<p>He will make the country go broke 5x faster than McCain</p>
<p>2008</a> Presidential Candidate Spending Analyses</p>
<p>Thumbs Up.</p>
<p>That's actually not true. According to the Brookings Institution, one of the most well-respected (and politically neutral) public policy organizations in the country, Obama's economic policies would raise the deficit up $3.8 trillion by 2018 while McCain's would raise it by $5 trillion on the same period. Neither help to reduce it, sadly, but McCain's policies are twice as bad and provide way less benefits to citizens.</p>
<p>Proof?</p>
<p>your word means jack ****.</p>
<p>Er... what? What do you want proof of? That the Brookings Institute said it? Here you go: <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411741_updated_candidates.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411741_updated_candidates.pdf</a> (the Tax Policy Center is part of the Brookings Institute). I didn't think you'd want a 58 page PDF, so I figured I'd summarize it for you, but there you go. :)</p>
<p>The Brookings is considered LIberal my many news organizations.</p>
<p>I skimmed it and it looks like McCain is cheaper, il read the full thing tomorrow. Im a bit hesitant thogh.</p>
<p>Brookings is sometimes called liberal, sometimes left-leaning, but usually it is described as centrist. It is, in my opinion, a tad ridiculous to call it liberal when it's research director is a member of the Hoover Institution and the board of trustees includes the chief of staff to Ronald Reagan.</p>
<p>The Anbar awakening happened because of the surge!</p>
<p>The surge was a change in military strategy. We went from just trying to kill the insurgents, to protecting the Iraqi civilian population. </p>
<p>Additional troops were necessary to deploy into populated areas, to protect the civilians. [Rather than going to an area killing the insurgents and leaving, we now stay to protect the population. It takes more troops to protect wide geographic areas.] Because the civilians and tribal Sheiks were protected, they felt "safe" turning on Al Quida. </p>
<p>US and Iraqi deaths have fallen almost 90% from their peaks since the surge began.</p>
<p>15 of the 18 political benchmarks have been met. </p>
<p>Even on some of the benchmarks that haven't been met there has been unmeasured progess.</p>
<p>The press has been extremely biased against reporting success in Iraq. </p>
<p>For instance of the key benchmarks is a law to divide up old revenues about the different ethnic and religious groups and provinces they live in. The Democrats and the press keep saying this benchmark hasn't been passed, which technically is true. </p>
<p>A law hasn't been passed mandating how revenues should be divided. But the Iraqi parliment has passed budgets dividing up revenues for each of the last few years in ways agreeable to all parties. So the revenues are being divided fairly, which is the intent of the law. But demogogic critics just keep saying there is no oil law. </p>
<p>The surge, which is short hand for a change in military strategy designed to protect Iraqi civilians has been a smashing success!!</p>
<p>Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.</p>
<p>Obama's policies will hurt the US economy.</p>
<p>Obama wants large tax increases on what he calls the rich. </p>
<p>Another name for those people is entrepreneurs and investors. </p>
<p>Those are the people whose investments make the economy grow. </p>
<p>Obama's tax policies will bring us back to the days of Jimmy Carter, with low growth and high inflation. </p>
<p>If you look back in history, the US economy has had tremendous growth since the early 1980's with the Reagan tax cuts. There have been a couple of mild recessions since then. The key to the tax cuts was lower taxes on those who invest, which resulted in economic growth. </p>
<p>Obama's policies will undo the Reagan tax cuts and push us back to miserable 70's </p>
<p>There will be alot more discussion about this in the press as we approach the election.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Anbar awakening happened because of the surge!
[/quote]
Now you're having the same problem McCain had, who said the same thing. That is simply not true. The Anbar awakening started in 2005, while the Iraq troop surge started in 2007.</p>
<p>1) He is a great compromiser, he works well with others and makes agreements</p>
<p>Yep, he "compromised" on FISA, school vouchers, Iraq, oil, campaign finance reform LOL</p>
<p>2) He wants to help americans get healthcare</p>
<p>Yeah, and mean old McCain doesn't LOL</p>
<p>3) He didnt vote for the iraq war</p>
<p>Of course, he didn't even have the chance!</p>
<p>YouTube</a> - Obama Not Sure What Iraq Vote Would Have Been</p>
<p>LOL</p>
<p>4) It's about time we got an african american in the white house to prove to the world we are not racist (espeically important after the bush administration)</p>
<p>LOL</p>
<p>5) He is scandal free, unlike virtually every other corrupt candidate we have. </p>
<p>Rezko, Alice Palmer tsk tsk</p>
<p>“Well, the first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act,”
- Barack Obama</p>
<p>Why I'll never support him.</p>
<p>Even a conservative would be for the Freedom of Choice Act.</p>
<p>The anbar awakening could not have happened if the sunni Sheiks who rebelled were not protected by US troops. </p>
<p>The surge is a misnomer. What really happened was the military changed strategy from "attack and leave".... allowing insurgents to return; to "clear and hold the population centers". </p>
<p>The additional US troops [they had been transferred from other "less violent" parts of Iraq] sent to some major cities in Anbar in 2006 & 2007 tried this counter insurgency strategy and it started working.</p>
<p>In the fall of 2007, upon seeing the success of the counter insurgency strategy of protecting Iraqi civilians, the Bush administration decided to try a similar strategy in Bagdad and broaden it in Anbar. But the US didn't have enough troops to hold all the "cleared" territory to protect Iraqi civilians. Thats where the so called "surge" troops come in. </p>
<p>While the US helped hold the territory cleared of insurgents, Iraqi armed forces continued to be trained. More than 35,000 additional Iraqi troops have been trained in the last year, allowing the Iraqi troops to replace the US "surge" troops.</p>
<p>Obama just can't admit he was wrong about the surge. He said it would fail. It would encourage additional violence because of the presence of US troops. </p>
<p>In fact Iraqi and US deaths are down almost 90% from peak surge levels. </p>
<p>Obama said communal conflict would rage in Bagdad and Anbar, the focus of the "surge". In fact there are almost NO interethnic killings in those two areas currently </p>
<p>Big showy bombings are carried out by Al Quaidi remnants and communal conflict continues in those areas where the new counter insurgency has fully taken affect. </p>
<p>Obama has shown poor judgement in Iraq since 2002 when he opposed the war. </p>
<p>In 2003, Obama said he position was similar to President Bushes. Obama did NOT forsee the insurgency. And Obama said the "Surge" would fail. </p>
<p>If we had followed Obamas stragey in 2007, all US troops would have left in March 2008. Iraq was heading towards civil war before the surge. </p>
<p>If full scale civil war had broken out, Iran would have backed the Shiites, Saud Arabia, Jordan etc backed the Sunnis, and Turkey would have been fighting the Kurds, where there is a large restive Kurdish minority. </p>
<p>Hundreds of thousands of civilians would have been killed in the continuance of ethnic cleansing as each ethnic group tried to create borders for its enclave to its liking. </p>
<p>It was a recipe for regional conflict, in a region that supplies most of the worlds oil.</p>
<p>If regional war broke out, rather than $4 per gallon gasoline caused by demand in China & India, we would have seen $12 per gallon gasoline and possibly a depression caused to oil import bills the world couldn't afford. </p>
<p>The US and the west probably would have send troops back into the region again to prevent disaster. </p>
<p>By the way McCain, was advocating the type of counter insurgency strategy we used in 2004 & 2005. </p>
<p>McCain fought the Bush administration and Rumsfeld and said their policies of "clearing and leaving" was a disaster. Civilians were turning to militias to protect them, because the US wouldn't protect them, and the Iraq military didn't have the capabilities at that time. </p>
<p>The most tragic part of Obama evens says in "retrospect" the he would not NOW support the surge. </p>
<p>We don't need a president would can't recognize the truth when it is staring him in the face.</p>
<p>"""""McCain fought the Bush administration and Rumsfeld and said their policies of "clearing and leaving" was a disaster. Civilians were turning to militias to protect them, because the US wouldn't protect them, and the Iraq military didn't have the capabilities at that time.""""</p>
<p>This is exactly the kind of president that we need, one that will defy his party and one that will use true judgment rather than the pomposity of the Bush administration :)</p>
<p>Barack Obama might be a good president some day. </p>
<p>But with three years of experience in national politics, he is the most under qualified candidate of a major US political party in this century. </p>
<p>You might say, years in national politics don't matter, its what he's accomplished. </p>
<p>But I defy anyone on this board to name one piece of national legislation of national importance that Barack pushed through. There hasn't been any. </p>
<p>Barack is a charismatic speaker, very bright and clever politically. </p>
<p>Someday he might make a good candidate for the Democrats. But for Barack to be a good candidate for the American people he should have another one or two terms in the Senate and actually do, what he says he would do as president. </p>
<p>Get bipartison legislation pasted to help solve problems for the American people.</p>
<p>It would also make Barack a better president, to have had executive experience. The last two president's we have had who only had Senate experience were in the 60's. Most have had experience as Governor. The Presidentcy is more like a Governorship that a legislative position. </p>
<p>So there you have it. Barack isn't ready for the Presidency now but might be some day.</p>
<p>Who disagrees?</p>
<p>I honestly don't really know what schools are teaching these days or if they are even viable. Obama went to some **** hole for 2 years then Columbia, then later in 1988 he went to Harvard law. Pretty impressive I guess.</p>
<p>Now I certainly haven't gone to these schools, everything i know or use in politics I am self educated about and on, which I think is the best way to do things because from my experience most Poly Sci majors know less about the poly than Joe 6 pack. Ive taken a few classes in both poly sci and Economics and while economics is truthful. Poly Sci is just left wing preaching ********. Ive even out debated in class a professor in front of 250 students on the topic of if socialism is even viable. This guy had a phd.</p>
<p>What I am trying to say is that he honestly cant be that smart(Obama) if he thinks socialism can work or is good. To me either that person was taught wrong or they are crazy.</p>
<p>ok thanks.</p>
<p>Part2 my real opinion.</p>
<p>Obama is a fraud and is a puppet.</p>
<p>If Obama was a Maverick like JFK which he is usually referred to, and not a puppet to a higher power for a reason that doesn't concern the well being of the American people. He would try to Abolish the Federal Reserve like JFK did with Executive order 111110. We are currently making our dollar weak because we cant pay the interest to the federal reserve for the loan of our currency as well as all of the money we have to borrow(which we need to borrow due to the interest we pay to the fed and the things we cant afford due to the same reason). </p>
<p>If Obama really cared about the American people he would try to get rid of the Fed and get back the 35+ Million we pay the fed in interest every hour of every day which is increasing btw. Our Federal tax money does not go to all the social programs and stuff that we think it does, no the majority of our Federal income tax goes directly to pay the interest to the Fed. Sadly. </p>
<p>JFK got assassinated because of it, does Obama have the balls? Nope hes a flat out pussy who has already been compromised. Obama's interests are those that will benifit a higher power.</p>
<p>That's how you know he is not the best option because he doesn't have the true best interest at heart for the citizens of America and that's why you shouldn't vote for him. But McCain is not any better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What I am trying to say is that he honestly cant be that smart(Obama) if he thinks socialism can work or is good.
[/quote]
Yeah, completely ignored all the working countries who have implemented varying degrees of socialism to great effect (Western Europe).</p>
<p>They still have markets. Take a Class at any school on Economic sicialism, the end of the books and the class all end in.</p>
<p>Socialism will always fail unless a element of capitalism is alive. Which then makes it centrist between capitalism and socialism and well no longer socialism. If you cant price capital goods, then you cant sustain a economy, its that simple. The further you move way from capitalistic ideas the harder it is to price capital goods and the closer you get to failure. Even CHina has needed varying degrees of capitalism to stay alive, where as the SU had none and where is it today? </p>
<p>Capitalism-------------Z----X---------------------Socialism----------------------------------------------Communism</p>
<p>The X is European countries who implement socialist policys.. I didnt count the dashes, its dead center, assume. Its also America, BUt we can say America would be the Z</p>
<p>That doesn't mean they haven't instituted "varying degrees of socialism." Socialism isn't a complete elimination of the free market, that role goes to communism.</p>
<p>EDIT: I'm going to keep that above for record's sake since you edited your post after I wrote that...</p>
<p>You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Socialism is a complete elimination of the free market. On the contrary, communism is a complete elimination of the free market. Socialism is less well-defined and can very easily contain elements of capitalism in it, hence why it is generally placed between Communism and Capitalism on economic scales (as you yourself just showed). Further, most of the European countries who have implemented varying degrees of socialism are further towards Socialism than you have there (though I applaud your placement of America, it's about dead on what I learned in my economics classes).</p>
<p>But then its not socialism its a variation of centrism.</p>
<p>If we were at Socialism then the government owns the means of production, they have central planners who decide and trade for capital goods internally.</p>
<p>If you are talking about Market socialism, then again that is not a pure centered socialism between capitalism and communism, but again a more centrist idea maybe leaning more towards pure socialism in between capitalism and socialism. Oskar Lange was a big economist who was a socialism, but realized the downfalls of no markets. So he worked on Market socialism which his views were still f'ed up</p>
<p>my point is that even today when the US govt puts a foot in, on a sector like health care or agriculture, it makes the market less viable and too much regulation leads to control like we discussed before. Control by a central object thus goverment is in essance and this socialist ideals. </p>
<p>America is not Capitalist, we are like I said the Y, centrist leaning capitalist. But the further we go over, the more problems we have. One we go far eneogh things seem better and then worse and then better and then worse and so on, its like a wave.</p>