shed as many as 4 million jobs before the recession comes to an end.
Obama also vowed to procure "bipartisan extensions of unemployment insurance and health care coverage" and a $1,000 tax cut for 95% of working families.
"Given the magnitude of the challenges we face, none of this will come easy. Recovery won't happen overnight, and it's likely that things will get worse before they get better," Obama warned.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/11/2009-01-11_some_obama_campaign_promises_are_put_on_-1.html
Who was rude? I just said she sounds young. You are just mad cuz Obama is winning
so everything i say is hateable from your point... well you can kiss my grits lady...you cannot come to my victory party... no snotty argumentative loser rednecks allowed.
Obama has played the voters for fools...
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-has-played-voters-for-fools.html
To think that conservatives have viewed Bill and Hillary Clinton as unethical politicians who would do anything to get elected. When we are as disgusted as we think we possibly can be, on to the political stage steps Barack Obama. The senator from Illinois makes Bill and Hillary look “not quite so bad”.
Though they enjoyed paling around with Yasser Arafat, we didn’t have the all-consuming fear that they would completely sell-out Israel, nor did we have to worry about them supporting infanticide, though they saw nothing wrong with partial-birth abortion.
Yes, Obama keeps his pants on when away from his “bitter-half,“ Michelle, but that’s not much comfort when he has campaigned for Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga who made a pact with Kenyan Muslims to institute Sharia law.
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-funds-odinga-who-promises-sharia.html
Thomas Sowell has written an article in National Review describing how Obama has played the American people for fools.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTQ5YTM3M2UzMjY3N2M3YWRiMDI0NzNmMTNhNjJlNTc=
“Although Senator Barack Obama has been allied with a succession of far-Left individuals over the years, that is only half the story. There are, after all, some honest and decent people on the Left. But these have not been the ones that Obama has been allied with — allied, not merely ‘associated’ with.
ACORN is not just an organization on the left. In addition to the voter frauds that ACORN has been involved in over the years, it is an organization with a history of thuggery, including going to bankers’ homes to harass them and their families, in order to force banks to lend to people with low credit ratings.
Nor was Barack Obama’s relationship with ACORN just a matter of once being their attorney long ago. More recently, he has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars their way. Money talks — and what it says is more important than a politician’s rhetoric in an election year.
Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger are not just people with left-wing opinions. They are reckless demagogues preaching hatred of the lowest sort — and both are recipients of money from Obama.
Bill Ayers is not just ‘an education professor’ who has some left-wing views. He is a confessed and unrepentant terrorist, who more recently has put his message of resentment into the schools — an effort using money from a foundation that Obama headed.
Nor has the help all been one way. During the last debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, Senator McCain mentioned that Sen. Obama’s political campaign began in Bill Ayers’s home. Obama immediately denied it and McCain had no real follow-up.
It was not this year’s political campaign that Obama began in Bill Ayers’s home but an earlier campaign for the Illinois state legislature. Barack Obama can match Bill Clinton in slickness at parsing words to evade accusations.
That is one way to get to the White House. But slickness with words is not going to help a president deal with either domestic economic crises or the looming dangers of a nuclear Iran.
People who think that talking points on this or that problem constitute ‘the real issues’ that we should be talking about, instead of Obama’s track record, ignore a very fundamental fact about representative government.
Representative government exists, in the first place, because we the voters cannot possibly have all the information necessary to make rational decisions on all the things that the government does. We cannot rule through polls or referendums. We must trust someone to represent us, especially as President of the United States.
Once we recognize this basic fact of representative government, then the question of how trustworthy a candidate is becomes a more urgent question than any of the so-called ‘real issues.’
A candidate who spends two decades promoting polarization and then runs as a healer and uniter, rather than a divider, forfeits all trust by that fact alone.
If Ronald Reagan had attempted to run for president of the United States as a liberal, the media would have been all over him. His support for Barry Goldwater would have been in the headlines and in editorial denunciations across the country.
No way would he have been able to get away with using soothing words to suggest that he and Barry Goldwater were like ships that passed in the night.
If Barack Obama had run as what he has always been, rather than as what he has never been, then we could simply cast our votes based on whether or not we agree with what he has always stood for.
Some people take solace from the fact that Senator Obama has verbally shifted position on some issues, like drilling for oil or gun control, since this is supposed to show that he is ‘pragmatic’ rather than ideological.
But political zigzags show no such moderation as some seem to assume. Lenin zigzagged and so did Hitler. Zigzags may show no more than that someone is playing the public for fools.
Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He does that very well.”
Right on, brother! Right on! It’s refreshing to see a black conservative who stands on principle and doesn’t support Obama just because of his dark pigment. I’m speaking of you, General Powell.
No, Obama voters will be stomping and kicking
nm
I think Obama will ask his voters to vote for who he wants in; I hope not though! nm
Obama drank and snorted cocaine when he was a young person....
does that mean you are not going to vote for him? Geez, what a cheap shot. You accept the same behavior in him and you want to rip kids who aren't even running for office. Just nasty little rascals, aren't you?
If it weren't for uninformed voters, Obama wouldn't have a chance.
Did you happen to catch John Stossel's report on 20/20 last night?
Uninformed Obama voters....brought to you by the biased media...sm
Unfortunately, I know a lot of people who voted for Obama, several of my relatives included....and they don't know even half of the answers to these questions either. They believe exactly what the media tells them to believe (or not to believe....)
Historical moment. We have come together
nm
Also a historical fact
that muslims were pirates (even then) capturing christians, holding them for ransom, holding them in slavery, forcing conversion to islam by all sorts of unpleasant means. we could waste a lot of time trying to decide ''who started it'' but i believe there's plenty of blood on muslim and christian hands throughout the centuries. christians tortured, forced conversions and executed, so did muslims. the important fact is that christians, for the most, part gave up such barbarism a few centuries ago. radical muslims are stuck back in the dark ages, and pretty comfy there.
You have no idea of historical relevancy. sm
I am furious at people such as you who would put us all at risk, in fact, put our military at risk daily. SHAME ON YOU!
Wow. A historical moment. I almost never agree with your posts....
x
My perspective is not so
We could argue forever about whether the bible is historically accurate...
You're wrong; I see humans as more than animals, but what I said is that we are basically animals and therefore have the same basic instincts. As with animals, it is the quest for territory and power which have caused the rise and fall of powerful nations throughout history...not homosexuality. Also, you see Christians only as victims when, in fact, we've done our share of the murdering (the Crusades, the inquisition, the *discovery* of the Americas,the Holocaust, etc.) The old testament is just as violent. My point is this: we brutalize and kill each other for the same reason animals do - dominance over others...no matter the religion, no matter the country. That's where I think the NeoCons have pulled a fast one and many have fallen for it; under the guise of religion and being good American Christians, they've convinced many they are the ones to follow, when, in fact, their policies are in direct conflict with the interests and well-being of the average American i.e., healthcare, jobs, etc., and when in fact they are no more Christian than anyone else. It's all about POWER, as it has ALWAYS been....but make it sound like it's for God and suddenly you're drinking Kool-Aid.
Just a little perspective
I have seen portions of this video today, and let me tell you this is not mainstream Christianity. We are not worshipping images of George Bush nor are we working our children up into an emotional frenzy. I disdain what this so-called woman minister is doing to these children. My child would not come within 100 yards of her. It's not Biblical...it's almost cultish, but before you start parading this around as the Christian norm. It's not. This woman is developing a cult under the name Christian...she's got some deep seated theological issues.
Let's put this in perspective...
The report tracked donations of $200 or more. It found that 859 members of the military donated a total of $335,536 to Obama. McCain received $280,513 from 558 military donors.
I don't think this in any way reflects how the bulk of the military will vote...there are several thousand more than are reflected here.
For a different perspective....(sm)
you might want to check out http://nooga.com/
Pretty much all of the other media around is now republican owned.
another perspective
Um, do you guys realize that not all OB/GYN doctors perform abortions? Not that I'm an ob/gyn physician, but I believe you need training beyond residency to be certified in abortions. There are a many residencies that do not offer abortion training to its residents, for whatever reason. The point is, just because you're an ob/gyn doctor, does NOT mean that you perform abortions. Therefore, just because Bush's law is being repealed or whatever by Obama, doesn't mean that now every ob/gyn doctor out there is going to have to provide abortions or risk getting sued. Did that happen before Bush's law went into effect?
I think the concerning thing about Bush's law was that it permitted healthcare workers to refuse to even provide INFORMATION regarding abortions (like, who to refer someone to), based on their moral beliefs. Moral beliefs vary between people, and between providers, and are very subjective. What if a healthcare provider believed that ANY abortion, even in a case in which the mother's health was threatened, was immoral? He or she, under Bush's law (as I understand it), would be legally protected in not giving the woman information on who to go to to get an abortion. In a field where healthcare providers put patients first (and in the case of a mother's life or health being threatened, the mother always comes first for obvious reasons), it is unconscienceable, from a medical ethics standpoint, to refuse to offer that woman the resources she needs to protect her health and/or life.
That's an extreme example, and I truly hope no healthcare provider would make the decision to refuse information to a woman in that case, but under Bush's law, they would be protected. As far as I understand it.
Another MUCH more common example is prescribing emergency contraception, and even regular contraception. Under Bush's law, a pharmacist would have the right, legally, to refuse to fill a prescription for a woman seeking that if his or her beliefs indicated that such a thing (contraception - emergency or not) was immoral. This is especially relevant in rural areas, where women - often poor - do not have access to more than one pharmacist. Her right to contraception definitely trumps a pharmacist's beliefs - and I'll tell you why. Pharmacists don't (as far as I know) have access to doctor's notes explaining the reason for a prescription. They're smart and trained people who can look at your meds and deduct what medical problems you have, but how are they to know if you have antiphospholipid antibody syndrome and really, really shouldn't get pregnant? They don't. They might know if you're taking retin a orally and thus shouldn't get pregnant for that reason, but they don't know everything about your medical conditions. And even if they did, legally protecting these providers' decisions to refuse contraception CAN remove the right of a woman to make decisions regarding her own health. In a free society that protects individual autonomy, such a law goes directly against what it is supposed to protect - autonomy. A subexample - what if the woman in question is a victim of rape or incest and can't remove herself from the situation, for reasons that you and I don't know? Why should a pharamcist's beliefs - again, which are hard to legally define - trump HER decision to not get pregnant with the result of a repeated act of rape or incest? Furthermore, you and I don't know that she's being raped. You and I also don't know the reason why she can't remove herself from the situation. So, why should you or I make a moral judgement and/or a decision that impacts her health? I don't believe that we can. I know that *I* can't, because I really don't know this woman's story. As a pharmacist, and even as her doctor, I likely wouldn't know.
Back to the subject of morality and the definition of morality. What if a healthcare provider believes that homosexuality is immoral, and allowing such a couple to have children is immoral? A case like that happened in California a few years ago, where the fertility clinic a lesbian couple went to basically either did not harvest the eggs, or did not give the proper treatments (I don't know the exact details), but executed acts that were based on a decision (a decision they admitted to) to not help these women conceive BECAUSE they believed homosexuality was immoral, and they allowed the women to keep coming to the clinic for months before it came out that they were not helping them because they were lesbian. Now, perhaps this was a Christian clinic, or perhaps everyone in the clinic WAS Christian. I don't know. I do know that the rights of these women to get fertility treatments was denied to them because a decision was made based on someone else's morals. Why should their health, and their control over their fertility, be impacted by someone they don't even know? We don't go into the healthcare business to make moral decisions for people. That's the job of our church, if we have one.
Basically, I'm writing here because I've gone through most of the comments, and people all seem to be under the misconception that doctors will have to perform abortions now if asked, and a) that's not the case, given that all doctors are not trained in abortions, and b) the main importance of the law (in my opinion) lies not in the actual procedure of abortion, but in the sharing of information to women about their LEGAL options. Which, in America and in many developed countries, includes abortion, like it or not.
another perspective
Um, do you guys realize that not all OB/GYN doctors perform abortions? Not that I'm an ob/gyn physician, but I believe you need training beyond residency to be certified in abortions. There are a many residencies that do not offer abortion training to its residents, for whatever reason. The point is, just because you're an ob/gyn doctor, does NOT mean that you perform abortions. Therefore, just because Bush's law is being repealed or whatever by Obama, doesn't mean that now every ob/gyn doctor out there is going to have to provide abortions or risk getting sued. Did that happen before Bush's law went into effect?
I think the concerning thing about Bush's law was that it permitted healthcare workers to refuse to even provide INFORMATION regarding abortions (like, who to refer someone to), based on their moral beliefs. Moral beliefs vary between people, and between providers, and are very subjective. What if a healthcare provider believed that ANY abortion, even in a case in which the mother's health was threatened, was immoral? He or she, under Bush's law (as I understand it), would be legally protected in not giving the woman information on who to go to to get an abortion. In a field where healthcare providers put patients first (and in the case of a mother's life or health being threatened, the mother always comes first for obvious reasons), it is unconscienceable, from a medical ethics standpoint, to refuse to offer that woman the resources she needs to protect her health and/or life.
That's an extreme example, and I truly hope no healthcare provider would make the decision to refuse information to a woman in that case, but under Bush's law, they would be protected. As far as I understand it.
Another MUCH more common example is prescribing emergency contraception, and even regular contraception. Under Bush's law, a pharmacist would have the right, legally, to refuse to fill a prescription for a woman seeking that if his or her beliefs indicated that such a thing (contraception - emergency or not) was immoral. This is especially relevant in rural areas, where women - often poor - do not have access to more than one pharmacist. Her right to contraception definitely trumps a pharmacist's beliefs - and I'll tell you why. Pharmacists don't (as far as I know) have access to doctor's notes explaining the reason for a prescription. They're smart and trained people who can look at your meds and deduct what medical problems you have, but how are they to know if you have antiphospholipid antibody syndrome and really, really shouldn't get pregnant? They don't. They might know if you're taking retin a orally and thus shouldn't get pregnant for that reason, but they don't know everything about your medical conditions. And even if they did, legally protecting these providers' decisions to refuse contraception CAN remove the right of a woman to make decisions regarding her own health. In a free society that protects individual autonomy, such a law goes directly against what it is supposed to protect - autonomy. A subexample - what if the woman in question is a victim of rape or incest and can't remove herself from the situation, for reasons that you and I don't know? Why should a pharamcist's beliefs - again, which are hard to legally define - trump HER decision to not get pregnant with the result of a repeated act of rape or incest? Furthermore, you and I don't know that she's being raped. You and I also don't know the reason why she can't remove herself from the situation. So, why should you or I make a moral judgement and/or a decision that impacts her health? I don't believe that we can. I know that *I* can't, because I really don't know this woman's story. As a pharmacist, and even as her doctor, I likely wouldn't know.
Back to the subject of morality and the definition of morality. What if a healthcare provider believes that homosexuality is immoral, and allowing such a couple to have children is immoral? A case like that happened in California a few years ago, where the fertility clinic a lesbian couple went to basically either did not harvest the eggs, or did not give the proper treatments (I don't know the exact details), but executed acts that were based on a decision (a decision they admitted to) to not help these women conceive BECAUSE they believed homosexuality was immoral, and they allowed the women to keep coming to the clinic for months before it came out that they were not helping them because they were lesbian. Now, perhaps this was a Christian clinic, or perhaps everyone in the clinic WAS Christian. I don't know. I do know that the rights of these women to get fertility treatments was denied to them because a decision was made based on someone else's morals. Why should their health, and their control over their fertility, be impacted by someone they don't even know? We don't go into the healthcare business to make moral decisions for people. That's the job of our church, if we have one.
Basically, I'm writing here because I've gone through most of the comments, and people all seem to be under the misconception that doctors will have to perform abortions now if asked, and a) that's not the case, given that all doctors are not trained in abortions, and b) the main importance of the law (in my opinion) lies not in the actual procedure of abortion, but in the sharing of information to women about their LEGAL options. Which, in America and in many developed countries, includes abortion, like it or not.
As stated, I would not advise you to interpret Mein Kampf as historical reality...nm
dfdfd
Really good, balanced, historical report, SO GLAD you posted!! Something for everyone to learn in t
nm
Jon always has the perfect perspective . . .
Hey Fox!! Paranoia will destroy 'ya!! TEE HEE!! 
Perspective. That is nothing compared to what we
nm
I guess it depends on your perspective...
if you are as far left as Obama, I guess CNN WOULD look conservative...lol. I guess it is in perspective. The point I was trying to make but obviously failed is that no one is going to learn anything if they only listen to one side...and people who automatically yell yeah you got that from Fox or Rush Limbaugh are exactly the kind of people I am talking about. You give an opinion, and if it differs from theirs it automatically came from Fox or Rush Limbaugh and that makes it wrong. I just wish people would not listen to the party line on either side and would use due diligence and research for themselves. The Obama website is not where to go to learn about Obama. The McCain website is not where to go to learn about McCain. Voting the party line is just too Pied Piperish for me. Although I am not and never was a Democrat, I have to applaud that PUMA bunch for having the gall to buck the system and fight for what they think is right. I am not crazy about their candidate either, but I admire their guts, and that is what America is about, by golly. Hil has every right to put her name in nomination at the convention and people who support her have their say. That being said, I noticed Obama caved on that and came out with that placating and to MY thinking condescending thing of "letting women and Clinton supporters feel vindicated." Yeah right...lol. He wants their votes. Period. Go PUMA!
She only hates FOX because they give perspective
nm
Let me try this from a different perspective (long post!)
First off, thank you for your post. Thanks for not bashing.
Second, I HATE IT when you've typed a huge long thing and it gets erased! !!!!
Anyways, I want to come at this from a different angle. From one of very few conservative college students left.
As the campaign and election unfolded, the things I witnessed in this college town and across the nation did not remind me of the last presidential elections.
I watched as signs and Facebook statuses said "Barack the vote!" or "The White House is going to be painted BLACK B*T*HS!" or "My president is BLACK!!"
Very mature.
I watched as shirts were being sold that had a giant "O" on them resembling the "S" for Superman.
I watched as bars promoted "FREE SHOTS FOR EVERY STATE THAT GOES BLUE!" like they do for everytime UGA scores a touchdown.
I watched people who in 40 or 50 years have never once voted, but now go and register to vote for O. And I am not denying the historical significance of him running or being elected. But the simple fact is that there were quite a few black people who went out and registered to vote for him, not caring about what he stood for. There were also white people who went out and registered to vote so they could vote against him, but I do not believe the numbers were equal.
I decided to pull a Howard Stern yesterday in talking to one of my friends. I said "I'm so glad Obama is a Pro-lifer!" Her answer? "I know, isn't he great?!" ......?!?!?
This is my problem. Obama has been presented as a ROCK STAR, not a presidential candidate. Girls are swooning over his good looks. He threw a 2 million (probably more than that by now) Obamapalooza Tuesday night. The reaction to him is like one you might see if a college found out Green Day or 50 cent was going to come perform for them.
Everyone is so excited that the 18-24 year olds are finally getting out and voting and that we had record turnouts. Nevermind they don't have a clue what for. Nevermind that they probably voted Obama and then just randomly picked all the other names on the ballot. Nevermind that they didn't research the issues, or think past their four years in college.
If someone voted for Obama with understanding of what he was for and what his plans were, that is fine. I have no beef with that. That is what makes our nation so great. My problem is that the majority of NEW voters don't seem to have a clue. I watch on Facebook as classmates plaster pictures of Obama looking hot on the cover of Ebony. Or write I heart Obama! All over their cars.
This election just did not seem dignified to me. I really don't care that Mccain lost. He wasn't my No. 1 choice. What I do care about is that the majority of people voted on a Rock Star, not a President.
I know that we can't have quizzes or what not before voting because it would be similar to the Jim Crow laws, but their needs to be something. People shouldn't just be allowed to blindly vote for the highest office in our country.
Again, I'm not saying that everyone did. If you knew what Obama/Biden stood for when you cast your vote for him, that's fine, unless you just say "he stands for change!".
Look, I hope I have to eat crow for the next four years. I hope he turns out to be the greatest bipartisan president I have ever seen and he just makes this country into an amazing place. But it's going to take an act of God for that to happen I believe. There will be a great uniting of liberals and left leaners, I am sure. But I feel like us conservatives who hold to tradition and God are going to become few and far between. There is already a shortage of true Christians in this nation. THAT'S what I fear. I fear the fact that talking against a group or religion is a hate crime, unless it's against Christianity. I fear the fact that I'm going to try to be forced to accept what is against my beliefs. I fear that in an effort to "unite" this country, we are going to be expected to compromise on our beliefs.
Like I said, I hope I am wrong. I hope that Obama turns out to be an amazing guy and puts this country on the right track. But there is a reason for a left and a right. We who lean right shouldn't be expected to go left, and vice versa. But as the president, he is representing ALL PEOPLE, and therefore needs to stay right in the middle.
I would like to see him elect some strong conservatives to his cabinet to balance out some of the strong liberals. I would like to see him elect supreme court justices that balance each other. These actions would cause me to give him some trust.
I will say this. This young conservative will be keeping a watch. And she will be writing him and anyone else she needs to when she feels that things are going to far to one side. Right or left.
From this point forward starts a blank page. Like I said before, He has a 0 with me right now. With the pick of Emanuel, he's leaning to the negative, but if he balances it out with a conservative pick, we'll be good.
If he does not keep his promises, I will not...sm
vote for him the next time. Very simple.
promises, promises
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxeFMHyOx3I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePpMxJaA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgn2g4NKhZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM
Not exactly what he promises
There is a lot of debate on his whole tax plan. It doesn't exactly pan out like he promises. On the other hand, the president is not all-powerful, so for much of what any of them promise during their campaign, their hands are tied.
Here's a link.
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/august-08-08/the-folly-of-obama2019s-tax-plan
Get used to broken promises
And squeezing money out of "the middle class".
Campaign promises
I didn't vote for Obama, but didn't really like McCain much better. I feel that too many politicians say whatever it takes to get elected and then do whatever they want once getting into office. This goes for Congress, too, and I agreed with the other poster that said Congress is a big part of not letting presidents fullfill thier campaign promises. But it is a combination of both because they all promise basically the same things.
It would be interesting to see if Reagan kept his promises - I was just a young'un then and didn't really pay too much attention to politics - I see a research project! =)
By the way, I doubt you hear it enough, but thank you for being a part of our military and for your service overseas. Our men and women in the military are our country's greatest asset and are definitely people for our country to be proud of.
Broken promises.
Obama Breaks Pledge to People Making Under $250K
Today, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) condemns the recent passage of the Waxman-Markey energy/climate bill which passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last night, 33-25, with four Democrats opposing,. ATR is calling on President Obama to keep his pledge.
All of this comes without a peep from President Obama, who promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 per year. Even House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) says that he has “40-45 votes” to take down the over $600 billion climate tax bill that will cost jobs and increase energy prices.
President Obama said on September 12, 2008 in Dover, New Hampshire:
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
He repeated that pledgeon October 22nd in Richmond, VA:
The concerns are still the same; this bill increases the price of energy and taxes all American families, not just those making over $250,000 as President Obama promised:
-Direct energy costs will go up $1,500 per year for the typical family of four.
-Even with a 26% reduction is use, electric bills will be $754 higher in 2035 than in the absence of Waxman-Markey, and $12,200 higher in total from 2012 to 2035.
-Even with a 15% decrease in gas consumption – prices will still go up! A family of four will still pay $596 more in 2035 and $7,500 more in total from 2012 to 2035.
-From 2012-2035, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by $22,800.
-On average, employment will be lower by 1,105,000 jobs per year. In some years, cap and trade will reduce employment by nearly 2.5 million jobs.
-Waxman-Markey will drive up the national debt 26 percent by 2035. This represents an additional $29,150 per person, or $116,600 for a family of four.
Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform said, “It would be very helpful if President Obama would keep just one of his campaign promises and oppose this massive tax hike. If not – we have him on record and he is clearly breaking his ‘pledge’.”
Name a pres that kept all his campaign promises?
I don't expect him to keep all his promises. In actuality, he really can't. None of the other presidents in my memory have been able to either. That is an unrealistic expectation. They say what they need to say to get elected.
Falling for O's promises, just like Jimmy Carter
nm
Fall guy
Yup it looks like those courts you hold up as infallible founts of truth - they are highly fallible and can be prejudiced. Looks like they went after the wrong guy in Scooter. You ever wonder why?
Oh, how the mighty fall.nm
That's what they WANT you to believe...don't fall for it...do more research...nm
1
Let CitiGroup fall
They have a terrible record of how they treat customers. According to a friend of mine who is a bankruptcy attorney, he said that over 75% of his clients file for bankruptcy because Citigroup raises interest rates astronomically, increases minimum payments, etc. They usually flat out refuse to work with people, so they file BR to make them go away.
Our mortgage is with Citi, and while we haven't had any problems with payments, they are terrible about posting payments late (I watch my account like a hawk), miscalculating interest, etc.
They brought this on themselves.
You really fall for all that garbage don't ya?
The levy failed because their precious Mayor Negan blew the 60 million dollars he was given years earlier to do just that.......FIX THE LEVY! Did ya see any of those welfare recipients yelling at the mayor to fix the levy? Pleeeeze! Most couldn't even tell you anything about their local government or any government for that matter. At what point does their mayor hold any responsibility for the lives lost? What I'm seeing here is any black person in power who is a crook, i.e., in this case, Negan, who took all those millions and no questions asked, then no one blames him because he's black, but if that had been a white mayor, all he!! would have broke lose on him and all the questions as to where all those 60 millions bucks were to fix the levy!!
Do your homework and stop playing that blame game. Those poor souls as they love to be referred to, couldn't give a rat's butt about contributing to their society in a positive fashion. What family planning strategy would you recommend? Keep your legs closed? How much money does one need to do that?
Sorry you have such a bad feeling for republicans, Dr. Martin Luther King WAS A REPUBLICAN!!!
Just so ya know!!
It will fall as manna from the sky.
You obviously do not understand Obamanomics, silly wabbit. (I am being sarcastic again folks, and also using a simile. I will try to use irony in another post and 'splain that to you then.)
Either side can fail to deliver on promises. My only hope and prayer is that
I'm honestly not 100% sure either one of these candidates can do it so where do people like me fit into the picture? I'm not even sure I will be able to vote for either one, and that's based on my personal values. I don't feel Barack is the man, like many seem to, but I don't feel McCain is, either. I know I'm not alone. I don't believe socialized insurance is the answer, I believe in going after insurance companies that dictate what patients can have done and set premiums too high for people to afford and pharmaceutical companies that pay people off to push their drugs, whether it be doctors, groups, etc. I'd like to see all with tax cuts, not just big companies. Wonderful if they get a break for keeping jobs in the US, but that should be just one of many tax cuts for all, starting with taxes paid at the pump. What about public education? We pay fees and still have to buy extra books and other supplies for our kids' education, yet many children are less educated now out of public high school than ever before because they are too focused on the proficiency tests to actually teach a well-rounded fund of knowledge, so what are the proposals to fix that mess?
No matter who gets elected, they've got quite a job on their hands, and I sincerely doubt either will be able to live up to their promises. And no, I don't necessarily blame Bush for all the problems in this country, but rather I blame all presidents and congress, past and present. Somewhere along the way, it stopped being for the people, that's for sure, and more for their pocketbooks (both Dems AND Repubs). Since so many seem to see Barack as the second coming, I certainly pray that you are right, but I really doubt it. He's had zero experience so who is to say he won't buckle under the load once he realizes what he's gotten into? And McCain isn't my idea of perfection, either, so don't reply by bashing Republicans. I want to hear facts that aren't based on party views but honest-to-goodness facts on who has the best plan in line for these things. And how do you know who is being sincere and who is just making empty campaign promises?
Interesting to read the promises Roosevelt made when SS was created.
It's just like farm subsidies and so many other things that government gets into and then makes a mess out of.
The promises, incidentally, were basically "our older citizens will not have to live in poverty". Now, SS is nothing more than institutionalized poverty for anyone who has nothing else.
And, incidentally, some of the rhetoric around the time SS was created dealt with the objections some had to the withholding by saying "This way, you won't have to put money into risky stocks because this is guaranteed". In other words, the implication was that you didn't have to provide otherwise for your retirement. The message was very powerful for a generation that had seen the Crash of 29 and the market's performance throughout the Great Depression. Stocks risky! Social Security safe!
I've forgotten the exact age, but I think when SS was formed the average life expectancy was 60 or less. In other words, it counted on most recipients dying off before they collected much if anything!
Well...you can add it up for yourself. We have people living much longer than SS had ever anticipated. We have a climate where you can't reduce benefits and you can't increase withholdings. And we have not allowed people (other than federal employees!) to opt out of SS so they could invest the withholdings in things that might have performed much better. (Notice how right this minute YOU are probably thinking about our own crash, but the fact is that SS has not even done that well).
I agree that it sounds good to introduce means-testing so wealthy people aren't receiving benefits, but on other grounds I can't go along with what would just be another example of treating some people differently than others.
Isnt the fall just great?
Isnt this time of the year great? My favorite holiday is Halloween. Cant wait! It has been in the 40's overnight this past week, so nice. Now if we just could have some rain.
I fall in to the you lefties are evil
I fall in this category and this is NOT TRUE.
Hassert needs to get his facts straight.
It is SO nice to see you people here who don't fall
nm
You people are like those girls who fall for the bad
nm
|
!["](http://www.blogger.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif"){kind=icon}
0 comments:
Post a Comment