Obama’s Spare Change
May 21st, 2008 at 06:38am Mark Noonan
Lets look at his litany of promises:
Change is a tax code that rewards work instead of wealth by cutting taxes for middle-class families, and senior citizens, and struggling homeowners; a tax code that rewards businesses that create good jobs here in America instead of the corporations that ship them overseas. That’s what change is.
If Obama could please define “work”, “wealth” and “middle class”, it would be very helpful - after all, we’re still waiting for Bill Clinton’s middle class tax cut, and I’d hate to have to wait another 16 years and still wind up disappointed. We’ll also need a definition of “good jobs” and “struggling homeowners”…is being a credit underwriter a good job? How about a high school janitor? What about a drywall person? Is landscaping a bad job? Manager of a fast food joint? Is a “struggling homeowner” someone who lost their job and is having trouble making the mortgage, or someone who bought a house on speculation hoping to make a quick buck and now finds himself upside down? The Devil is always in the details…
Change is a health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants; that brings down premiums for every family who needs it; that stops insurance companies from discriminating and denying coverage to those who need it most.
Guarantees for every American who wants it? Who wouldn’t want it if its guaranteed and you can’t be denied when you “need it most”? And what, pray tell, is the definition of “need it most”? Boiled down, for all of Obama’s statements about not having socialised medicine, there’s really no other definition for what he promises here.
Change is an energy policy that doesn’t rely on buddying up to the Saudi Royal Family and then begging them for oil - an energy policy that puts a price on pollution and makes the oil companies invest their record profits in clean, renewable sources of energy that will create five million new jobs and leave our children a safer planet. That’s what change is.
Once again, some definitions would be handy - what is “clean and renewable”? Are we about to be taken for a ride here? Is Obama going to tax the oil companies out of profitability in order to subsidise various crackpot energy schemes which will enrich various leftwing special interests who have, after all, donated a lot of money to Obama’s campaign? What, also, is a “price on pollution”? What price? What pollution? How much?
Change is giving every child a world-class education by recruiting an army of new teachers with better pay and more support; by promising four years of tuition to any American willing to serve their community and their country; by realizing that the best education starts with parents who turn off the TV, and take away the video games, and read to our children once in awhile.
Since when is it the government’s business to hector parents about how they shall raise their children? As I’ve said before, liberals have a very large problem grasping “none of your darned business”, as a concept. Senator, if a parent is allowing their kid to lay on the couch all day eating potato chips and playing video games, its none of your business; you don’t get to decide what is best for other people’s children - and we don’t need a nag in the White House. Meanwhile, whence will come this “army of new teachers”? You gonna draft ‘em? How will throwing more money at public education make it better when we’ve vastly increased spending on same over the past 40 years and are worse off now than when we started?
Change is ending a war that we never should’ve started and finishing a war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that we never should’ve ignored. Change is facing the threats of the twenty-first century not with bluster, or fear-mongering, or tough talk, but with tough diplomacy, and strong alliances, and confidence in the ideals that have made this nation the last, best hope of Earth. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy.
Ah, “end” the war - but, Senator, wars don’t “end” - they are won, or they are lost. Do you wish us to win, or to lose? I do hope that at some time between now and November you get asked that question. Also, why insult our troops and allies who have been fighting a magnificent campaign in Afghanistan and keeping the Taliban on the run? Why mendaciously claim we’ve been ignoring Afghanistan when we’ve got 34,000 troops in country, plus a large contingent of NATO troops, and Afghan troops fighting shoulder to shoulder with us? Additionally, what is “bluster” other than a pledge to be tough on Iran after withdrawing US troops from Iraq and making it clear that we won’t use force against the Iranian regime?
All in all, a completely worthless set of pie-in-the-sky liberalism fit for a 6th grader’s social studies report, or the wish of a beauty pageant contestant…but not the stuff anyone who has an ounce of Presidential mettle would ever entertain.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Corruption, Democrats, War on Terror
23 Comments
1. bongoman | May 21st, 2008 at 7:27 am
How do you win a war where the vast bulk of fighting and violence is not actually against your enemy?
2% of the violence in Iraq is AQ related - the rest is sunni vs shia that we are caught in the middle of.
2. Bigfoot | May 21st, 2008 at 9:53 am
a tax code that rewards businesses that create good jobs here in America instead of the corporations that ship them overseas.
Want corporations to keep jobs here? Two suggestions:
Lower the U.S. corporate income tax, which is currently one of the highest in the world.
Permit more domestic and/or offshore oil drilling. The jobs will have to be where the drilling is.
Change is an energy policy that doesn’t rely on buddying up to the Saudi Royal Family and then begging them for oil
I agree, Senator. See my above suggestion about domestic and offshore oil drilling.
finishing a war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that we never should’ve ignored.
Senator, what about Al Qaeda in Pakistan?
ending a war that we never should’ve started
A unilateral pullout while our enemies are still attacking our allies (the government of Iraq) and innocent civilians does NOT end a war.
We pulled out of Vietnam in 1973, and cut off aid to South Vietnam in 1974. After doing so, the war resumed, finishing with a communist victory. Do you want the war to end THAT way, by abandoning our allies and allowing terrorists take over Iraq, Senator?
We pulled out of Lebanon in 1983. The violence there continued afterwards.
We pulled out of Somalia in 1993. The violence there still continues.
Pulling out does NOT end wars, Senator (but Mark has explained that already).
or tough talk, but with tough diplomacy
Doesn’t diplomacy involve talking? Hmmm, let’s not have tough talk, but let’s be tough when we talk.
or fear-mongering
What is fear-mongering, Senator Obama? Is recognizing the nature of a threat fear-mongering? Recognizing the threats from Al Qaeda and Iran is not fear-mongering, Senator. It’s facing reality.
3. OhioOrrin | May 21st, 2008 at 10:12 am
I’m weary of political leadership being defined as that which is perceived thru oratory skills.
speech writers are NOT leaders.
neither are speech READERS.
it appears hillary is correct.
to vote 4 ear bama is to vote 4 a speech.
sorry, but it takes considerably more, to me, to be qualified 4 President than one’s speaking skills and skin color.
ferraro was correct.
4. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 21st, 2008 at 10:16 am
3. OhioOrrin | May 21st, 2008 at 10:12 am
Did you ever vote for Reagan? Do you really think her wrote his own speeches?
5. Doug | May 21st, 2008 at 10:26 am
Uh, Reagan had substance. Sure there were some great speeches written for him, but speeches alone didn’t destroy the Soviet Union, speeches alone didn’t rid us of that pesky 10% inflation and unemployment rate. It wasn’t speeches that cut taxes practically in half thereby increasing the amount of money the govt. took in.
I ask you, what will you expect to be the outcome of a Presidency WON by speechwriters? Inflation and unemployment back up to 10%, a Muslim empire proliferated with nuclear weapons in every radical mosque in the Middle East, a tripling of tax-rates on investment income putting us in an FDR depression causing situation where the job-makers don’t have the capital to create jobs?
6. Dream Catcher | May 21st, 2008 at 10:36 am
The choice in November is clear. We can “Change” and try new approaches to problems we face as a nation or continue the stale McCain/Bush/Cheney/Boehner/McConnell approach; an approach long on incompetence and short on substance.
A typical con mantra is let business regulate themselves; they will do the right thing. As the number of war profiteers climb, big oil records record profits and middle class Americans see their homes up for foreclosure, I think America has had enough of the Reagan/Newt trickle down experiment. Based on the results of the three special elections in formerly Con strongholds, I am just about certain.
7. hermie | May 21st, 2008 at 10:51 am
What does Obama know about Afghanistan?
He chairs a Senate committee on it and he has never held a meeting. Obviously, he considers Afghanistan less important than going on Oprah and hawking his books, or smoozing San Francisco liberals.
8. hermie | May 21st, 2008 at 10:55 am
New approaches… Obama joined the Dems in claiming that Social Security was solvent and that reform wasn’t necessary…Now he wants to raise taxes to pay for the newly-discovered crisis, while using the tried and true Dem tactic of fear-mongering when speaking to seniors.
Not so much of a ‘new approach’, except to cloak it in ‘Hope and Change’ banners.
9. Dream Catcher | May 21st, 2008 at 11:08 am
8. hermie | May 21st, 2008 at 10:55 am
New approaches… Obama joined the Dems in claiming that Social Security was solvent
Herm, can you provide a link to this claim or is it just another swift-boating smoke and mirrors?
10. OhioOrrin | May 21st, 2008 at 11:13 am
actually Cav, Reagan may have penned his (in)famous takeoff of Kennedy’s line when Reagan stood by the Berlin wall & said that he was a “doughnut”.
“Ich bin ein berliner”
almost as good as Bush Sr blowing chunks on the Japanese PM.
back to obama - no experience - period.
oratory skills are NOT leadership.
11. Danish Artist | May 21st, 2008 at 11:55 am
Ahhhh, the price of “change”….
One of the primary reasons people cite for their lack of health insurance is the inability to pay premiums. Yet, New Jersey’s highly regulated health insurance market makes private coverage more expensive. Two insurance regulations that drive up costs in the state are guaranteed issue and community rating.
A 2005 study by the Commonwealth Fund illustrates how insurance rates for young people are far higher in states with guaranteed issue and community rating than in states that do not have them. For instance:
A healthy 25-year-old male could purchase a policy for $960 a year in Kentucky but would pay about $5,880 in New Jersey.
A similar policy, available for about $1,548 in Kansas, costs $5,172 in New York.
A policy priced at $1,692 in Iowa costs $2,664 in Washington and $4,032 in Massachusetts.
Problems (caused by, yet again, liberals: Mandates and regulations.
Their solutions - more regulations.
Liberals and their self-made problems and their “solutions”, which will cause more problems. Proposed by whom, a rookie senator with practically little experience and no leadership ability - just regurgitates the same plans that have been attempted before and failed.
12. Danish Artist | May 21st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
And for the liberals who like polls (as long as they agree with them):
A recent Rasmussen poll shows that 62% of voters would prefer FEWER government services with LOWER taxes.
Wherein the hell are these 62% of the people in this election? All that I’ve heard is, “I want change I can believe in. I want my mommy. I want a government who will solve my problems. That’s not my responsibility, that’s the government’s job.”
If this really is the “I want my mommy election” then are 62% of the people fed up with the Barack Obama campaign and the promises for bigger government, higher taxes and change you can believe in? Absolutely not. These people must have voted for less government and lower taxes because it sounds good. But then when Barack “The Messiah” Obama gets up and starts promising universal healthcare and higher taxes on the evil rich, everyone cheers and faints at his feet.
Obama’s (and Hillary’s) America is an America of big government. This is the America of “what has the government done for me today.”
The recent Republicans fell into that trap as well. They started acting like Obama and his fellow liberals, using the power of government to maintian their power. Well they learned from the best. But they still tried to keep taxes down, while liberals at all levels try to find new ways to seperate us from our money.
I would like to think – and in fact used to think — that most Americans are truly Libertarian at heart. But then when you dangle in front of them these fancy entitlement programs and wealth envy rhetoric, they are like fat kids at McDonalds … you can’t resist temptation, because it all looks so darn good.
13. Tractatus | May 21st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
The Devil is always in the details…
Indeed it is. Yet you praise John McCain for giving a speech that is basically just several paragraphs of wishful thinking with no indication of how any of it will be accomplished.
So…are details important or aren’t they, Noonan? You can’t have it both ways. Though you sure will try to.
As I’ve said before, liberals have a very large problem grasping “none of your darned business”, as a concept.
Coming from you, this is priceless.
14. David B. Schmidt | May 21st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Are the “windfall taxes” only for the oil companies? Because, for example, Microsoft’s profit margin is higher than the evil oil empire. Wonder if they will force Microsoft to a part with their profits? That should bring the market down in a crash and get thousands laid off.
According to one of Sen. Obama’s diatribes (certainly not a debate) — I am in the uber-rich category because I make over $75 K / year. I am pretty sure the middle class would be below that by some distance…maybe a combined $40 K for a family of four with two working adults?
15. Dream Catcher | May 21st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
14. David B. Schmidt | May 21st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Are the “windfall taxes” only for the oil companies? Because, for example, Microsoft’s profit margin is higher than the evil oil empire.
Dave, Dave, Dave; your naive and conservative defense of big oil should get you your very own oil slick. But seriously big oil must acquire rights to drill; for example on the North Shore for natural resources that belong to all Americans. In addition millions in government subsidies went in the building of the Alaskan pipeline. I don’t ever recall Bill Gates asking for corporate welfare.
16. David B. Schmidt | May 21st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Guess you never have heard of EULA or DCMA as two right off the top of my head for Microsoft. What about Walmart? Should I continue?
Transportation and the resources required are a national security issue–having the blue screen of death and hacked DoD (plus other government) servers because of crap the public isn’t allowed to look at should not be. Guess the free market isn’t all that free after all.
17. phnx | May 21st, 2008 at 5:13 pm
“Change is a tax code that rewards work instead of wealth by cutting taxes for middle-class families, and senior citizens, and struggling homeowners” B. Hussein Obama
Struggling homeowners like Congresswoman Laura Richardson (D, Ca) who walked away from her $587,000 no money down mortgage, leaving the bank with the tab plus an additional $40,000 unpaid.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/05/report-californ.html
According to he bio she was assigned to serve on the influential Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Committee on Science and Technology. Congresswoman Laura Richardson intends to focus on better utilization of nationwide funding for Federal programs.
It figures…only the Donkeys would assign a deadbeat to focus on better utilization of Federal Funds.
18. Tractatus | May 21st, 2008 at 6:21 pm
It figures…only the Donkeys would assign a deadbeat to focus on better utilization of Federal Funds.
So you’re saying that putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop is a bad idea? Are you sure that you should be making such an argument, seeing as how you’re a Bushie and all?
19. phnx | May 21st, 2008 at 11:07 pm
No Tractus, I’m saying only the political party whose symbol is an donkey (A**) would do that on purpose.
BTW: You apparently don’t understand the difference between elected office and appoitments to committees.
20. js | May 21st, 2008 at 11:24 pm
its funny
bama talks about change
like they did in the 06 elections
yet nothing changed back then
we only found out that the same people who back obama
lied to us about the changes they promised in the 06 elections
now chew on that….the tree is rotten with lies…how do we exect go get anything good from a rotten tree?
21. Willem van Oranje | May 21st, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Bush was supposed to have lots and lots of experience…
I rest my case
22. OhioOrrin | May 22nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
WvO - I take ur point. course ur point is dependent on how one perceives this Bush administration & that can be debated.
here’s what cannot be debated.
W had executive experience as gov.
ear bama has only 2 yrs federal & no executive experience.
skin color & oratory skills are not a suitable resume.
either ferraro was correct, or this guy is the manchurian candidate.
23. Tractatus | May 22nd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
No Tractus, I’m saying only the political party whose symbol is an donkey (A**) would do that on purpose.
Swing and a miss.
And I bet you don’t even realize why. I’ll leave you to try and figure it out.