The Detroit News reports that democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has launched a TV campaign in Michigan "accusing" his republican competitor of not supporting federal bailout bucks for Motown's hometown heroes. Damn straight. Oh wait.. "The McCain campaign said the ad was misleading, pointing to the fact that McCain now supports a loan-guarantee proposal. McCain questioned the need for the guarantees during a Michigan campaign stop this month, but later announced he supports them." And if that's not craven enough (and it is for me), here's how The Detroit News described the "re-tooling" program: "The loan guarantees would make it easier for the cash-strapped domestic auto industry to borrow money as they go through the expensive process of transforming their factories to produce more fuel efficient cars." If it looks like a done deal, and sounds like a done deal… mark my words: it's a done deal.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Agreed. Michigan will be crucial to who wins the presidency, so I’m not surprised that McCain has backed off from his earlier stance.
It must be in the Constitution somewhere. Confiscate the money from the hard workers and give it to the dummies that don’t know how to read a mortgage before they sign it, that make billions of bad loans based on the idea that the price of real estatate will never drop and then bail out the Big 2.8 so that they can offer the billions for UAW buyouts and excess incompetent executive compensation.
If they would cut the taxes and the government regulation the economy wouldn’t be in this mess.
If McCain’s going to be a fiscal liberal and so’s Obama, I’m voting for Obama. At least Obama’s less likely to declare war on some nation I’ve never heard of.
@The Luigiian:
It would be even better to find a candidate you mostly agree with, if McCain or Obama don’t represent your views. Disaffected Republicans sometimes vote libertarian, and disaffected democrats sometimes vote Green party, but you don’t need to limit yourself to those options. Don’t vote for a guy you don’t want in office – it’s as simple as that.
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Don’t vote for a guy you don’t want in office – it’s as simple as that.
Of course.
But, so far, I agree with Obama on most issues. I also think he’s an excellent orator and could be a fantastic President. The only thing I don’t like about his platform (so far) is the Detroit bailout.
Before I decide whether loan guarantees are a good idea for Detroit Automakers, I would need to know whether the Japanese government gave any money to Toyota to develop the Prius.
If Toyota paid for all the R&D themselves; then I say no money for Detroit. If they took public money to develop their hybrid and battery technology; then it is a matter of competition and protecting our own industry from being destroyed.
Does anyone know the facts about this?
The number of reasons that this is a bad idea are legion. These loans prop up managements that have repeated records of failing to understand or meet the demands of the market, and also prop up a UAW which insists on pretending that there is no one else in the world economy but the U.S. Moreover, it is not going to be $50 billion – or even twice that. These companies are still spending the little money they’ve got remaining on buying out employees and closing plants, and not on new products. They’re not done with the wasteful spending of the last several years, all of it designed to buy a balance sheet that allowed them to spend their way to reduced costs. That’s all money that could have been used to build better cars.
But, the bottom line problem with this is it can never cease. If we’re bailing out GM, Ford and Chrysler, then why not your neighborhood Chevy dealer, or Fred’s Corner Furniture store down the street? You say Fred didn’t manage his business well, made bad choices, and didn’t have the right product for the market, so he deserves his fate?
Well, why are we discriminating against him? Just because he’s smaller than GM? That would not be a very fair distinction – though it would be the only one.
Funny, too, we’re going tax the heck out of poor Fred to pay for all this. So, when it’s all done, he won’t be able to buy that new car Detroit’s going to try to sell.
100% Paid for by government according to 37 yr Toyota vet Bill Press.
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat/archives/2008/04/chryslers_jim_p_1.html#more
But this should hardly be surprising since in Japan Government and corporations lines are pretty blurred with extremely close cooperation between the Japanese government and Japanese industry. Not to mention‘ keiretsus’ giving Japanese firms another leg up having a distinct preference to buy their needed machinery and other inputs from other Japanese firms, sordid nationalized holding schemes, loan guarantees, and other types of government assistance that are generally prohibited by US law, regulations, and tax code, or just plain offensive to most people in the West (including a good number of business people). Did I mention in national HC, free university these Japanese companies have bringing the USA’s to their knees?
Today, Obama said he would cut tax credits to companies that shipped jobs overseas. He also supports the Bailout/Loans to the Big 2.8. Depending on how one looks at it, doesn’t one action cancel out the other.
The “facts” on the Prius subsidy issue are that both Toyota and the Japanese government say that there was none, but that the Japanese government did kick in money to underwrite research at a more theoretical level, which helped the ultimate development of the hybrid powertrain.
That’s no basis, however, for giving money to Detroit because – first – the U.S. government has also provided research money to Detroit in a similar manner (though possibly in a lesser amount) and – second – the Prius ain’t the cake, it’s not even the frosting. The Prius didn’t put Detroit down. It is absurd to justify giving fifty billion to Detroit on the notion that the Japanese assisted with the Prius. Toyota put the Detroit carmakers on the ropes with the Camry long before the Prius hit the showroom.
The reason the carmakers need the feds to help them is that they can’t get the money any other way. They can’t borrow it, because their credit is so bad. They can’t sell stock because the investment community doesn’t believe they can make a profit, at least one better than the next guy trying to sell stock in his company.
Detroit is trying to portray itself as the “victim” of unfair competition. It is not a “victim” of competition. It is a victim if inept management, a greedy labor union, and of the arrogance that threw away the good will of a nation of customers without the slightest understanding of what they once had.
Isn’t it odd that money spent on Detroit is resented so much while much larger sums spent on the Iraq/Afganistan wars which even involve the deaths of Americans hardly draw a frown?
There are cities in the southern part of the country that exist mostly on military bases and military contracts. And of course the biggest tax sucking city of all is Washington D.C.. But that’s all O.K..
And now it looks like that below sea level wonder called New Orleans is going to have to be bailed out again after only 3 years since Katrina. No one complains.
And New York received tens if not hundreds of billions after 9/11 that was funneled though local businesses. No lack of sympathy there.
When one of the Fed’s pet banks goes TU and the Fed spends billions on it, it’s just accepted. Praised even.
Japan is notorious for managing its “private” enterprise by keeping out foreign competition with various schemes.
If I recall correctly a German state actually owns part of Volkswagen.
And Korea won’t even let in American beef with out a riot against it. But Korean cars easily find space on American roads.
Poor Detroit. So unloved and resented.
@97escort other than the military thing (since i’m in the army i might be bias) i agree with ya. Its obvious that management is fairly inept in our industries but the us is the only ones playing anywhere near “free market”
Guys, don’t worry. Obama has pledged to lower gas prices. There’s a lever switch in the oval office that actually determines the price of gas. Bush has been paid by big oil to keep that switch way higher than it needs to be, but Obama is going to move it down by like… $2.00/gallon. Then he’s going to tax the oil companies for being so bad. Then he’s going to give that money to help our auto makers who will build electric cars that go 500+ miles on a single charge and produce it in like 2 years.
Plus he’s a really good speaker!
GUYS ,LOANS DON`T MATTER, WHAT MATTERS IF YOU WILL STILL HAVE WIDER GAP TOLERANCES IN FINAL ASSEMBLY OF END PRODUCT, IF YOU WILL STILL USE OBSOLETE TECHNOLOGIES, SUBPAR MATERIALS AND AND THE RELIABILITY WILL BE LOWER AND IF MODEL RANGE WILL CONTINUE TO BE POOR AND REBADGED. AND IT DOESN`T MATTER, THE ABOVE MENTIONED, HOW MUCH YOU SUCCEED IN IT, IT ONLY MATTERS WHERE ARE YOU IN THESE INDICATORS COMPARATIVELY TO JAPANESE.aLL THE MONEY IN WORLD CAN`T HELP YOU TO BEAT JAPANESE, BECAUSE, UNBELIEVABLY, BUT CARS ARE MADE BY HANDS, NOT MONEY.
During the Clinton administration the U.S. paid the car companies to come up with a high mileage family car (75 mpg or so). They were successful. Now what happened to that billions of dollars and why doesn’t anybody talk about the high mileage vehicle that was developed.
mikeolan wrote:
“Guys, don’t worry. Obama has pledged to lower gas prices. There’s a lever switch in the oval office that actually determines the price of gas.”
No, I don’t believe he said that. Perhaps Rush Limbaugh said that Obama said that and you parroted. Can you provide a reference?
In fact, Obama has repeatedly said there was nothing that he could do to lower gas prices in the short term.
Unlike McSame, he does not want to give away $4Bil in new tax breaks to the oil companies.
Anyway, is being able to motivate large numbers of people with language such a bad quality in a leader? Just because old Dubya couldn’t say a single sentence that wasn’t a cliché, that doesn’t mean all our leaders must possess below normal linguistic and leadership skills.
Carlos,
Since you believe Obama would make a better choice than McCain, what would you say are the top 2 or 3 accomplishments of his career? I’ve asked this question to every Obama supporter I’ve spoken with an not a one has provided any examples. Sure, they tell me about bills he’s sponsored or voted for, but nothing that’s truly outstanding or illuminating on a few core issues he’ll run to ground. What Obama says is much less telling than what he has done.
At an emotional level, I completely understand Obama’s appeal. When looking for specifics, there’s just not much there – at least, not that he, his supporters, his website or his advisors have outlined yet vis a vis McCain.
FWIW, The name calling is good red meat, but it takes some credibility away from what you say.
A shame neither of these guys are talking specifics about what the apparent inevitable bailout will look like. Replacing the BOD? Executive team? Steady as she goes loans? The devil’s in the details, and so far, neither of these guys is talking. I call BS on both and the sorry excuse we have for ‘reporters’ that are not taking each of these guys to task on this.
ask what your country can do for you, not what you can do for your country
Republicans, democrats: same bs, different piles. If McMilf is going to support the bailout then I have no reason to vote for either candidate. And even if I never buy a GM car, they’re still getting my money. Wow, it sure it great to be an American.
Confiscate the money from the hard workers and give it to the dummies that don’t know how to read a mortgage before they sign it…
I guess you are smarter than most and an Evelyn Wood speed reader graduate and you were able to read and comprehend that massive stack of papers thrown in front of you at your closing/refi. Sorry, but most people are going to expect something from their attorney in terms of service besides a bill when they go to close. The lending practices were so deceptive and predatory that it was disgraceful. Another classic example of why certain aspects of the economic world simply cannot be left to “the market.” Strong, tight regulations are a must when there is too much temptation for the fat cats to rape the middle class. Yeah, a few knew what they were doing and said “screw the future, live for now,” but the vast majority of people put faith (or were pressured) in their lenders and attorneys and got f–ked big time.
Neither of our presidential candidates are the answer to what ails this country. But be careful of the temptation of the third party vote. This is what put the 2000 election into hanging chad/butterfly ballot distance to George Bush.
97escort: Spot on!!
Since you believe Obama would make a better choice than McCain, what would you say are the top 2 or 3 accomplishments of his career?
For starters, Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review. That’s at least an indication of some serious brains and work. McCain on the other hand barely made it through the Naval Academy. After he did graduate, 5th from the bottom of his class, he did poorly as an aviator crashing several planes due to poor judgment and preparation. McCain’s father was a 4-star admiral, so the skids were greased for him to succeed. McCain is a lot like W; seemingly stuck with some need to better his old man but unwilling to put in the work. So they’ve both relied on being con men.
Long article in the Wash. Post yesterday on McCain:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/30/AR2008083001786.html
Although not exactly related, read about the “Chicken War”. The US Gov’t put tariffs on imported trucks to protect the domestics. The domestics, instead of taking advantage of the advantage raised their prices by the same amount.
I feel the gov’t should not make these loans unless the stipulation is put in that the top 5 layers of management be shit canned if they have 5+ years with the company (this would protect Mullaly who I think will help Ford).
jkross22 :
“Since you believe Obama would make a better choice than McCain, what would you say are the top 2 or 3 accomplishments of his career?”
Top 4
1) He is a self made man. Not the child of a great admiral, as is Johm McCain, but the child of a single mother who raised him on food stamps. He went to Columbia and Harvard Law. Obviously, a hard worker.
2) Lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. This is important to me, as I feel the current administration has not protected and defended the Constitution. I want a President who KNOWS the Constitution.
3)Winning the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois, population 12,831,970 (2006 census). Compare that to Sarah Pallin, who won a statewide election in a state with a population of 670,053.
4) Winning the Democratic Nomination over all the other candidates including Hillary Clinton. Obama has shown he can lead, influence, communicate, organize and do all those other things necessary to be a leader. He can defeat his opponents in politics. Being the President is a political position, not simply an executive position, or a military position.
What has McCain accomplished? Yes he was a POW. If we were to release an Afghan prisoner from Gitmo, does that quality him to run Afghanistan?
Has he ever done anything except politics or working for his father-in-law? McCain, was unfaithful to his first wife, snubbing her after she had an auto accident and was handicapped. What does that say about him? He was involved in the Keating Five scandal and took free trips from a man later convicted of fraud. What does that say about him? His immigration reform bill was rejected, his cap and trade bill was rejected. He wrote a campaign finance bill that specifically allowed him to use his spouse’s airplane in the campaign. His support for Bush’s tax cuts will possibly net him a great deal on money. He is very old and does not know geography, referring to Czechoslovakia, Al Queda in Iran, the Iraq Pakistan border and other blunders. He selects for VP a woman who fired her state public safety officer because he refused to fire her sister’s husband, who happened to be a state trooper. That remindes me of how Cheney abused power with Valerie Plame. That’s not change, that is more abuse of power as we have seen over the last eight years.
Obama accomplishments:
Lecturing on constitutional law – yet, no one can remember any contribution he made to the improvement of the law, either at Chicago or at Harvard. Did he get there on affirmative action? Was he a LEO admitee? Bottom line on this – if those are credentials, then they’re really opportunities squandered. Not one law review article, either while on the review or while at Chicago.
Winning the Senate seat – wow!! He won after the Republican nominee withdrew. In fact, every election Obama has ever won has been, essentially, uncontested – except, of course, his primary victories for President. But, he didn’t win any of the really important, populous states, the ones he’s going to have to carry to get elected. Hillary won all of those. Obama won the nomination by appealing to his core constituency, the far left of the party. Ad did McGovern.
Being a self-made man: Gotta concede, that’s true. Obama never hired anyone in an actual business, but he sure knew how to make himself popular with his pastor, with his benefactor Refko, and with the Chicago political machine. But, Chicago has a lot of self-made men in its history. That’s not exactly a recommendation.
That’s not to say McCain’s perfection, either. McCain’s a flake. Obama’s predictable – he’s a socialist pacifist, and it is always easy to anticipate his reaction to anything. McCain’s a game of chance, who seems to define his positions in terms of being different from those of anyone else.
Both of these guys appear ready to buy the votes of those in Michigan – with our money – and it appears neither of them will be called to account for the likely consequences.
It’s sorta like having to choose between Rick Wagnoner and Bill Ford, Jr. for President.
It’s sorta like having to choose between Rick Wagnoner and Bill Ford, Jr. for President.
Well, there’s a hard choice.
Ford had the humility and wherewithal to bring in capable, external management–albeit when when things are nearly untenable–while Wagoner rearranges deck chairs on the Titanic and his staff try to convince people that the water leaking in is just a perception issue.
He probably got the job lecturing at the Univeristy of Chicago Law school because the school saw the same qualities that so many tens of millions of Americans see. Obama is young, energetic, smart, handsome, well spoken, literate, educated, clever, tactical, and calm (especially compared to McCain’s temper tantrums). Plus, being President of the Harvard Law Review didn’t hurt.
Affirmative action? I would be happy to see the evidence. Otherwise, that seem like a racist red herring. His position as a lecturer was not one of publish or perish. He had another job in a law firm. Bottom line: I don’t think he will be signing any torture memos, asserting executive authority not mentioned in the Constitution, or outing any CIA covert agents (thus sentencing their contacts to possible death) to take revenge on a decorated Ambassador who happens to publically disagree with sexed-up intelligence for an unnecessary war.
He won some very important swing states such as Virgina, Missouri, Wisconsin, Colorado. But what is your point? As long as the votes are counted fairly and the Supreme Court doesn’t end up installing McCain as they did Bush, the country will accept the results. Winning the primary is the way we Democrats choose our candidate. You don’t have to vote for him but we will. The Republicans can choose their guys based on who their daddy was, or how much money and influence they have to sell. Romney would have provided a clearer choice for the country; but since the Repubs have a religious test for their nominee, that wasn’t possible.
I have not seen any quid pro quo with Rezko. Perhaps you can provide the evidence. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald was unable to.
What Obama’s pastor has to do with the question of which of the two candidates is more self made, escapes me. Perhaps mentioning his pastor and McCain’s time as a prisoner is the boilerplate reponse for every argument?
Also, I have seen no evidence that Obama is either a Socialist or a Pacifist. Again, please provide your evidence. Otherwise, pehaps this is is just another case of Repub fear and smear?
I really don’t see how any of Dubya’s “executive experience” paid off in the last eight years. I think that particular part of the job requirement may be overblown.
McCain is just too old, tired, confused and cantankerous to be President. But, who knows? Only Diebold.
I just drove through Detroit and one thing’s for sure. That city needs help. But I don’t support bailing out these mismanaged companies.
I was just there, too. Family members are so frustrated at the economy, they think the whole nation is hurting like Detroit/Michigan.
Trying to get some of them to look into non-automotive industries for employment. They won’t really even try; it’s like a strange paralysis.
Self-procclaimed stars; and the only thing that usually ties presumptive candidates to stars is their Alopecia Andromedica.:)
You guys argueing is typical why we are getting our clocks cleaned by foreigners. Japanese, as a collective, would rather die than buy our rice at 4x less let alone a car or capital equipment from us. This unity is paralled accross thier soceity from taking care of thier own in the form of health care, corporate/corporate/govermental cooperation, to personal choices puts them on a most successful path.
USA will be a third world country as soon as rest of the world stops bankrolling our spend-thrift idoticy and we won’t have the tools to recoup being intellectually, financially and organizationally bankrupt.
carlos.negros :
Also, I have seen no evidence that Obama is either a Socialist or a Pacifist.
Correct, nationalizing private industry (healthcare) is more of a fascist thing.
The confiscating oil profits is probably a socialist thing though. Or Marxist?
At least McCains stupid oil-rebate pandering was giving back tax money.
Correct, nationalizing private industry (healthcare) is more of a fascist thing.
Oh come on, now we’re calling Obama a fascist?
z31 :
“Correct, nationalizing private industry (healthcare) is more of a fascist thing.
The confiscating oil profits is probably a socialist thing though. Or Marxist?”
It might help the discussion if you had your facts straight.
Obama’s health plan involves VOLUNTARY parcipitation in health INSURANCE. Nowhere does he mention nationalization of the healthcare sector.
Making oil companies pay for drilling on public lands instead of letting them drill and take the oil to china to sell is now confiscating oil profits?
McCain, on the other hand, wants to give an additional $4Bil in tax breaks to the oil industry. That is not change. That is more of the same.
“Oh come on, now we’re calling Obama a fascist?”
Well, Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist Labor Party. Quite a similarity.
carlos.negros :
Obama’s health plan involves VOLUNTARY parcipitation in health INSURANCE. Nowhere does he mention nationalization of the healthcare sector.
I concede, it’s definitely socialist.
Democrat Barack Obama is offering a sweeping plan that would provide every citizen a means to have health coverage and calls on government, businesses and consumers to share the costs of the program.
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/05/29/obama_offers_universal_health.php
Making oil companies pay for drilling on public lands instead of letting them drill and take the oil to china to sell is now confiscating oil profits?
No, a windfall profits tax to redistribute $1000 vote buying checks is:
Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.
Obama will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on Obama’s long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#relief
It’s all right on his website.
bluecon wrote :
“Oh come on, now we’re calling Obama a fascist?”
Well, Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist Labor Party. Quite a similarity.”
I guess when you run out of things to say, just compare your oppenent to Hitler.
Bluecon, you have repeated your National Socialist thing a few times. Read a book.
I would’t go by the names so much. The former Communist East Germany referred to itself as the GDR, short for the German Democratic Republic.
But I suppose to you that just proves Democrats are communists.
A windfall profits tax on companies that take public resources is not socialist. We are not nationalizing the oil companies. It is a tax levied because the companies did not pay their fair share for using public resources.
Obama’s health plan attempts to cover everyone, but it is not like Romney’s plan which forced individuals to buy insurance. Just because Obama wants to solve the health care mess, that does not make him a socialist. If it does, then 70 percent of Americans are socialist.
But that is what elections are for.
Carlos,
Being raised by a single mother is not a career accomplishment. In fact of the four examples you list, only the last is a “career accomplishment”, and I agree wholeheartedly with his amazing race he ran against Clinton. By far, it has been his most noteworthy career accomplishment. Too bad there is nothing else in his 47 years of experience that is noteworthy. As a supporter of his, does this not disturb you?
Again, I understand the emotional appeal of Obama. It’s just that there’s little to back up anything other than that emotion. Well, unless you count his shady dealings with Rezko, his clearly dishonest recounting of his 20 year relationship with Rev. Wright and his unwillingness to come clean about why he’s as close as he is with Ayers. But I guess when one thinks in terms of donkeys and elephants, your side is 100% right and the other side, well, just isn’t.
McCain is the most flawed Republican candidate in recent memory, yet of the two, one can review McCain’s track record to review of fighting gov’t corruption (see Boeing) and an unusually frankness regarding gov’t handouts (see corn farmers and what McCain told them when speaking to them). And you can do that without name calling, too!
I don’t believe McCain’s military record means much as far as how he would lead, but it does lend itself to understanding that the guy is committed to serving.
carlos.negros :
A windfall profits tax on companies that take public resources is not socialist. We are not nationalizing the oil companies. It is a tax levied because the companies did not pay their fair share for using public resources.
If the government starts telling private industries how much profit they are allowed, you might as well nationalize them.
Just because Obama wants to solve the health care mess, that does not make him a socialist.
When he wants to tax everyone to make it happen, it sure as hell is socalism!
Healthcare is not a right.
Today’s NYTimes CBS Poll asks: “Is it more important to provide health care coverage to all Americans or hold down taxes?”
Result: All votors: Provide health care: 67 percent; Hold down taxes: 27 percent.
Bottom line is that if we the people want to spend our taxes on health care rather than on funding evangelical colleges, no-bid contracts to Halliburton, unnecessary wars, pork, and all the other wasted things that government spends money on; it is up to the voter. Call it socialism, buddism, aboriginalism, nudism or whatever. It is our right.
All governments regulate profits by taxation. That is far different than nationalization. If you do you understand the difference between these two things, I feel sorry for you.
The misconceptions about Obama’s economic policy are startling. Some of the things stated here are half true but the conclusions extrapolated from them are simplistic, untrue, and occasionally outlandish.
z31 – do you really think Obama’s economic policy is to “tax everyone?”
“…he is proposing tax cuts for most families that are significantly larger than those McCain is offering, along with major tax increases for families making more than $250,000 a year.”
“The Tax Policy Center, a research group run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, has done the most detailed analysis of the Obama and McCain tax plans, and it has published a series of fascinating tables. For the bottom 80 percent of the population — those households making $118,000 or less — McCain’s various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obama’s proposals would bring $900 a year in savings. So for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign.”
“If there is a theme to the Obama tax philosophy, it’s that the tax code is not quite as progressive as you think it is. Most of the public discussion about taxes tends to focus on the income tax, which taxes the affluent at a considerably higher rate than anyone else.
These quotes are taken out of an excellent article written by David Leonhardt (great writer, one of my favorites). I won’t link the article but if you want to read it in its entirety (it’s a bit long but is also very concise and covers quite a bit) just google the author’s name.
Although Obama apparently shuns the term, there’s no doubt in my mind that he clearly ascribes to contemporary Rawlsian-redistribution philosophies. But by no means does he want to “tax everyone,” that’s simply the opposite of the truth. He would be a tax cutter for the vast majority of Americans.
If you don’t like that, or whatever other reason you don’t like Obama (his youth, the church he attended, his big ears, etc etc) that’s fine. After all, that is your prerogative in a democracy. But please don’t hate him for things that simply aren’t true.
carlos.negros: Today’s NYTimes CBS Poll asks: “Is it more important to provide health care coverage to all Americans or hold down taxes?”
Result: All votors: Provide health care: 67 percent; Hold down taxes: 27 percent.
And I’ll bet if you asked voters if they wanted the government to provide new BMW convertibles to everyone, or hold down taxes, they’d go with the new convertible, too.
It’s amazing what people want when they think someone else is footing the bill.
carlos.negros: Bottom line is that if we the people want to spend our taxes on health care rather than on funding evangelical colleges, no-bid contracts to Halliburton, unnecessary wars, pork, and all the other wasted things that government spends money on; it is up to the voter.
ALL private colleges – not just evangelical ones – receive federal funds of some sort. If you want to ban federal funds for ALL private colleges, that is fine (although good luck with that one), but to suggest that only evangelical colleges and universities are sucking at the federal teat is uninformed, at best.
If you don’t like evangelical colleges and universities – then don’t go to one. If you don’t want to support them with your tax dollars because you don’t believe in their mission or message, then I’m sure that you will extend a similar courtesy to those who don’t approve of what is taught in the public school system, or those who don’t like their tax dollars going to all-women’s colleges. Otherwise, no dice.
Qusus: For the bottom 80 percent of the population — those households making $118,000 or less — McCain’s various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obama’s proposals would bring $900 a year in savings. So for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign.”
Considering that the bottom 50 percent of the population pay NO federal income taxes, I wonder exactly how Senator Obama is going to reduce the taxes of people who already don’t pay any.
Oh, wait, we get to this:
Qusus: If there is a theme to the Obama tax philosophy, it’s that the tax code is not quite as progressive as you think it is. Most of the public discussion about taxes tends to focus on the income tax, which taxes the affluent at a considerably higher rate than anyone else.
Considering that those other taxes support programs that are more likely to be used by those who pay those taxes, they SHOULD pay them.
Sorry, but I’m not going to support a program or an economic platform that allows people to further vote themselves benefits and more government programs while sticking the bill to someone else, whether that someone else is the “rich” or “corporations.”
Qusus: If you don’t like that, or whatever other reason you don’t like Obama (his youth, the church he attended, his big ears, etc etc) that’s fine. After all, that is your prerogative in a democracy.
Actually, it’s his supporters who have trouble distinguishing between criticisms of his economic proposals and criticisms of the man himself. I’m amused that, on other sites (not this one, to be sure), criticizing his proposal to tax oil companies or his stance on gun control somehow makes one a racist or a “hater.”
Qusus: But please don’t hate him for things that simply aren’t true.
Who said anything about hating him? I think that his personal story is compelling. He is a good speaker, appears to be a decent husband and father, and is apparently liked by his constituents. In fact, since his constituents like him so much, I’d like to help them by keeping him right where he is…