When I first heard about a guy named Barack Obama running for President I said, "Oh no, that's a very bad idea". As the campaign got off the ground and he won Iowa, I got upset at what I saw as media bias in his favor. I thought some folks were trying to set him up as the straw man candidate. After all, an African American candidate for President? What kind of chance could he have? And with a name like that? And a middle name of Hussein? Are the Democrats nuts? Do they really want to blow their big chance to recapture the White House after the past 8 years of President Stupid?
And then I finally heard an Obama speech. Not bad I thought. The guy knows how to speak. I watched some of the 16 million debates, and I saw him deal with the Wright crisis and the bitterness crisis before the PA primary. And then I slowly began to see something, that others had seen much earlier. Obama is different. I don't mean because he is African American. I don't mean because of his name. (Although those are both part of it). I mean he is different. Different from Hillary, different from McCain, and Bush and Bill Clinton, and in fact different from every president and presidential candidate I have seen since 1960, except Reagan. Yes, I am old, and I remember JFK.
What I see in Obama, and what I didn't see in Johnson or Nixon or Kerry or Dukakis or Ford or Carter or any of the others except Reagan and JFK, is the potential for leadership. I believe that Obama, like Reagan and Kennedy, has the potential to be a leader of our country. I don't think either Hillary or McCain have that quality to the same extent. What am I talking about, you ask, what is leadership? Leadership is the quality that encourages people to become followers. I know, it's a circular definition, but that's the best I can do.
This is what the Obama campaign means by change. It does not mean liberal instead of conservative or democrat instead of republican. Although those are part of it. What is more important is that it means leadership instead of what we have now, and quite frankly what we had with Bill Clinton, and Bush Sr.
Reagan was a leader. I didn't like most of his policies at the time,. But I will admit now that he was right, and that his leadership helped to change the world and bring down the communist empire. Kennedy was a leader, and in fact his politics were all over the place, but people followed him.
I have a sense that Obama might have this quality as well. There are some signs of it. And that is the most important issue in this election. After the embarrassment of our current administration, more than ever before this country needs vital, able and strong leadership. This issue far outweighs the specifics of immigration, or the Iraq war or even health care and the economy. With good leadership all our problems can be dealt with. Without it, they will all get worse.
If Obama wins this election, if a Black man named Barack Hussein Obama wins the election for the US presidency, he will have done it through an extraordinary exercise of leadership. I would therefore be pretty hopeful about what would come next.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 175
Well said Sy (your entire article). This snippet pretty much sums it up for me. Barack Obama has shown the kind of leadership that is exactly what our country needs right now. And what the world needs. What we all need.
He was an actor, and he proved that the American public is totally gullible if someone can deliver a line.
Obama, on the other hand is genuine, not 'acting'.
If he gets elected it will be four years of throwing things at the TV again for me. Which is something I save for special cases.
Think about it - why do the media do anything? For ratings of course (and the subsequent advertising dollars that ratings bring). So why does Obama boost ratings? Well, because the people want to see and hear about him. He energizes people. He inspires people.
It's easy to blame the liberal media for covering Obama. But the conservative media (e.g., Fox News and Rush Limbaugh) can't stop talking about him either. Why does Fox News spend so much time on Obama and not John McCain? Because their ratings clearly tell them that people want to hear about Obama; people don't want to hear about McCain. Why? Because McCain is just more of the same old style thinking and Obama brings new life to the discussion.
It's the people that like Obama. The media simply follow the people.
I tend to think that Obama has little choice other than to "exchange" voters, from now until the election. He can't win with just the marbles he has today.
Like everything in this election season, the move to the middle came early, and we are stuck with it for 5 months. I don't se how this is an advantage for Obama, as the progressive wing are quite vocal in their partisanship. One large on-line group (can't see to think of their name) went so far as to put their fund raising into a trust, which Obama gets when he recants to an earlier viewpoint. Can you imagine being ignored, and reversed for a whole 5 months?
I have always voted for the person who has the most leadership potential. I think McCain would not be bad in this department, better than most, and I agree that Obama seems to have the potential to be a great leader.
I'd feel better if he'd been tested a little more in the big leagues.
(I was originally intrigued by Bush's apparent skill at reaching across lines to "make things happen." The joint bill on education with Kennedy, etc. There were some signals he might be a great undivider, which is what Washington needs.
Then 9/11 happened and George got his Calling and the other stuff went by the wayside.
Bush was very luck in that he led a very willing Congress for a very long time.
That's the leadership that matter most - Can you lead Congress ???
As far as the media, they just follow what they think will help their ratings. If Hillary wore a giant beehive she might have gotten better press.
That is a joke, there is no such thing, and anyone that claims otherwise is either fooling themselves or just plain ignorant.
And then we had John Kennedy, a great leader in so many ways who had the best congressional handler maybe of all time as his Vice President and wouldn't use him because he didn't like him.
I tend to agree with you abour Reagans economic policies. I also thought at the time that his foreign policy was a disaster, but I have been proven wrong there. Anyway I am not really talking about policy, but the quality of the person, and Reagan was certainly able to inspire people to follow him
With a large Democratic majority, Obama will then be faced with the need to prove that he can reverse things quickly, or he will lose it all in the midterms, as Clinton did.
As you know we can never all have a candidate that fits our bill completely. Its kind of like falling in love. After a while, you start to find things you dont like about the guy. (I am convinced that women do this more than men, but I might be prejudiced) Still, you stick with him, because hes still better than the alternative.
And I dont think we have the lesser of two evils here at all. I like and respect McCain, and I have a suspicion that he would be a better president than he is as a candidate. So for me it is the better of two goods.
It could have fallen during Carter's time. Would he have then gotten credit ?
What's amazing is that it took so long to fall. Most the country can't even grow a cabbage, they are all so far north, aaaahhhh !!!!
But I digress. ha ha
You can pretty much bet that two years into his presidency, Obama will have an approval rating of under 52% — no matter how good he is.
That said, Obama caught my attention a long time ago (hard to do since I avoid politics) and I was struck by his carriage and demenor. If there is an 'it' factor I think he has it. I'd like to see what he could do.
Another four years of what's going on now and I might well move to Canada. smirk.
Cant argue with that. Strong leaders can be a bad thing. But right now? In our situation, after George? Unless the guy is really a Manchurian candidate for Al Qaeda (which I think has been put to rest) we really need some strong leadership, even if we dont agree with everything he says (and I dont!!).
(Course we havent heard from jJack yet)
Just to follow up. I think a case could be made that Reagan's build up of the arms race (something that I thought was terrible at the time) had a pretty negative effect on the fragile centralized Soviet economy and society. So it was a contributing factor, among many others.
Isolating Russia just caused the paranoid nasty likes of Stalin. The opposite just causes lots of shopping. And in the case of China, a rush to learn English. If that isn't a sign of "winning" I don't know what is.
And I don't see how Obama is going to be anything like Stalin, no matter how popular he might get.
I wrote an article about Obama's wrong-headedness on the ethanol issue which I think is major, but probably political. I also think he is wrong about pulling out of Iraq and moving into Afghanistan - in a big way. Afghanistan has been and maybe always will me a military black hole for any power that attempts to fight there.
I hope that Obama has the judgement and humanity and the courage to do what is needed with these issues if he is elected, but that means ignoring what he has told people to get elected. It is not like Bush was honest about his "compassionate conservative" drivel, but it concerns me that the candidates cannot seem to speak honestly, and the American people cannot seem to take a real discussion - a lot! If Obama wins I do not think it is through leadership, I think it was through circumstances, and not saying something really stupid.
I have to admit I would not be averse to the Democractic convention taking a vote as it should to verify that after we selected Obama that this is what we really want.
I think that Obama is really saying (and I agree with this) that the real villains, the ones who attacked us, and will do so again if they can, are the bad guys in Afghanistan. The Taliban, to me represent the most evil and dangerous group in the world since the Nazis. And Al Qaeda, which was centered there is right up there with them.
We say the culprits came from Afghanistan, yet we know most of the hijackers were Saudis.
We know lots of money came from Saudi Arabia and still is, money that is now more than doubled because of the price of gas.
We know that Saudi Arabia is Sunni, and is also at more or less peace with Israel. The biggest perpetrator or terrorism on a daily basis has to be the Palestinians through Hamas and Hezbollah.
Then we hear the periodic rantings of the fool Ahmadinejad who like Hitler seems determined to take his coutry down the rathole of history.
Finally, all of these terrorist entities are distributed throughout millions of poor innocent people who are caught up in whatever their tyrannical governments want them to stand for, or have brainwashed them with misinformation to believe.
With all those distributed threats, and the ultimate dangers that can come with the uncompromising coersion of a religious dictatorship focusing the threat on Afghanistan which is landlocked in the middle of the most rugged mountains on the planet seems to me to be downright stupid.
Particularly if we are going to face a larger military threat of action in the region. Iraq is a perfect location from which to mobilize or re-supply, by air, land or sea.
I would rather see a complete withdrawal than what will happen when we are stuck in the middle of Afghanistan with no way in or out. It just makes me think of Reagan and the Marine barracks in Beirut ... remember that?
But as noted, he also stuck the country with a huge debt burden that contributed to the tanking of the economy during Bush I's gratis term. Ironically, it has been Republican Presidents that have ballooned the federal government expenditures and turned surpluses into debts the most in recent decades. Apparently we never learn.
There are few qualities I can see for anyone to place Obama and Reagan in the same class. Reagan was a huge land owner in California which gave him riches beyond imagination. Obama was a child from working class people who had little money till his books sold upon being elected US Senator. There is no question he has leadership qualities and with so much attention placed on it would do good in any job he holds.
This "lame duck" president has the democrats of Congress passing HIS agenda--- if that isn't leadership I don't know what is.
As for Obama--- he is OBVIOUSLY a leader, confident and sure in his own mind.
A hyper-religious war President, with no doubts of being in the right.
Thrill a minute.
jJack, If Obama is so sure of his own mind why does it change every thirty seconds depending upon the crowd he is in front of.
To all of you: Anyone that "does not believe visiting wounded American soldiers is appropriate" has no business running for president.
Not correct. Over half the people that willvote for Obama will do so simply because he is black and not 80 years old. People, especially democrats, have this incessant need to constantly prove they are not racist. The sad fact is, he will have the illiterate and uneducated vote. That, at least, is his constant.
Yep I heard it right. Who's the elitist now?
I think I know what you mean jJack about George W. I thought I saw some good leadership qualities in him right after 911. But not now. Not for a long time. I have no idea where he want to take the country, and I think his backing of Rumsfeld and his apparent caving in to Cheney strongly argue against the man as a real leader. No one even expects him to do anything about our housing and economic crisis. Very few people, including the Republicans I know (and I know a lot) really trust him.
I strongly disagree with you. If Obama had to rely on the people who are trying to prove they are not racist, (I know that these people exist) he would win about 10% of the vote tops. What Obama needs to do, and I think he has a shot a doing it, is transcend his apparent race (you can check out my previous article "Is Barack Black" to see what I mean by apparent) and his name. I think there will be a lot more people who will vote against him for those reasons than will vote for him.
Deal with the FACTS.
10% because he is black you say, okay, I'll give you that.
also, he is not old as McCain is. There's the age issue
Then the name issue
Yes, some might vote for him for legitimate (or what they thinkare legitimate) reasons.
However, let's agree, say 20 - 25% will vote for him simply because he is not McCain, is black (so they can be cool), is not old (racism extends to age).
If he is our next president, a major factor in that decision will be the above. NOT by merit. Not by earning the right.
Sad really.
I've been impressed with his quiet dignity--especially in embarrassing situations like with Wright. His approach is simple and straight forward. I also like the fact while he does show his sense of humor it doesn't have the 'canned' or forced feeling behind it. He has the ability to listen to what a person says--his body language is focused--now, his mind may be other places, or itemizing what has to be done next, but he doesn't give a hint of it to the person he's speaking to. That's a gift.
He's obviously well educated, yet he keeps most of his communication in simple terms, so even those uneducated understands what he's saying and don't feel he speaking down to them. So he's got the common man.
I think you're right, Sy. He definitely has a knack to lead and inspire trust. Good leaders don't have to know everything, they have many experts on hand to assist with that. A good leader does need to be able to motivate and unite disparate groups of people towards stated goals. I think he can do that.
Are Americans today willing to be led?
>> LMFAO!!!!!!!!!! Hey Bruce, did we ever have a windfall
>> profits tax before
Well, I think if you cannot figure out what that means you are
stupid.
But additionally it means that in talking to your and your
malconstructed arguments I am not wassting time on
typos.
FInally, George W. Bush never exercised a bit of leadership.
His actions wree planned in secret by Cheney and the oil
companies, and set up long before he ran for President.
He never got an electoral mandate, and the reson he
got Congressional support was because we were
attacked.
Would that they people who got this wrong on this
board would impeach themselves and never speak
on the subject again, we, and they would all be
much better off.
Having someone pop off with the same lies and
BS day after day is a waste of time ... JJM and SM.
in his "articles" which disagree with his insults/opinons if you can
tell them apart.
People may want to follow but that doesn’t make anyone a leader.
Can you in a couple of sentences describe Obama’s vision for the future?
To me a vision needs to paint a picture that I can see and want to be part of. Simply wanting change and someone saying they will give you change is not creating a picture of the future.
A leader needs to project a confidence that they will make the same sacrifice he/she wants you to make, I haven’t seen any willingness to make person sacrifice for anything, let alone something I would be willing to sacrifice for.
Reagan over many years built his vision, the less government intrusion on people, less taxes, and a strong defense to defeat communism. I could envision people being allowed to make more decisions for their lives, people having more of their money to spend how they felt it should be spent, and seeing a militarily strong and respected America.
All I know about Barrack is that he will pull the troops out of Iraq I 16 months of taking office. Oh, and higher taxes so the government can spend more money.
Debra,
I saw the Reverend Wright situation differently, he equated a woman (his grandmother) who was expereiincing racist bigotry at work and her concerns some 'black men' with the rants and tirades of Reverend Wright. Oh, and in 20 years of listening to the Reverend he had never heard such comments as were shown on TV.
He surely had a calm voice and no emotion when discussing this. And he extracted himself from it when a visiting 'white' priest went off on tirade by formally walking away from his Church.
The curiously listening doesn;t always extend into hearing.
to those that are not hurt by it, ie. over 250K.
Why is it that your side has to mischaracterize what the other
side says. It is as bad or worse than Democrats that say McCain
wants to be in Iraq for 100 years.
The fact is tht the money has already been spend, so you can either
pay the the taxes of pay more in interest.
There has been a decided shift in most every one of his positions making it impossible to have any clue as to where he stands on any given issue on any given day. All his rhetorical pronouncements about "change" have only meant changing his mind again.
His beginning far left platform is moving to center, and more in line with McCain's platform. He recognized he is unelectable in that position and is willing to do what he has to do to appear more centered. A shrewd political move that reeks of lies and dishonesty. The Ourobouros syndrome.
Just lowering taxes, drilling more, and shrinking the size of government to a drownable level isn't adequate.
play with the bull get the horns little man....
Can you in a couple of sentences describe Obama’s vision for the future?
I don't care really, as I don't think an outline is required. Pick a handful of issues and go to work. The "vision thing" usually comes of it's own accord, as a president faces problems.
Of mice and men, all plans have blanks, vague undefineable spots. History does much to shape men-- leaders like Obama have the shape of character to define the future as required, rather than a blind man muddling in the moment.
With Carter and Clinton and Kennedy and now - people are partly tired of the party that runs the current administration but people are elso entranced with Obama.
Some people are born leaders. Some become leaders. Some are both. Obama is both.
I felt Obama was a bad idea, too - and I felt sure the Dems would be doomed, putting a white woman and a non-white man as the top contenders for the White House. Being a YDD, a yellow dog Democrat, I will vote for a yellow dog before I vote for a R.
Hillary annoyed me from time to time, as I knew she would, but I understood where she was coming from, and was hoping for Billary.
Obama I knew nothing about so I waited to form an opinion.
He's a guy for the ages.
Our current Massachusetts govenor was an ABR Anything But Republican, Anyone but Romney vote.
Our govenor, Deval Patrick is a democrat. And a black man.
However, Patrick is NOT the politician that Obama is.
Patrick is not connected, does not know how to deal, is idealistic in the worst way - unrealistic.
Patrick is not a good governor.
THe only thing I can say is that because he is a Democrat, his values are in the right place.
Obama would make a very good leader.
I would also ask that we try to keep the tone civil and non ad hominem. I happen to love this country, and its democratic system, and I think there is much more that unites us than divides us (and no, I am not in the running for VP, althought that last remark sounds suspisciously like it). So there is no call for excess vituperation, and nasty remarks.
In answer to Duane and Aimee, I agree that Obama has shifted his positions, as has every candidate with any chance of winning. Some of that might be pure politics, some of it might be actual growth as one travels the country and learns how people are thinking. I dont see why any candidate who is supposed to represent the people should create an iron clad policy and never change it. Flexibility is a good thing to have, when you are the World's leader. Of course, that should come with a strong vision of the kind that Reagan had. I didnt agree with Reagans vision, but there is no question he had one. I still dont really know what Clinton's vision was (Bill). I do think (but am not certain) that Obama has a vision for society that includes better lives for most people. I might not agree with all of his specifics, but I think the vision is there.
I think his ability to communicate is important. But in an odd way, I think that deviousness is part of leadership, and that he shows the ability to be just devious enough to win while preserving a bit of genuine idealism. Would you agree to that one?
This is an excellent and genuine article. I've not seen this type of honesty too often. though you've openly admitted disagreementt with some of Reagans policies, you've admitted to his greatness, and his accomplishments, and admitted that, in retrospect, you were wrong about him. You've won my respect.
On the issue of "Leadership," I can also concur. Obama says nothing, has done nothing, and resides on BOTH sides of many issue "fences." He, HAS, however, captured the imaginations of many.
His free ride will not last with the sold-out media, and "that thing going up their leg" will eventually result in a "vericose vein." It is little wonder that the "imaginations" that he has captured belong largely to the young. Who wouldn't expect large, enthusiastic crowds of (mostly young) Socialists and party-goer's, when you provide free beer, throw a Rock Concert, add a drooling Media, apply "Kennedy-esque" echo effects to the sound system, and slip a meaningless Speech in there, by a dashing Presidential Candidate?
I agree with you, Sy; he has "something going," and there are large numbers of "Citizen's of the World" who dig his B.S. University indoctrination is beginning to "pay off" for Leftist's.
Will he be elected? If so, will he be effective? Doubtful, on both questions. And, if he is, those same young may pay a high price, for some time to come.
I'm hoping that common sense, and the American people BETWEEN Manhatten and Malibu, will prevail...
My feelings about him are--let him age a little, give him some DC experience--right now those in power in the House and Senate will eat him alive--unless he has some advisers similar to the dominating kind like Bush had, he won't be heard above a squeak.
Sorry about that but he just needs to ripen.
Why does it always have to be sides to you? Why can’t it simply be different perspectives?
The net taxes will go up and the net spending will exceed the government income. You may feel that the people earning over $250,000 a year should pay for all of the government spending, I don’t. You may feel that the government spending shouldn’t be restricted, I do.
My view is that as long as the politicians are unrestricted in the money available (they will continue to spend, no matter where the money comes from). I feel that the less someone pays for something the less they respect it and the more they will abuse it. Have you considered that once the top 1% pay for everything that they will either be the only ones the politicians will listen to (just like the states they cry all the way to the Federal “wallet”).
You may feel the tax should only “soak the rich”, but I see it as all the people benefit from the government so all the people should pay to have some level of ownership. If people are less likely to care, except to get more money.
The money is spent and we are paying the interest. Do you honestly think that when Obama comes into office that the 2010 budget will be balanced and that it will be done on the backs of the rich (who paid for his campaign? How many of those rich you so much want to tax to the exclusion of all others are the ones that make the jobs (or decisions where the jobs are) and how many of them can move anywhere in the world and still be rich?
Ah, the hundred years, is that the same as the 60 years in Germany or Japan, or is that a metaphorical hundred years that says he is committed to do battle for liberty in the Mideast for a hundred years? In either case are you one of those that think we should have instant gratification on everything and should never have to plan for the future (past next year)? Personally, you have started me to look at McCain and Obama differently. In your simple use of the hundred years makes me think of the 16 months, one suggests a commitment and sacrifice and the other indicates an avoidance of discomfort and a lack of will. Who you prefer a person that will stay with you and support you through good times and bad or one that would walk away when you need help. Kinda like a man who would go through hell for buddies and a cause and one that would throw his grandmother to the media to soften his public image.
Now let me temper this last remark to dissuade the “we and they”. Simply sacrificing is not the only element of a leader. To me neither of the candidates have create a vision of what they see the future to be and surely have not even suggested what I could do to help achieve that vision. As far a a true leader, neither one measures up. They could but then they would have to be willing to risk their chance at the presidency for their vision. Ronald Reagan is off referenced as a “leaders”, even before his political career formally started he was espousing a vision and when he ran for office he was consistent to that vision to the point of not garnering the votes for his early attempts at higher office.
“I do think (but am not certain) that Obama has a vision for society that includes better lives for most people. I might not agree with all of his specifics, but I think the vision is there.” My point is if you can’t give your simplified version of his vision then he doesn’t have one.
I like you are looking for a LEADER to support. Both Obama and McCain are the candidates, as such the political standard bearer for their respective parties, but that does not a LEADER make. I will have to decide by November who I will vote for (and I will vote), but as of now there is no LEADER running to draw my loyalty.
> You may feel that the people earning over $250,000 a year should
> pay for all of the government spending, I don’t. You may feel that
> the government spending shouldn’t be restricted, I do.
Sides ... why else would you completely lie about what I was saying
and substitute this.
Some of you such as Shawn that are so upset about paying taxes
probably never have to pay much taxes and never will anyway.
If you looked at it from the perspective of a realistic sensible
citizen whow does pay taxes and a lot of them, I can tell you
two things.
First, making money is great. The first year I made over 6
figures I felt like I was now part of America. For me it took
a while.
However, it is not that enjoy giving money away, I just know
that this country is worth paying for, it is not Walmart that
we can run on he cheap. Can we economize and streamline,
you bet.
I have never resented paying taxes because it means I am
making more money.
Paying taxes has never taken any incentive from me in terms
of working hard or investing.
Those arguments put forward by the likes of some people here
are idiotic and it is plain they never had faced the problem.
When the question is to tax someone who is thinking of buying
a vacation home, or someone who is thinking of cancelling their
medical insurance or who cannot pay for telephone or heating,
you know who I at least would send the bill too. And as someone
who would get that bill, I pay it without whining.
Finally, it is not anyone who is raising taxes, when you deficit
spend as the Republicans have strategically done to forward
their banana republic agenda, you raise taxes, whether it is
a Democrat who responsibly pays the bill or it just stays on
loan so we pay interest on it while never paying it off.
Apparently the most vocal and vociferous critics of the
Democrats ignore that reality. You pay more money when
you borrow ... like you borrow on a house or a car, you
pay over time double ... so do a little thinking some of you.
It seems that you didn’t read my comments through before you began your response. I said everyone should pay taxes, that way everyone has a sense of ownership of the government. It is those that don’t pay for things that quickly lose appreciation of their value. There are any numbers of examples of when the more people sacrifice for something the better they appreciate it and the more responsible they are in using it. Money is just the most common way to measure the value.
I must admit reading only this conversation I may have misinterpreted your comment, “Obama has only said he will shift the burden of taxes to those that are not hurt by it, ie. over 250K.”, and improperly inferred that you supported this position. For that I apologize and accept your chastisement. As shown I can error in my interpretation of what I have read, and when pointed out I believe that I consistently admitted to the error, make the corrections, and accept the associated rebukes.
In this conversation, what have I lied about? Did I misinterpret your remark, “Why is it that your side has to mischaracterize what the other side says.” Is it that you really weren’t suggesting that I was on a specific side, one other than that of the Democrats?
You are right, over the life of a loan you pay for that money, depending on the interest rate and the length of time you have the loan you may pay double or triple. Is that any different than when you buy a car, some may cost double or triple of others, what is the point? Or is it that you see the government debt analogous to personal debt? If that is the case, it has a flaw, personal debt must be closed when a person dies (we all die). An organizational debt can be maintained as long as the organization exists. So until the US is dissolved the debt does not have to be reconciled. If you are suggesting that if the debt is allowed to grow uncontrollably, at some theoretical point, all taxes could be going to pay the interest on the debt. I agree to that. However, there is a point of equilibrium that I am hoping will occur before then and the tighter we keep the money available I am hoping the sooner we will reach that equilibrium.
You may be the only taxpayer that doesn’t make use the tax incentives promulgated by Congress, but the vast majority of people do. The only motivation I can find for this is that they want to keep as much of their money as possible. Even Warren Buffet, who says the super rich should be taxed more, gives his money to the Gates Foundation to spend rather than the US Government. If taxes weren’t a disincentive why do you feel so many people use the tax deductions and other tax incentives?
I am still trying to figure out how you interpreted the hundred years in Iraq, remark by McCain. Was it a metaphor for a commitment to the Iraqi’s or is it his time table for withdrawal?
I may be worng here, but I believe that Obama was suggesting that a visit to wounded troops would be seen as inappropriately political. In other words, I think he meant (and I strongly agree with this) that a political candidate with a host of reporters trailing him, could be thought of taking advantage of wounded soldiers for getting photo opportunites.
Some of these soldiers and their families might resent this, as being used for political ends. Of course if he went secretly, and with no coverage that would be a different matter, but then we would never know about it, would we.
is having a say, and despite what we call voting and demcracy we do not.
Both parties have been dominated by money.
Shawn, I am just tired of seeing your stupid face pop up on every old tired
worn out argument known to man, now you are dragging out the mine is
bigger than yours. If you make so much money you then realize that
the country has given you what you have, and you have a responsibility
to support it and pay it back.
I could care less if you made more than me, which I doubt, everything
else you say is wrong or a lie. If you were a corrections officer you were
basically on the public dole anyway. I would just bet you are sitting on
some kind of disability pension right now being paid by the taxpayer,
like I said, taxes are necessary, they are not always spent sensibly or
fair.
Nevertheless, to say that Democrats use more loopholes that Republicans
is another moronic comment.
I'm done responding to your redneck rap.
> Is that any different than when you buy a car, some may
> cost double or triple of others, what is the point?
The point is that most Americans do not make enough money
to survive really. Try reading a book called "Nickeled and Dimed",
if you cannot read the whole book, the last chapter is brilliant.
To set the tax system to allow those who can afford to live off
capital to pay less is another immmoral thing to do.
let's divide the country into two groups, the workers, and the
capitalists,
if i have enought money to not have to work, why should
my investment income be taxed at a different rate than your
salary income?
We want to incent people to be productive, lots of rich well
educated people just sit collecting interest doing nothing
when they could contribute to the economy, or pay taxes.
then, as I said most Americans cannot save, and it gets worse
every year. The mathemetics of capitalism mean that there
are people who are hired to figure out exactly how much a
commodity can be priced to maximize profit ... not good, profit.
So while the early 1900's was the era of industrial production
and assembly lines, our era is the era of advertising, cheap
ingredients, tricks like smaller packages, supply shortages,
scares, and scandals where those who are in the know can
use this placement as advantage to screw the rest of us out
of money, and eventually power.
This is absoluetly just what Marx said was the problem with
Capitalism, and just what we say and why we modified it
about the time of T. Roosevelt.
Now, since people are specialized to fit into the economy, they
have to take on faith that others will work for the country and
provide services to them ... ie. since I am working in the factory
all day I do not have time to become and expert in investing
so i give my money to a bank who then gives me interest.
When the wealthy financial class takes advantage of this
dependence of others on them and skims money in these
finanical scandals, society breaks down.
What supports the lie is the propaganda and simple-minded
fairy tales you get from the likes of Shamn and others who
are incapably or unwilling to examine or tell the truth to
people.
This makes people slaves.
If I make 250 up I can then not pay taxes, and put the money I would
have paid in taxes into bonds which otheres cannot afford to do, and the
collect interest paid by the taxpayers to me ... essentially, not only do I
get a tax break, but I get paid profit on the money I do not pay in
taxes.
How is this fair when we have Americans whose selves and families are
being forced into what is really underclass slavery?
This is why the US is not democratic, it is built on lies and marketing.
I think his four years spent as a child living in Jakarta in poverty-striken circumstances, helped him have a basic understanding of the problems of poor people in the world, and of the excesses of the wealthy.
After achieving the highest ratings at the colleges he attended, Obama chose a lesser paying job in Chicago over a better paying one he could have had in New York. He wanted to better serve the neediest people as an organizer who advocates change from the grass roots up, not legislated from above. Don't sell him short as being naive. He was a politician in Chicago. He knows his way around.
He has a goal of cleaning up the political process. He doesn't know his way around DC yet, but the American people want change, not the same old unethical methods.
I still think the reason he is having a hard time racking up points farther beyond McCain's, is because he is black. There is a whole lot of ingrained bigotry that people don't want to admit. It is ridiculous, because Obama is just as much white as black, and he grew up entirely in the households of his white mother and white grandparents, most of in Hawaii. He has excelled at everything he has undertaken. Compare that to Bush II, who never succeeded on his own at anything, and has been the worst president in history.
The Republicans like to think that they are the fiscally responsible party, but we will be lucky if we can even pay the interest on the terrible national debt they have run up starting with Reagan. They are not even willing to pay for what they have charged in China. It would take a tax raise to do that. They would rather load it onto the backs of the succeeding generations.
I don't like all of Obama's plans that I have heard but, oh yes. I will vote for Barack Hussein Obama. He will be a huge improvement over G W Bush and will greatly improve respect for the United States in the rest of the world.