i'm confused, how did obama....

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
i'm confused, how did obama....
242
Fri, 09-26-2008 - 9:43pm
6 years ago oppose the war in iraq? was he in senate then?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 4:57pm

<>


He was prescient in that what he predicted would happen in 2002 actually did (he was closer than most and was CERTAINLY closer than the song and dance the administration was

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 5:42pm

"I'm a "working family" that lives paycheck to paycheck that's going to have my taxes raised if Obama gets elected."

>>> Then you, like myself, apparently make $250,000 or above a year. I can afford the increase.

Actually, I make significantly less than $250K and an increase in taxes would only mean that Obama was taking from my family and handing it to someone else who didn’t work for it.

>>> With the mess we're in, the government NEEDS the money. Patriotism for the good of the country at work.

It’s an interesting, but incredibly stupid perception, to equate “patriotism” with having something “taken” from you. What kind of a moron could ever have come up with that? Oh…right…your VP candidate. ; ) Sorry, but if you think it’s “patriotic” to have money taken from you, then why weren’t you giving more before? Not as “patriotic” then? Why are you only going to be doing the “least” you possibly can, when you are obviously free to pay substantially more and show some real “patriotism?” I guess your “patriotism” has limits? LOL! And if you think it’s “patriotic” to take money from people then I don’t understand why you’re disparaging most Americans by “giving” them handouts instead of allowing them to demonstrate their “patriotism” and their “love” for the country?

No, I’m sorry, but I don’t think it’s “patriotic” to have to bail out greedy banks and financiers or foolish people who bought houses they couldn’t afford. It’s also not “patriotic” to have the government take money from people who work for it and redistribute it to people who don’t. But if you do, feel free to “do your part”…and my “part” too…that will make you REALLY “patriotic.”

">>> McCain's: 300 billion to big corps?

< Unlike Obama, McCain is not giving money to anyone."

>>> You understood that was an EXTRA 300 billion that McCain wants to cut from the taxes of the big corps? That's giving money to those who already have lots and lots.

I’m afraid that “giving” and “not taking” are not equitable.

>>> You and I with our over $250,000 a year just might get a taste of that, but for the good of the country, McCain can keep mine to help pay for the horrible debts run up during the last 8 years spearheaded by the man who endorsed McCain and with whom McCain voted with 90% of the time, says the Obama camp - 95% of the time says factcheck.org.

I’ve been very impressed by the fiscal restraint that the Democrat Congress has demonstrated…LOL!…and even more impressed by the utter hypocrisy of the left who support Obama and his 800 BILLION in NEW socialist spending along with BILLIONS of continued war spending in Afghanistan all while complaining about the “terrible debt” this country faces. It’s amazing.

>>> Unlike McCain, Obama wants to help the average person - NOT the CEO of Bear Sterns, AIG, Wachovia, the two Freddies, and whatever other CEOs who were in charge of whatever other entities I've left out whose mismanagement have placed us in our current economic difficulties.

Obama wants to be king of the “little people.” He’s a socialist who believes in income redistribution who has no experience at all on foreign policy, domestic policy or the economy. His ideas and philosophy are foolish and naïve…and proven wrong again and again by his own vacillating positions.

>>> Obama also would increase taxes on Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two of the richest guys in the world and Buffet seems okay with that and I don't know, but it "I'll bet" (could have, would have, should have) that Gates is too - all for the good of the country.

If Obama wasn’t to limit his tax increases to those two guys then I’m all for it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 6:03pm
There was one thing that I did catch on the debate before it put me to sleep: i do agree with McCain in the way that if we cut the corporate taxes, it would bring more jobs back to here. the trickle down would stimulate the economy. if companies brought back more jobs to here and pay less in taxes, they can spend more on payroll, which will be more stimulating to the nation because more people would make more money and more money equals a better economy. i would have no problem paying more in taxes if my wages and the economy supported it, kwim? why wouldn't a company want to go overseas, pay the same or even more in wages but less in taxes, which equals more profit to their pockets. if we offered an incentive to keep the jobs here, where everyone benefits, why not do it?
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 7:46pm

>>> Obama harbored doubts about his original position after seeing the statue of Hussein pulled down? THAT'S your big "gotcha" moment which "proves" that Obama has "waffled?"

Yes. When someone says “I’m against the war” and then turns around and says “I might have been wrong”…or…”I don’t know how I would have voted if I saw the intelligence” is pretty much an indication that they’re “waffling” on their position. But considering how often Obama flip flops I’m not surprised that you’d fail to see it as anything other than “typical Obama.”

>>> Haven't we had enough of a President who says he never wavers in his opinions? Frankly, when it comes to electing a President, I've learned to be quite apprehensive of a guy who says he doesn't question or re-think his opinions, just on the theory that if you can't change your mind, are you sure you still HAVE one (instead of just a list of talking points)?

McCain pointed out that very thing last night with Obama’s staunch refusal to admit that the surge worked and that he was wrong on the issue. I don’t think that kind of arrogance makes him “Presidential.”

>>> I mean, truly: on large and complex issues, don't MOST people (who aren't George Bush or John McCain, apparently, LOL) have different thoughts -- some positive and some negative -- about it? The decision is what you come up with ON BALANCE, but it DOESN'T mean you didn't have contrary thoughts about it. And it certainly doesn't add up to "waffling."

McCain is well known for re-thinking long-held positions when the situation or the facts change, as he did with his position on off-shore drilling. Obama, on the other hand is not thoughtful and does not hold to any real convictions. His positions on many issues have changed on an almost daily basis, but his apologists try to pass them off as “political maneuvering” during a campaign. Personally, I��d rather have a thoughtful, experienced man with integrity in the White House…which is why I’m voting for McCain instead of Obama.

>>> It's also interesting that the very piece you provide concludes that the suggestion that Obama gave the speech merely to curry favor with Saltzman was "dubious."

You’ll have to put the “dubious” comment in it’s proper context in order to be relevant.

>>> And what's even more dubious is the notion that Obama "had to" oppose the war because of his district! Obama DID oppose the war because he happened to AGREE with those people in his district who ALSO opposed it, that's why he ran for office there.

You’re mistaken. It was the political maneuvering of Democrat redistricting that eventually led to Hyde Park being included in Obama’s district. As to his “agreeing” with Saltzman, et al, he may have, but there is no evidence of that before his speech or prior to his run for the Presidency when the issue, again, became politically expedient.

>>> I am pretty liberal; ....and probably lose.

That was a lovely explanation, but Obama was already a State Senator when his district was “redrawn” in 2000.

>>> Obama's opposition to the war wasn't DERIVED from his consituency, he was elected BECAUSE of similarities such as that between his views and those of his constituents.

It has been stated several times by people close to Obama, and who knew him from his “early days” in Chicago politics (and previously provided in several links), that he generally “leads by consensus,” determined by a circle of influential friends around him rather than by his own core values.

>>> I'm afraid your conclusions simply aren't supported by your premises.

I disagree. To an unpartisan eye, the evidence speaks for itself.

>>> Obama wrote his own speech and delivered it in public at a time when public opinion was STRONGLY against his viewpoint. What about that says "not willing to speak his mind even if it's not popular?"

Obama’s “position” was “popular”…with the wealthy, liberal, socialite crowd that Obama was trying to appease. What’s telling is that he was NEVER staunchly against the war until he decided to run for President…his own quotes prove as much.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2008
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 7:51pm
Thanks for all your advice.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-05-2008
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 8:24pm

As for my curiosity about sahasranama, try googling it and see what comes up.


How would someone come up with a screen name like that? And why? What do you think?


wtf??????


ummm....

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-16-2008
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 8:48pm
LOL
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 9:08pm
I posted several items that refute your beliefs and posted them above.


Except that the items you posted don't really refute roseiern's positions (and no, they're not "beliefs").

The first was a Bill O'Reilly interview with a woman who claims to know another woman in Chicago, who says that THAT woman "forced" Obama to do the speech when he really was reluctant to do so...in order to curry favor with her because she's powerful. This strikes you as proof? More like second-hand hearsay, something which would be laughed out of a court of law (and yes, I realize this is not a court of law). Sugar Rautbord, O'Reilly's guest - identified as an "Obama supporter" - is (hands up who saw this coming) of course a Republican fund-raiser and former co-chair of the Republican Eagles, which - according to the GOP's current donor web site - is "The RNC’s longest serving and best recognized major donor program. For over 25 years, the Eagles have been providing our Party with the capability to compete and win elections -- at every level."

Hmmm.....seems like "providing our party with the capability to win elections" might not be confined merely to raising ungodly sums of cash from GOP fatcats, but also extend to posing as "Obama supporters" on FAUX "News" blowhard's shows, in order to say enable the hosts to say things like: "she (Saltzman) said to him — he didn't want to — he was going, "I don't know whether I should do this." She said, "You'd better do it." And that's what I understand happened there."

I have to say, my BS detector went off when Ms. Rautbord mentioned "limousine liberals" and "Lakeshore liberals" (a mildly derogatory term that very few actual liberals use to describe others of their political persuasion). And it took a grand total of about 90 seconds on google to come up with the above. Hell, in the video from which you got your transcript, O'Reilly even admits that "not to say Obama wasn't already against the Iraq war" (noticed you left that part out, though, LOL).

Next up is....a different take on Obama's 2002 speech, which actually contradicts the first one! I love that. It says "In his biography of Obama, David Mendell....suggests that the decision to publicly oppose the war in Iraq was a calculated political move intended to win favor with Saltzman.The suggestion seems dubious; the politics were more in the framing of his opposition, not the decision itself." In other words, Obama's intent was NOT to "curry favor" with Saltzman - nor was it undertaken under duress from her. Lizza's reporting that Saltzman herself said "he was a Hyde Park Senator - he had to oppose the war" is simply an offhand comment from Saltzman, not her considered opinion that Obama was somehow compelled or coerced or forced to oppose the Iraq war due to his constituency. If you read Lizza's article, you'll discover that Saltzman and her friend who put together the protest went through at least two other choices of speakers who turned out to be unavailable, before they called Obama (who was out of town and got the message from his wife when he returned). Again, Obama's not stupid; if he had secretly supported the war, or at least been ambivalent about it, but felt he couldn't just turn Saltzman down, it would have been easy enough for him to make up a comfortable excuse for why he couldn't speak at that rally, in opposition to that war. He had plenty of time to come up with any reason to play that any way he wanted to. And he chose to accept the offer to speak....and wrote a speech which stands today as an unstinting criticism of exactly the warts and flaws of the Iraq debacle which have been revealed through the passing of time. Obama had it right then, and not only did he have the clarity of vision to see where the pitfalls and problems were, but also the moral courage to stand up in public and speak those words through a PA for posterity (not to mention the press).

The rest of the unconvincing stuff you've provided consists of quotes from Obama himself, in which he points out that he's had moments where he's questioned whether he did the right thing. Again, as I said before, haven't we had about enough of the kind of cocky, "never-uncertain, often-wrong" seat-of-the-pants, flyboy horsecrap that George Bush has given us for the past eight years (with disastrous results) - and John McCain literally promises us four more years of? None of the Obama quotes you provide are evidence that Obama actually CHANGED his mind....only that he wondered if he'd been right. I call the ability to honestly entertain the notion that you might have been wrong a rare - and very valuable, especially in a President - commodity.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 9:19pm

If we had a "star" system, I would

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 10:45pm
I'm afraid it is you who are mistaken, for two reasons.

Yes, Obama's used a figure of "95%" on the campaign trail. He's used it to describe a rough, easy-to-grasp estimate of people who would and would not be affected by his tax reductions, because his plan isn't simply a meat-cleaver approach to the income tax alone. It also includes adjustments in capital gains and other taxes, so it's pretty much impossible to put an accurate percentage number on it.

What's more accurate is that Obama has given a dollar figure - which the nonprofit, nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has agreed with - of $250,000. What you're trying to do, with your link, is take an admittedly nebulous (because it attempts to estimate more than one thing) figure of "95%," and point out that $155Kish is the cut-off for the top 5%. And that therefore, anyone who earns over that would receive an increase. I can see where you might think that; fortunately, it's just not accurate, because you made one significant mistake (or, rather, the person from whose blog you got this did - whether intentionally or simply through carelessness or ignorance): The figure in your link of $153,542 as the entry-point into the "top 5%" is measured in adjusted gross income, not gross income. And the difference is significant. Adjusted Gross Income is that figure that you use on your tax form to determine what PORTION of your TOTAL income is taxable, using the various forumlae set forth by the IRS. These include credits, deductions, and a few other special things. The bottom line is that Obama's plan sets the marginal tax rates back up to their mid-90s levels - but only the top two rates - to 36% and 39.6%, respectively, instead of their current levels (33% and 35%). According to the IRS, for 2007, the cutoff in ADJUSTED gross income for the lower of those two - 33% - was $160,850. But that's last year, and it's ADJUSTED gross income.

This CBO study looked at pre-tax income (but also threw in the value of things like health care dollars paid by employers, etc, which isn't really fair to count), and they're measuring average income in each category (instead of the bottom cut-off), but it's interesting that in 2002 dollars, they counted the average income of the top 5% as $350,700. And it's only gone up in the last five years. Quite a difference. Perhaps a better study, since it's slightly more recent, is the EPI's historical table, which stops in 2003, but lists the top 5% at 281,467. And I imagine it's gone up since then. So I'd say the 250,000 figure Barack put out is pretty accurate. More importantly, so do the people at the Tax Policy Center. Read their analysis, especially the part where they conclude that:

The two candidates' tax 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 tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income. 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 significantly.

Pages