Barack Obama!

[Doris]

Re: Barack 2008!

Oooops!

The New Yorker kicked over a Wasp's nest with this cover:

LOLLL!

Onya Wayne!

As a satire, as it's meant to be, I think it's quite clever!

- in the Oval Office:

... portrait of Osama bin Laden ( 'Osama' sounds like... )
... Michelle as a terrorist (gentle, sweet protective first lady)
... Barack as a Muslim (his name is Muslim... but he is Christian)
... the burning of an American flag (he used to refuse to wear the flag lapel badge)

-- scare tactics and misinformation being used to try to derail Obama's campaign!

Some people actual believe those rumours so maybe this will actually defuse them!?

I wonder how many will buy it and read the two serious articles inside the magazine:
on Obama's political education and rise in Chicago?

 

[2020hindsight]

Re: Barack 2008!

Onya Wayne!

As a satire, as it's meant to be, I think it's quite clever!

... in the Oval Office
... portrait of Osama bin Laden
... gentle, sweet Michelle as a terrorist
... Barack as a Muslim
... the burning of an American flag

-- scare tactics and misinformation being used to try to derail Obama's campaign!

Some people actual believe those rumours so maybe this will actually defuse them!?

I wonder how many will buy it and read the two serious articles inside the magazine:
on Obama's political education and rise in Chicago?

Doris , howdy
Yep
and all the signs/reports are that it will backfire against the intended "message / propaganda".

PS only 4 months to go

PS Based on those odds posted in #692 (unchanged btw), you'd have to assume it will be a woman for VP runnning mate
cheers

 

[Doris]

Re: Barack 2008!

Doris , howdy
Yep
and all the signs/reports are that it will backfire against the intended "message / propaganda".

PS only 4 months to go

PS Based on those odds posted in #692 (unchanged btw), you'd have to assume it will be a woman for VP running mate
cheers

Yes 2020... you had the prescience to pick the VP back in May!

(I edited my post as you can see. Is that a flip flop? )

But Kathleen Sebelius will be a gutsy choice by Obama.

She has a brilliant record as governor of Kansas, especially in education which is one of Obama's priorities and she fulfills the dream of a woman in high power.

He'd be gutsy in overlooking Jim Webb's war experience to support his lack. But then Webb is so boring to listen to!
And who knows what confidence Obama will ignite from his forthcoming trips.

As I've argued, he will choose top advisers who are experienced and it is the decision making role that needs Obama!

Capitulate Wayne...

 

[wayneL]

Re: Barack 2008!

Capitulate Wayne...

Eh??

Over what?

Let's see what he achieves as El Presidente... if anything.

 

[Doris]

Re: Barack 2008!

Eh??

Over what?

Let's see what he achieves as El Presidente... if anything.

Can't wait!

Are you going to London in ten days to catch a glimpse of him? ..

 

[wayneL]

Re: Barack 2008!

Can't wait!

Are you going to London in ten days to catch a glimpse of him? ..

No.

David Cameron is more who I'd like to meet. Or Vince Cable, but he went and joined the wrong party.


...and of course, Boris.

 

[Doris]

Re: Barack 2008!

Senator Barack Obama’s New Strategy for a New World

Barack delivered a major speech today on national security and the war in Iraq... Washington, D.C.

2020, I think this speech depicts Obama doesn't (politically) need Webb as VP, for his military history!

Sebelius for VP!


Watch the speech, or listen as you read the full text:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newstrategy

As I have said many times, our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence. General Petraeus has used new tactics to protect the Iraqi population. We have talked directly to Sunni tribes that used to be hostile to America, and supported their fight against al Qaeda. Shiite militias have generally respected a cease-fire. Those are the facts, and all Americans welcome them.

In the 18 months since the surge began, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. June was our highest casualty month of the war. The Taliban has been on the offensive, even launching a brazen attack on one of our bases. Al Qaeda has a growing sanctuary in Pakistan. That is a consequence of our current strategy.

In the 18 months since the surge began, as I warned at the outset - Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge. They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country. They have not resolved their differences or shaped a new political compact.

Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.

It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large... And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.

Senator McCain said - just months ago - that "Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq." I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That's what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that's why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.

One of the most dangerous weapons in the world today is the price of oil. We ship nearly $700 million a day to unstable or hostile nations for their oil. It pays for terrorist bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut. It funds petro-diplomacy in Caracas and radical madrasas from Karachi to Khartoum. It takes leverage away from America and shifts it to dictators.

This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.

Never again will we sit on the sidelines, or stand in the way of global action to tackle this global challenge. I will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. We will also build an alliance of oil-importing nations and work together to reduce our demand, and to break the grip of OPEC on the global economy. We'll set a goal of an 80% reduction in global emissions by 2050. And as we develop new forms of clean energy here at home, we will share our technology and our innovations with all the nations of the world.

Now is the time for a new era of international cooperation. It's time for America and Europe to renew our common commitment to face down the threats of the 21st century. It's time to strengthen our partnerships with Japan, South Korea, Australia and the world's largest democracy - India - to create a stable and prosperous Asia. It's time to engage China on common interests like climate change, even as we continue to encourage their shift to a more open and market-based society. It's time to strengthen NATO by asking more of our allies, while always approaching them with the respect owed a partner. It's time to reform the United Nations, so that this imperfect institution can become a more perfect forum to share burdens, strengthen our leverage, and promote our values. It's time to deepen our engagement to help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, so that we help our ally Israel achieve true and lasting security, while helping Palestinians achieve their legitimate aspirations for statehood.

And just as we renew longstanding efforts, so must we shape new ones to meet new challenges. That's why I'll create a Shared Security Partnership Program - a new alliance of nations to strengthen cooperative efforts to take down global terrorist networks, while standing up against torture and brutality. That's why we'll work with the African Union to enhance its ability to keep the peace. That's why we'll build a new partnership to roll back the trafficking of drugs, and guns, and gangs in the Americas. That's what we can do if we are ready to engage the world.

For eight years, we have paid the price for a foreign policy that lectures without listening; that divides us from one another - and from the world - instead of calling us to a common purpose.

 

[Doris]

Re: Barack 2008!

Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign Policy

Experienced and competent advisers with intelligent judgment made by Obama.

An hour ago:

WASHINGTON ”” Every day around 8 a.m., foreign policy aides at Senator Barack Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters send him two e-mails: a briefing on major world developments over the previous 24 hours and a set of questions, accompanied by suggested answers, that the candidate is likely to be asked about international relations during the day.

Behind the e-mail messages is a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, to assist Obama whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters.

“It is unwieldy, no question,” said Denis McDonough, 38, Obama’s top foreign policy aide. The infrastructure has been divided into 20 teams based on regions and issues. “But an administration is unwieldy, too. We also know that it’s messier when you don’t get as much information as you can.”

Unlike George W. Bush, who entered the presidential race in 2000 with scant exposure to national security issues, Mr. Obama has served since his election to the Senate in 2004 on the Foreign Relations Committee and has had a running tutorial from aides steeped in the issues. His campaign says that he is well prepared and that he often alters and expands on the talking points provided to him by his foreign policy advisers.

Obama’s core team is led by Susan Rice, an assistant secretary of state for African affairs in the Clinton administration, who has pushed for a tougher response to the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan, and Anthony Lake, Mr. Clinton’s first national security adviser, who was criticized for the administration’s failure to confront the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and now acknowledges the inaction as a major mistake.

The core group also includes Gregory Craig, a former top official in the Clinton State Department who served as the president’s lawyer during his impeachment trial; Richard Danzig, a Navy secretary in the Clinton administration; Mark Lippert, Mr. Obama’s former Senate foreign policy adviser, who just returned from a Navy tour of duty in Iraq; two former secretaries of state, Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell

McDonough and Lippert are paid by the campaign and based in Chicago, and the rest are outside advisers who volunteer their time from Washington.

John McCain has a far smaller and looser foreign policy advisory operation, about 75 people in all, and none are organized into teams.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/us/politics/18advisers.html?ref=politics

 

[ZzzzDad]

Re: Barack 2008!

For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone on a STOCK FORUM could be for Obama. The guy wants to almost double long term capital gains rates from the current 15% to 28%, increase taxes on social security, move the top rate from the current 36% to 39.6%, etc., etc. All of his proposals are economy killers.

The current troubles in the stock markets will be minor compared to what will happen if Obama gets his way.

This guy is an extreme leftist, who is blatantly attempting to fool the American public that he is middle of the road, now that he has the Democrat nomination.

Obama will not win. McCain is tied or just slightly behind in the polls in July. Democrats are almost always further ahead in the polls at this stage, and only fall behind once the general election sets in, and the people open their eyes to see what extreme leftists the Democrats have put up for election. Obama is McGovern and Carter wrapped into one, and will lose by at least a 55% to 45% margin - mark my word.

There is a small, but mobilized group of Obama supporters that will continue to be deluded that Obama has a chance, and the media is touting him as the messiah.

I know of many staunch Democrats, especially working class that have shocked me when they tell me that they cannot, and will not, vote for Obama.

Many on this site do not truly know the American public, nor understand American politics.

 

[ZzzzDad]

Re: Barack 2008!

I meant to also point out that Obama has no ideas on how to increase oil supplies, and cut the price of oil. America has 3 times the amount of oil than Saudi Arabia locked up in the shale oil deposits in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Another huge deposit in North Dakota. He sides with the environmental extremists against exploiting these deposits. America has more coal deposits than any country on earth, again, the environmental extremists won't allow this to be exploited, even though clean coal technology is very advanced. He is against drilling on the outer continental shelfs of the East and West coasts of America, despite the fact that there has not been an oil spill since 1969. Even Hurricane Katrina didn't cause a single drop of oil to be spilled when it came up against all the oil rigs in the Gulf coast.

His "yes we can" is really "no we can't" when it comes to solving the energy crisis. The oil crisis is really starting to be noticed here in America, and the people are finally learning that the Democrats and environmentalists are the problem.

Again, McCain is going to win. He is no great candidate, but he is middle of the road, and at leasts tries to work with both sides of the political divide in America. Obama has always voted left, left, and extreme left.

Doris, this is not a slam at you, I've read most of your posts, and you seem like a nice person and a true and passionate and sincere Obama supporter. I just think you are misreading the American people.

 

[Doris]

Re: Barack 2008!

For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone on a STOCK FORUM could be for Obama. The guy wants to almost double long term capital gains rates from the current 15% to 28%, increase taxes on social security, move the top rate from the current 36% to 39.6%, etc., etc. All of his proposals are economy killers.

Thanks for your comments 'sleeping' Dad.
... you've pulled me away from my book (The Peaceful Warrior) to analyze them.

Inherently, the GOP is full of big business and big employers.

Barack Obama on Tax Reform
http://www.issues2000.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm

Raise capital gains tax for fairness, not for revenue:

Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%." It's now 15%. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%.

A: What I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

Tax cut for seniors and those making $75,000 a year or less:

Everywhere you go, you meet people who are working harder for less, wages and incomes have flatlined, people are seeing escalating costs of everything from health care to gas at the pump. In some communities, they have been struggling for decades now. This has to be a priority of the next president. We have to restore a sense of fairness & balance to our economy. We've got to stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas and invest those tax breaks in companies that are investing here in the US.

We have to end the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and to provide tax breaks to middle-class Americans and working Americans who need them. If you are making $75,000 a year or less, I want to give an offset to your payroll tax that will mean $1,000 extra in the pockets of ordinary Americans. Senior citizens making less than $50,000, you shouldn't have to pay income tax on your Social Security. We pay for these by closing tax loopholes and tax havens that are being manipulated.

I want to make sure that seniors making less than $50,000, that they get some relief in terms of the taxes on their Social Security.
...Closing loopholes and rolling back the Bush tax cuts to the top 1 percent, simply restores some fairness and a sense that we're all in this together.

...for senior citizens, a supplement to their Social Security check, because they get that every month. That would provide seniors all across the country right away some money to help pay for their heating bills and other expenses that they've got right now.

Seniors in Australia sure wish our new federal government provided some help atm!

This guy is an extreme leftist, who is blatantly attempting to fool the American public that he is middle of the road, now that he has the Democrat nomination.

Yes... he's mellowed since winning the nomination I grant you but I'm betting this is based more on his flexibility from listening to others, as he represents, rather than represents a dictator-puppet.

Obama will not win. McCain is tied or just slightly behind in the polls in July. Democrats are almost always further ahead in the polls at this stage, and only fall behind once the general election sets in, and the people open their eyes to see what extreme leftists the Democrats have put up for election. Obama is McGovern and Carter wrapped into one, and will lose by at least a 55% to 45% margin - mark my word.

The last two elections were aberrant... Florida debacle + the bible belt coerced by the GOP machine to come out of the woodwork to vote for the first time to prevent abortion and gay marriage. Meanwhile, way more than half the eligible American voters chose not to bother.

There is a small, but mobilized group of Obama supporters that will continue to be deluded that Obama has a chance, and the media is touting him as the messiah.

'The messiah' is what I felt after I first watched him almost two years ago, although I didn't label it!

What good do you think he could do if he were to beat McCain?

I know of many staunch Democrats, especially working class that have shocked me when they tell me that they cannot, and will not, vote for Obama.

There has to be a restoration of balance in our tax code. We are going to offset some of the payroll taxes that families who are making less than $50,000 a year get a larger break.


Q: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.

OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.

CLINTON: That's right.

OBAMA: I'm not bashful about it.

CLINTON: Absolutely

OBAMA: I suspect a lot of this crowd--it looks like a pretty well-dressed crowd--potentially will pay a little bit more. I will pay a little bit more. But that investment will pay huge dividends over the long term, and the place where it will pay the biggest dividends is in Medicare and Medicaid. Because if we can get a healthier population, that is the only way over the long term that we can actually control that spending that is going to break the federal budget.

CLINTON: It's just really important to underscore here that we will go back to the tax rates we had before George Bush became president. And my memory is, people did really well during that time period. And they will keep doing really well.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 30, 2008

Many on this site do not truly know the American public, nor understand American politics.

You are quite correct!
And we welcome your insights into the debate as it affects us all.

Your voting and your tax systems are so complex!
I appreciate our simple ways, e.g. we pay rates (housing tax) to our local government only.
You guys also pay to your state and federal governments.
Your income tax is lower but the plethora of additional taxes is crippling!

You obviously will vote for McCain... but:

McCain and Obama on Tax Reform

http://www.businessweek.com/investo...10.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_top+story

McCain's tax cuts would help those with very high incomes;
Obama would offer breaks to low- and middle-income earners and increase the burden on the rich.

Hardly anyone disagrees with this statement: The nation's tax system is a mess. The U.S. tax code is riddled with far too many deductions, credits, exemptions, exclusions, phase-ins, and phase-outs.

• 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 aftertax 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 whose taxes fall would, on average, see their aftertax income rise much less.

• 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 distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.

McCain vs Obama on taxes
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/mccain_vs_obama_on_taxes.html

In order to substantiate its claim that large numbers of ordinary Americans will be worse off under the Democrats, the McCain camp points to an Obama proposal to raise tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Obama advisers argue that any tax increases will be offset by credits for lower-income families.

The claim that Obama will "enact" the largest tax increase since World War II is also overblown. The Bush tax cuts will expire automatically at the end of 2010, so it is hardly a question of "enacting" a new tax increase. According to Obama's new economics adviser, Jason Furman, the revenues raised from letting the tax cuts expire will be returned to middle and low-income tax payers in the form of tax credits to pay for health insurance, so the overall effect will be revenue neutral.

They also point out that most middle and low-income families invest in the market through 401 (k) plans that are exempt from capital gains taxes.

No doubt you are living up to your namesake at this hour ZzzzDad, but don't you think that many people have been victims of scare tactics by McCain?

 

[ZzzzDad]

Re: Barack 2008!

Doris - thanks for your respectful reply. Just a few points about two things that you might like to think about. Low capital gains rates are a money maker for the federal government coffers. Barack Obama even made the astounding statement that even if raising the capital gains tax rate garners less money for the federal government, that he would still raise it out of fairness. Does that make any sense? That was probably one of his worst blunders ever. Bill Clinton, even though I'm no fan of his, at least understood that lowering capital gains rates was what helped balance the budget during the late 1990s. Raising the long term rates to 28% would also be unfair to the middle class, because their top rate in most cases is 28%. Many middle class Americans own stocks and other investments that qualify for capital gains.

Second point, as a father of 4 and quite middle class, the big lie is that George Bush cut taxes only for the wealthy. GWB isntituted tax cuts at every level. The biggest cut was a $1000 a child tax credit, not tax deduction. As a father of 4, this put an extra $4,000 per year back into our pockets. Additional cuts, like lowering the lower rates has meant about an additional $1,000 dollars. Believe me, that extra $5,000 a year has helped this middle class family of six very much.

The other point I'll make is that the Republican party is not the party of the wealthy as the media would like people to believe. It is primarily the party of the middle class, and families.

George Soros is one of those wealthy hedge fund directors that Obama mentions in your above example. In fact, Soros made the second most of any hedge fund managers last year - over 2 billion dollars. He has many ways of avoiding taxes, especially with his many off shore operations. 9 out of top 10 wealthiest Senators in the U.S. Senate are Democrats. In fact, you might be surprised to find out how many of the wealthiest people in America are Democrats - Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates are two examples.

Anyway, time for dinner. Talk to you later.

 

[2020hindsight]

Re: Barack 2008!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/19/2308566.htm?section=justin

McCain's offsider Phil Gramm claims US is only in "mental recession"

'Whiners' advisor resigns from McCain campaign
Posted 3 hours 22 minutes ago

Former US senator Phil Gramm says has resigned as co-chair of Republican White House hopeful John McCain's campaign after calling the United States a "nation of whiners".

"It is clear to me that Democrats want to attack me rather than debate Senator McCain on important economic issues facing the country," Mr Gramm said in a statement.

"That kind of distraction hurts not only Senator McCain's ability to present concrete programs to deal with the country's problems, it hurts the country.

"To end this distraction and get on with the real debate, I hereby step down as co-chair of the McCain campaign and join the growing number of rank-and-file McCain supporters."

Mr Gramm, a former senator from Texas, ignited the furore with an interview in the Washington Times newspaper earlier this month in which he said the United States still had a dominant economy, despite widespread fears of a recession.

"You've heard of mental depression, this is a mental recession," he said.

"We may have a recession, we haven't had one yet. We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."

At the time, Senator McCain disowned the remark by Mr Gramm, who advised him on economic issues, as the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama used it to portray Republicans as oblivious to struggles of Americans faced with rising food and gasoline prices.

 

[2020hindsight]

Re: Barack 2008!

Doris, -
sorry but I couldn't resist -
heck if you can laugh at yourself, you're miles ahead of the other mob

best movie line ever

 

[Doris]

Re: Barack 2008!

Doris, -
sorry but I couldn't resist -
heck if you can laugh at yourself, you're miles ahead of the other mob

best movie line ever

That unexpected line made me break up! 10/10 2020!

So now Barack is in Afghanistan after a stopover in Kuwait to see troops.

He's to visit Iraq next. Whatever happened to his secret schedule for security?

One learns more when one listens:

"I'm looking forward to seeing what the situation on the ground is,'' Obama said yesterday in Washington before boarding his flight. "I want to, obviously, talk to the commanders and get a sense, both in Afghanistan and in Baghdad of what their biggest concerns are. I'm more interested in listening than doing a lot of talking.''

It seems he's a popular fella here:

Afghans who follow U.S. politics support Obama more than McCain because the Democrat has put emphasis on Afghanistan from the start of the presidential campaign, according to Moshtaq Ahmad Qadari, an official at Herat University in western Afghanistan who said he saw reports of both candidates' speeches.

Saad Mohseni, director of the Moby Media Group, Afghanistan's largest multi- media conglomerate said today:

He has been in contact with both presidential campaigns and has been impressed by the number of South Asia experts on Obama's foreign policy team compared with McCain's.

Afghans appreciate that Obama has been very critical of their government because they are very frustrated right now, but they were particularly impressed that very early in the campaign he was very harsh with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, which drew a rebuke from Musharraf.

Obama said last August that he would be open to ordering U.S. military strikes into Pakistan against al-Qaeda.

McCain has been critical of the Afghan government too, but Afghans are concerned that he has been very close to Pakistan's military in the past.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAUkmJGVuiKQ&refer=home

 

[Doris]

Re: Barack 2008!

Barack Obama even made the astounding statement that even if raising the capital gains tax rate garners less money for the federal government, that he would still raise it out of fairness. Does that make any sense? That was probably one of his worst blunders ever. Bill Clinton, even though I'm no fan of his, at least understood that lowering capital gains rates was what helped balance the budget during the late 1990s. Raising the long term rates to 28% would also be unfair to the middle class, because their top rate in most cases is 28%. Many middle class Americans own stocks and other investments that qualify for capital gains.

He's aiming at the over $1 million level for capital gains from what I've read.
Isn't it fairer that big earners are caught as they have dodging skills and usually pay less tax than their office staff?
Are you saying the exact details are out now?

I'd be happy to pay 28% capital gains tax! Here it's at your threshold tax level. This is reduced by half for stock held over a year. But then I'm also happy not having to pay the other complex taxes you have!

So how does investing in the market through 401 (k) plans, that are exempt from capital gains taxes, work?

Second point, as a father of 4 and quite middle class, the big lie is that George Bush cut taxes only for the wealthy. GWB instituted tax cuts at every level. The biggest cut was a $1000 a child tax credit, not tax deduction. As a father of 4, this put an extra $4,000 per year back into our pockets. Additional cuts, like lowering the lower rates has meant about an additional $1,000 dollars. Believe me, that extra $5,000 a year has helped this middle class family of six very much.

Yes. We call that a tax rebate. The amount is returned, not taken off assessable income.
Are you saying Obama intends to cancel this?

You would welcome his policy on making changes to the 'no child left behind' farce that makes schools 'dumb down' their students by teaching for the tests? And funding college support?

The other point I'll make is that the Republican party is not the party of the wealthy as the media would like people to believe. It is primarily the party of the middle class, and families.

George Soros is one of those wealthy hedge fund directors that Obama mentions in your above example. In fact, Soros made the second most of any hedge fund managers last year - over 2 billion dollars. He has many ways of avoiding taxes, especially with his many off shore operations. 9 out of top 10 wealthiest Senators in the U.S. Senate are Democrats. In fact, you might be surprised to find out how many of the wealthiest people in America are Democrats - Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates are two examples.

So it would seem that Soros would be one of Obama's targets... especially businesses that send jobs offshore?
... or do you just mean offshore via a tax haven?

Perhaps people who have made themselves a fortune in the real world are those best to be elected and pass on their expertise? They surely would not be there for the money if they are wealthy?

Buffet and Gates are also philanthropists. Obviously there is no line drawn dividing the rich into one particular party but it sure seems as though the lobbyists and PACs have prospered from their investment in GWB.

But what is Obama pushing for that you feel is the direction needed?

 

[Doris]

Re: Barack 2008!

I have to say I've enjoyed the 'mature' campaign now that the nastiness left with Hillary.
McCain's comments like: 'He's done well for his age and lack of experience' are sarcastic but relatively altruistic.

But now his integrity has degenerated into mischief making IMO.

"I'm more interested in listening than doing a lot of talking," Obama told reporters before leaving Washington for a trip cloaked in secrecy because of security concerns. "And I think it is very important to recognize that I'm going over there as a U.S. senator. We have one president at a time."

MCain, whose campaign spokeswoman suggested that Obama was embarking on a "campaign rally overseas," said his rival was not going to Afghanistan and Iraq with an open mind. "Apparently," McCain said in his radio address, "he's confident enough that he won't find any facts that might change his opinion or alter his strategy. Remarkable."

At least the White House is still (accidentally) altruistic towards Obama:

The White House also made clear Saturday that it was monitoring Obama's travels; it accidentally sent e-mail to a broad list of reporters with the news report that the Iraqi prime minister supported Obama's proposed 16-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/20/america/20obama.php

 

[Doris]

Re: Barack 2008!

Barack in Berlin

This has been anticipated by the press to be an historic speech.
Video and the transcript. Watch or read or read as you watch:

________________________________________
From: David Plouffe, BarackObama.com [mailto:info@barackobama.com]
Sent: Friday, 25 July 2008 10:04 AM
To: Doris *******
Subject: VIDEO: Barack in Berlin


Dear Doris --

As you may have heard, Barack has been in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia this week.

Today, he spoke in Berlin, Germany.

In a city where a wall once divided the free from the oppressed, he talked about tearing down the walls that divide all peoples so we can address our common problems -- the threats of terrorism and nuclear weapons, global warming and genocide, AIDS and poverty.

Watch Barack's historic speech and share it with your friends:


http://my.barackobama.com/berlinvideo

Please forward this email to your friends, family, and colleagues.

Thanks,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America


Paid for by Obama for America
This email was sent to: doris.*******@bigpond.com

 

[2020hindsight]

Re: Barack 2008!

And continue to tighten further..
President:-
Obama 2/5 = $1.40 (in from $1.50 above)
McCain 2/1 = $3.00 (out from $2.65 above)

Winning Party :-
Democrats also 2/5 = $1.40 (in from $1.45 above)
GOP still 2/1 = $3.00

Doris, Big decision / gamble to do that talk in Berlin, yes? - still he seems to be able to get away with it. (another first for a mere candidate).

McCain made a pretty politically clever speech to Vets this morning. "He was right with the surge, etc" - I would have thought he would have caught up a whisker, especially as the press keeps sayings it's close. Yet the gap between Barack and McCain ( Barack as favourite) keeps widening with the bookies .

http://www.easyodds.com/compareodds/specials/Politics/m/51363-234-3.html
President:-
Obama 4/11 = $1.36 (in from $1.40 - which was in from $1.50)
McCain 5/2 = $3.50 (out from $3.00 - which was out from $2.65)

You'd have to assume that will get much closer before November.
But having said that only a rich man could afford to bet against Obama surely.

http://www.easyodds.com/compareodds/specials/Politics/m/110924-234-3.html
PS Winning Party :-
Democrats still at 2/5 = $1.40 (unchanged)
GOP now 5/2 = $3.50 (out frrom $3.00 above)

Barack's most likely running mate keeps changing lol.
Evan Bayh now favourite. - yet more reading up to do.

 

[wayneL]

Re: Barack 2008!

Comment in the Telegraph re the Berlin speech

Obama’s Kinnock moment in Berlin

On my visits to America this year for their elections I have been impressed by the rhetorical skills of Barack Obama only slightly less than I have been impressed by his ability to talk complete flannel in his handsomely crafted speeches.

His whistlestop tour of the Middle East and Europe has only reinforced my view that he is nothing more than a charismatic charlatan who would be gravely out of his depth if elected leader of the free world.

His speech in Berlin on Thursday was atrocious in its cynicism – he didn’t even offer a German translation for his audience – and mindless in its content. America loves its rock stars and film stars, and now seems to want to have one for a head of state.

It is rather a shame that we might have to endure the consequences, too. In its posturing and complacency, Berlin could be to Mr Obama what the Sheffield rally of 1992 was to Neil Kinnock.