Here
and
Now

opinions

Obama revels in a presidential race with many contrasts

17 Comments
By Liz Sidoti

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

17 Comments
Login to comment

Nisegaijin is pretty much spot-on. Obama has nothing new in anything he says. Using the word 'change' every other sentence doesn't mean anything without something concrete to follow up with. Obama would do nothing but what every socialist liberal in history tries: bigger government making more and more people dependent on it, punitively high taxes in the name of 'fairness' in order to realize massive redistribution of wealth, and disasterous economic policies aimed at ruining the very companies that employ millions and pay the majority of taxes.

I don't like McCain much for various reasons but Obama is a total empty suit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nisegaijin, good points!

Obama is playing the part of the "pied piper" and people don't realize it. He calls a family making $250,000 wealthy and would rasie their taxes. In cities like LA, SF, Chicago or NY for a family of two bread winners this is definatley middle class. Just in the housing market in SF alone they would still be out priced to buy a home, and with that income they would not be able to benefit from Obama's new social programs.

From what I am reading, that income estimate will actually go down so you will see an increase in taxes for most Americans.

McCain still has a way to go in terms of defining his policies, but I think I would stand a better chance with him than Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem with Bush is that he promised conservatism and ended up being a raging control monkey. He is anything but conservative or constitutionalist. He was largely responsible for mess that we are in now, but it was not just him.

Clinton was responsible for lots of fraud documents when he was signing off income generated from issuing bonds as government revenue. He presented it as balanced budget, but it was not. You can't accuse him of non-intervention either.

I never linked Obama to Fed, because there is no link. Obama doesn't know economics. Period. Fed is going to manipulate him as they wish without any transperacy. That's my point.

Yeah, Bush appointed Bernanke, but before him there was Alan Greenspan who created multiple bubbles and was largely responsible for current mess.

US Bankrupted the USSR? What a joke!! Thanks for the laugh of the day! USSR was a prime example of socialism failure. Rule of human nature: when someone takes from you, your productivity declines. I mean, would you work for free?

Scandinavia? While their central banks are good and the fact that they kept their own currency shows that they have smart economists out there. Yeah, they have lots of freebies, and unemployment benefits are equal to average salary. But do you want to government take 90% of what you earn? I don't. Moreover, once economy goes bad for them, and it certainly will, expect their social programs to start failing as population declines.

If you read about Swedish economic history you will see that they were puzzled by very low productivity of average worker. Once they started lowering taxes, it improved. I wonder why....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nisegaijin,

Whew! Glad you threw Obama's name in there a few times in that little rant of yours. If not, it would've been all to easy to mistake this for a brief synopsis of the last 7 years of the Bush administration where, surprise, surprise, unemployment, the price of oil, and the national debt have all risen, the latter to historical levels, while the stocks and bond market is in shambles and the value of the dollar has tanked.

I particularly enjoyed how you ominously link the little comment about the lack of tranparency at the Fed to Obama, as if they were somehow related, completely ignoring that the current head of the Federal Reserve was put there by none other than G.W. Bush.

BTW, the USSR collaped in the 90s, not because of Socialism per se, but because the US bankrupted it in an arms race it couldn't afford to pay for. Socialism-based countries exist all over the world in perfect economic health AND are great political and trade partners with the US - Take some time to look at any Scandinavian country if you have the time. No, they don't have the largest per capita concentration of millionaires and billionaires in the world, like the US, but their standard of living is high, unemployment is low, the number of people with higher education surpasses the US (and it's largely free), health care is reliable and affordable, crime rates are low, and the people are comparatively happy according to a number of international studies, both government- and NGO-profit sponsored.

Oh yeah, and their governments are democratically elected, too. GASP! Free markets, democracy, and socialist programs all functioning under the same roof?! Will wonders never cease in this world?

But hey, don't let reality get in your way as you pound away at the evil forces of Socialism™.

Seriously, you guys need to update your schtick. This War on Terro... oops, I mean War on Commu... err, or is it the War on Terror now? Aww, crap. I've lost track. What is it this week?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nisegaijin - typical red baiting argument equating liberal politics with communism. obama is much more moderate than conservative scare ads suggest and I'm saying this as a very liberal democratic socialist who wishes he were MORE progressive. Bush believed in the exact opposite of all of the horrible things you accuse of Obama and the U.S. is now a) in a recession b) has a much bigger deficit than it's had since Reagan - the worst president of our generation and also a conservative.

No president of this country is going to "end capitalism". and I think assuming that every rich person has what "is rightfully theirs" is a tad bit naive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So Obama's solution are: 1 Make larger government to have more control 2 impose more regulations. 3 Take control of free markets 4 Nationalize corporations. 5 Take away from rich people what is rightfully theirs 6 Spend ridiculous amounts of money on social programs 7 Whatever he can't get from taxes or issuing of bonds - print.

Let's analyze this: 1 It has been proven many times that government interference slows down industry. Most preferred change by Obama - done throughout history. No success.

He will regulate oil trade and that will spike the price of gas. He then will try to fight it with price ceilings. That will only make suppliers turn away from the US; result: mass oil shortages. This was done during oil shocks in the 70s. He will try to regulate oil trading and farmers markets to fight food shortages. Farmers will see no profit from his regulations and will stop working in favor of going to welfare. Done in the USSR - you have seen the result. Waste tax payers money on doomed corporations or take control of profitable ones to minimize their efficiency. Think end of capitalism He keeps forgetting that taxing rich people and large corporations will hike prices and lower employment. That will wipe up middle class in the long run. All without a job should be fine because of wonderful social programs! Who's gonna pay for them? Tax paying baby boomers are retiring now, US debt is going to be astronomical if they keep things as this. Devaluation of currency, collapse of bond markets, default, mass unemployment, consumer good shortages, public unrest. Seen in collapse of USSR in the 90s.

At the same time he has little understanding of monetary policy while Fed is being less and less transparent. At some point it won't be able to lend as such low interest rate and will have to jack it up. Result - depression. Think 30's.

You sure you want him as president?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ugh. Who cares who becomes president? They're both going to fix anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even with as many problems as McCain has, by comparison (to McCain or just about anyone) Obama is an empty suit who can't put together a coherent thought without a teleprompter or ear mic.

What is this assertion based on? The man was a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago, and by all accounts he is thoughtful and well-spoken. If you have read Dreams of My Father you know he is an intelligent and sensitive man. You may not agree with his politics or feel he is the right choice for President but an "empty suit" without a "coherent thought"? What the heck is that all about? If you want to bash someone at least bash them for their actual faults.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

barrack obama, change gone comma

0 ( +0 / -0 )

News to y'all: McCain will be the next president. Like it or not. Deal with it.

(Hint: whining on internet message boards doesn't count)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even with as many problems as McCain has, by comparison (to McCain or just about anyone) Obama is an empty suit who can't put together a coherent thought without a teleprompter or ear mic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Conservative used to be a more meaningful term but it was hijacked by Bush's gang and now seems to mean "neo-conservative right-wing wacko". Some great politicians have been conservatives but perhaps we need a new word. I see 'moderate Republican' is gaining in popularity do distinguish the great majority of Republicans from the loony far-right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mccain will win. the south won't have it with a you-know-what as president. throw in nader and hillary bashers and defectors.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ADD:

Especially so, when considering he got ahead in the primaries because of his differences, probably the thing that would back him to have a shot at the presidency. Now though, he really is playing into Obama's hand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the real tragedy for McCain, is how he has had to shelve his beliefs for the Republican party to be the nominee.

I recall him disagreeing with key economic decisions with President Bush and how the war was to be conducted, and now he has to reverse his disagreements to keep in line with how the Republican party wants him to be if he essentially wants campaign money, or be attacked non-stop by his own comrades.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

right-wing

I'm not a huge McCain fan myself, but conservative is not a bad thing it's just a difference of opinion. Conservatives have done just as many great things and bad things as liberals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If McCain were not the ipso facto Republican presidential candidate I would tell Obama to pick on someone his own size. McCain is a Cold War relic who wants to make trouble with Russia on top of being a neocon who gave us Bush' s wars based on lies. Man has nothing to offer except an extension of Bush. McCain's agenda is totally right-wing, from denial of abortion rights down to more war and no relief for all those Americans losing their houses.

The sad thing is that the Americans may well be stupid enough to elect him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites