Questions for Obama

Questions for Obama

Great article by George Will.

We definitely need answers to these questions.

thebeaver's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by thebeaver on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 8:05am.

Since none of the Obama minions that post regularly knew enough about their "candidate" to answer the questions, I have provided answers base on the substance of Barack's speeches...

• Voting against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, you said: Deciding "truly difficult cases" should involve "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." Is that not essentially how Chief Justice Roger Taney decided the Dred Scott case? Should other factors—say, the language of the constitutional or statutory provision at issue—matter?

Answer: Hope

• You say, "The insurance companies, the drug companies, they're not going to give up their profits easily when it comes to health care." Why should they? Who will profit from making those industries unprofitable? When pharmaceutical companies have given up their profits, who will fund pharmaceutical innovations, without which there will be much preventable suffering and death? What other industries should "give up their profits"?

Answer: Change

• ExxonMobil's 2007 profit of $40.6 billion annoys you. Do you know that its profit, relative to its revenue, was smaller than Microsoft's and many other corporations'? And that reducing ExxonMobil's profits will injure people who participate in mu-tual funds, index funds and pension funds that own 52 percent of the company?

Answer: Hope and Change

• You say John McCain is content to "watch [Americans'] home prices decline." So, government should prop up housing prices generally? How? Why? Were prices ideal before the bubble popped? How does a senator know ideal prices? Have you explained to young couples straining to buy their first house that declining prices are a misfortune?

Answer: Change you can believe in!

• Telling young people "don't go into corporate America," your wife, Michelle, urged them to become social workers or others in "the helping industry," not "the moneymaking industry." Given that the moneymakers pay for 100 percent of American jobs, in both public and private sectors, is it not helpful?

Answer: Yes we can!

• Michelle, who was born in 1964, says that most Americans' lives have "gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl." Since 1960, real per capita income has increased 143 percent, life expectancy has increased by seven years, infant mortality has declined 74 percent, deaths from heart disease have been halved, childhood leukemia has stopped being a death sentence, depression has become a treatable disease, air and water pollution have been drastically reduced, the number of women earning a bachelor's degree has more than doubled, the rate of homeownership has increased 10.2 percent, the size of the average American home has doubled, the percentage of homes with air conditioning has risen from 12 to 77, the portion of Americans who own shares of stock has quintupled … Has your wife perhaps missed some pertinent developments in this country that she calls "just downright mean"?

Answer: Hope

• You favor raising the capital gains tax rate to "20 percent or 25 percent." You say this will not "distort" economic decision making. Your tax returns on your 2007 income of $4.2 million show that you and Michelle own few stocks. Are you sure you understand how investors make decisions?

Answer: Change

• During the ABC debate, you acknowledged that when the capital gains rate was dropped first to 20 percent, then to 15 percent, government revenues from the tax increased and they declined in the 1980s when it was increased to 28 percent. Nevertheless, you said you would consider raising the rate "for purposes of fairness." How does decreasing the government's financial resources and punishing investors promote fairness? Are you aware that 20 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains in 2006 had incomes of less than $50,000?

Answer: Hope and Change

• You favor eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the 12.4 percent Social Security tax, which now covers only the first $102,000. A Chicago police officer married to a Chicago public-school teacher, each with 20 years on the job, have a household income of $147,501, so you would take another $5,642 from them. Are they undertaxed? Are they rich?

Answer: Change you can believe in!

• This November, electorates in four states will vote on essentially this language: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting." Three states—California, Washington and Michigan—have enacted such language. You made a radio ad opposing the Michigan initiative. Why? Are those states' voters racists?

Answer: Yes we can!

• You denounce President Bush for arrogance toward other nations. Yet you vow to use a metaphorical "hammer" to force revisions of trade agreements unless certain weaker nations adjust their labor, environmental and other domestic policies to suit you. Can you define cognitive dissonance?

Answer: Hope

• You want "to reduce money in politics." In February and March you raised $95 million. See prior question.

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

MajorMike's picture
Submitted by MajorMike on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 9:46am.

Yo Beav, I have to question your objectives here. Was it your intent to provide clarity when the obvious intent of the candidate was to provide ambiguity? Or.... was it your intent to provide a forum where all that "the usual suspects" could do was sputter and posture when faced with the obvious?

Just curious.

________________________________________________________________

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.


Submitted by thebeaver on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 10:55am.

I would really like answers to these questions, however I doubt that the lamestream media or anyone else will ever ask them.

Until then, it's fun to get DM's and Hack's blood pressure to go up.

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 10:08am.

"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental."

Major Mike, why do you think the Soviet Union's great big sword did not work in Afghanistan?
What do you suppose is taking our great big sword so long to form political reconsciliations (sp) in Iraq?

Could it be that sometimes a hammer is not the best tool for the job? like putting a fragile vase back together? Could it be that, at times, the pen is mightier than the sword? Some famous dead guy said that once.

Smiling


MajorMike's picture
Submitted by MajorMike on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 12:43pm.

Read it again Hack.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

I think the famous dead guy understood it real well. Ronald Reagan did too. The Soviets screwed up it Afganistan because thier political leadership understood little past the first three sentences. They sure didn't understand the mindset of the religious zealot. Our political leadership is not much better. Obama and Hillary - not a clue.

Oh, and Hack - Thank you for your service.

___________________________________________________________

John Steinbeck once said:

1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 5:17pm.

Abso freaking lutely correct!

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King
(anyone want two dogs???)


Submitted by Davids mom on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 8:46am.

Excellent explanation on why the rich are getting richer and the poor - poorer. As income improved - prices exceeded the rise in income. No matter how you parse it - when we go to the pumps or stand in the grocery line, it’s getting harder and harder to stay within a budget and eat! All Americans are going to have to tighten their belts to survive. We need leadership that provides strategies for this belt-tightening experience. Giving us money to go 'shopping' is not the answer. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure this out!

MajorMike's picture
Submitted by MajorMike on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 12:49pm.

Hope is not a leadership strategy, it's political doublespeak.

__________________________________________________________________

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.


Submitted by USArmybrat on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 9:15am.

How you managed to get "why the rich are getting richer and the poor- poorer from his post is just amazing! At least you are off that "deadhorse" of race even if it is another "deadhorse", class envy. I thought we got that "leadership" when Pelosi took over with her energy plan to bring down gas prices? One of the main reasons our food prices are going up so much is the idiotic laws we have on the use of ethanol in our gasoline. Seems to me that a certain earth guru(Algore) had a hand (a tie-breaking vote) in that coming to pass. I'm no rocket scientist but I figured that one out!

Silence Dogood's picture
Submitted by Silence Dogood on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 11:29am.

Remember - Poverty is behavioral disorder

The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that makes them rich.

Ditto for the poor.


Submitted by Davids mom on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 9:47am.

I'm no rocket scientist

We know - we know!

MajorMike's picture
Submitted by MajorMike on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 1:15pm.

David's Mom - Run out of "ammo" so soon?
____________________________________________________________

You can always tell when a liberal has lost the debate; they cease trying to wear you down with endless politically correct irrelevancies and resort to sarcasm, insult, and innuendo.”


Submitted by Davids mom on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 1:27pm.

You can always tell when a neo con has lost the debate; they cease trying to wear you down with endless irrelevancies and resort to sarcasm, insult, and innuendo.”

Let's see what happens in November. Nothing said here will change that outcome. Are you following the 'economic pundits'? It's a mess out there. Americans will vote their pocketbooks. It will be close - but Republicans are in trouble. No sarcasm, insults, or innuendos needed.

MajorMike's picture
Submitted by MajorMike on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 1:39pm.

David's Mom - Yep - out of "ammo".

Have you checked the Democratic congress's approval ratings lately? It is indeed a mess out there and Americans have pretty much always voted their pocketbooks.

______________________________________________________________

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.


Submitted by USArmybrat on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 12:36pm.

LOL--what a response to my post! So "typical" if I may use a favorite word of Obama's!

Submitted by thebeaver on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 9:09am.

What are you suggesting, DM, that the government set price controls on everyday items that we purchase?

Is more government the answer to everything for liberals?

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 5:19pm.

"What are you suggesting, DM, that the government set price controls on everyday items that we purchase?"

Yes, Beaver. We'll call it the Fair Tax.

Kevin "Hack" King
(anyone want two dogs???)


Submitted by Davids mom on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 9:52am.

Where did I make that suggestion? More government is not the answer - leadership with the interest of the people rather than the interest of business is the answer. Business can operate without needing the excessive payment to 'management' and ridiculous profit.

Submitted by thebeaver on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 10:51am.

Your wealth envy is showing with every comment.

Who decides what is "excessive" payment to management? That should be left to the people that own the company (stockholders).

"ridiculous profit" - No comment necessary on that one. It speaks for itself.

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

Submitted by Davids mom on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 10:57am.

. . aw come on - make a comment. Need more time?

Submitted by thebeaver on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 11:09am.

It's not that I need more time, I'm just afraid that you aren't smart enought to understand the difference between profit and profit margin, and I have neither the time nor the desire to explain them to you.

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

Submitted by thebeaver on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 11:47am.

If there ever was an article custom made for economically illiterate people that make judements based on feeling rather than reality, this is it.....

Too "Complex"?

"Some people think that the reason the public misunderstands so many issues is that these issues are too "complex" for most voters. But is that really so?"

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

Submitted by thebeaver on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 12:13pm.

DM,

I hope that you can understand this. If not, maybe Hack can explain it to you. He's very intelligent.

Gas Prices and the Blame Game

"With fill-ups routinely costing $60 or more, cost-conscious drivers naturally look for someone to blame. And just as naturally, politicians are happy to blame others.

Enter “Big Oil,” the demagogues’ favorite villain. Gas prices soaring? It’s because oil companies want “excess profits,” as Barack Obama puts it. Right?

Wrong. The truth is more complicated."

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 12:03pm.

holy cow, beav, everytime I click on one of your links it's to that conservative cyber-rag, Townhall! There are so many pop-ups that invade my screen, I fear I have to run a spyware scan to remove them all - what trash!

That link mentioned the only way to lower prices is with increased production - total economic garbage! We need a strong dollar, decreased market speculation, and stability in the Middle East.

Your link was retarded. Your posts are so FOX NEWS-ish, is that your goal? Give us some hardcore facts to create intelligent dialogue with each other..... sheeeesh!


Submitted by thebeaver on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 12:08pm.

If you don't like the message, don't read it. No one is forcing you to read my posts. Please, just ignore them and go back to your Liberal nirvana.

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

Submitted by thebeaver on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 7:07pm.

See post above....

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

Submitted by Davids mom on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 10:05am.

For the past eight years, reading only the 'conservative' view of an issue has not always led to the 'truth'. Broaden your research before pointing to the 'truth'. (If that’s not too complicated for you.)

Submitted by thebeaver on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 10:12am.

DM -

I know what the truth is, and I don't need someone like you to tell me to look elsewhere.

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

Submitted by Davids mom on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 10:28am.

Exactly, it's just too complicated for you to get another opinion. Stay 'safe'.

Submitted by thebeaver on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 10:36am.

No, DM, that's not what I said.

Put down the crack pipe and listen just this one time.

It is so simple, even a complete moron like yourself should understand it. The government has no business dictating salaries in private corporations. That's what free markets are for.

Now, if you had a job, would you like it if someone not affiliated with the company that you worked for dictated what your salary would be, without any regard to your contribution to the profit of that company?

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

MajorMike's picture
Submitted by MajorMike on Wed, 05/14/2008 - 11:47am.

I have wondered for a while just what it was that DM was smoking. I always assumed that all the California whack jobs preferred Mexican grown whacky weed, guess I was wrong. LOL

I really am amazed that DM can put her racist and socialist garbage into print in this venue and then accuse others in here of lying. She has to be on something!


Submitted by USArmybrat on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 8:16am.

An excellent answer to Obama's blind minions. The only thing is I doubt they'll ever open their eyes to actually see the truth in it.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 9:13am.

Beav, we didn't answer because you are boring us to tears with your tunnel vision. I'm only writing this so your dillusion of stumping "us" (whoever "us" is) are put into context. I don't know who's head will explode first; yours or BPRs.

Now, USarmybrat:

What, in your opinion, should Americans who don't like our current economic direction and want to see an end to IRaq occupation have to look forward to from the other presidential candidate, John McCain?

Kevin "Hack" King
(anyone want two dogs???)


Submitted by thebeaver on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 9:50am.

that the reason that you didn't answer these very pertinent questions was because you have no clue as to what the answer is.
Neither does Barack.

Trouble is, when you candidate has nothing to offer but empty platitudes in every speech, and when he has accomplished virtually nothing as a senator, then the best you can do is attack the person asking the questions.

We have come to expect nothing less from liberals.

For example, when McCain repeated a fact, that Hamas had endorsed Obama, then what was Barack's response? He attacked McCain, of course.

Barack is such a weak candidate, he can't even handle it when facts are thrown at him. How the heck does he expect to lead the USofA if he can't handle facts?

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 9:58am.

Barack brought up the absurd nature of judging a candidate by unsolicited comments, and John McCain responded with "is he calling me old?" How is a man so sensitive about dying on the job going to actually run the US of A? How can a man get so touchy about the word "bearings" when that word does not have a direct link to age?

How can a man who sought and received endorsement by men who feel:

1. "The U.S. was founded to destroy Islam"
2. God destroys cities because of tolerance for gay people.
3. People who don't work should not be able to eat:

How can that man then try to play politics with unsolicited comments from a member of Hamas; comments comparing Barack to a JFK type of uniter?

I love watching conservatives in the throws of death.Laughing out loud Very entertaining. BEAV: You told us Barack's campaign was sinking like the titanic! How can I believe anything you say to me? Smiling

Want me to play "stump the dummy " (no pun intended)

BONUS QUESTIONS:

1. Why did John McCain lie about not voting for George Bush?
2. Why did John McCain call his wife the "C" word?
3. Why did John McCain tell us "noone said Iraq would be easy" when we have tape after tape of John McCain saying " I think Iraq will be fairly easy?"

Kevin "Hack" King
(anyone want two dogs???)


Submitted by thebeaver on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 10:48am.

Ask a lib pertinent questions regarding the issues facing their candidate, and they have no answer.

All they can do is spout out irrelevant questions about the challenger.

Hack, was that boom that I heard in PTC from your head exploding?

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 5:21pm.

What a dynamic young lad you are. It's nice to finally get Rev. Wright behind us.

Kevin "Hack" King
(anyone want two dogs???)


Submitted by thebeaver on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 5:48pm.

Only your inane questions are irrelavant as a rebuttal to the issues questions that you have been asking for but now refuse to answer.

Barack's 20+ year association with the BLT, hate filled, racist, church and the "Reverend" Wright will be brought up over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over,
and over, and over until he answers why he joined and continues to belong to it.

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

Submitted by USArmybrat on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 9:40am.

McCain will, at the very least, do no worse than the "expand the involvement of government" guys. I can only hope for better. As for us ending our involvement in Iraq, I think you are just out of luck on that one. I think he realizes we have to have a foothold in that very volatile place, what with Iran and Syria. We have made some bad mistakes there, as in any war, but we have made progress,too. I agree with McCain, on the whole, in this area. If you don't, then you obviously don't have much to look forward to in his presidency on these two subjects.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 9:46am.

But if you even think we have the resources (human, financial, and equipment) to indefinitely fight to somehow hold a presence in a country that is at war with itself politically, you, I'm afraid, are in for not only disappointment, but even greater deficits. Do you ever wonder what caused the Soviet Union to collapse under its own weight? Thinking it could do all things militarily without regard to the will of the rest of this planet's occupants. I imagine that was quite humbling for that former super power; and they had conscripts!

As for this expansion of the executive's powers, and roll of government, I don't think conservatives have truly thought how they will feel when those powers are held by a "far left" president. I believe hindsight will be 20/20.

Kevin "Hack" King
(anyone want two dogs???)


carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 9:10am.

Submit questions, answer them yourself to your own satifaction, and then declare yourself undeniably correct. I learn so much from these postings.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.