PDA

View Full Version : White Independent Male Voters Key To Obama's Fate


Mr. Kotter
02-28-2008, 07:47 AM
Obama's chance for a victory in November rests in the hands of white independent middle-class men (who will no doubt, once again, be labeled "angry white men" or racists if they vote for McCain.)

It's a long, but very worthwhile read for anyone who really wants to understand this election.

Here's why...:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/white_men_seen_all_wrong.html

Kuhn is saying, basically, what I've been saying for years....yet hard-headed Democrats can't seem/don't want to believe....here's the key part of the article:


...In general terms -- no pun intended in Ike's case -- white men were an unusually low share of the Democratic vote in 1952. That year, Republicans nominated a centrist who was the hero of the Second World War. The result was humiliating for liberals. The GOP trounced Democrats by a striking double-digit margin.

The 1960 race is a far more accurate starting point. It was a narrow contest and prior to the modern paradigm shift -- between 1964 and 1972 -- that defines presidential politics to this day. Between 1960 and 2004, Democrats lost 12 percent of the non-Southern white men and 17 percent of white men in the South. For once and for all: the Democratic decline was not merely due to the "Southern Flip." Conventional wisdom is easily born and dies hard in presidential politics.


EDIT: I the moved the FULL text copy of the article to post #2 to eliminate the scrolling....

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2008, 08:39 AM
White Men Seen All Wrong
By David Paul Kuhn

Washington analysts are beginning to notice a curious fact of the Democratic race. In a primary contest between the first black or female nominee, white men are the critical swing vote. Yet despite white males still disproportionately representing us in politics, we still misunderstand them as voters.

There remains a chasm between our conception of the powerful executive and the reality of the everyman. Our culture continues to define the typical white man more for his vice than virtue. The perception of the "angry white male" has not left us. Many still remain apprehensive to discuss white men as a constituency. They are, after all, supposed to be the reason we have to focus on constituencies. Even many pundits who viscerally understand these men, like Chris Matthews, have recently misperceived what motivates this bloc's choice between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

This past weekend, on his weekly Sunday morning show, Matthews asked writer Gloria Borger: "Is there a resistance to an African-American candidate by white men? Is there resistance to Hillary?"

Borger replied: "...I think the answer is yes and yes."

The facts demonstrate otherwise. In the Democratic primary white men have been the most willing to shift between the two candidates.

In the two-dozen Democratic primary contests where delegates were at stake, and exit or entrance polls took place, Clinton lost Latinos twice and white women three times (all by narrow margins). Obama, meanwhile, has never lost blacks. It has only been white men who have consistently swung between Obama and Clinton.

White men have backed Obama in 10 contests, most recently in Wisconsin. They supported Clinton in 12. More importantly for Obama, the momentum is with him.

Obama has won white men in the past three primary races. Yet his strength with white men did not wholly follow John Edwards exit from the race. Obama won the most white men in New Hampshire and Iowa. Nationally, however, Clinton was still holding a steady amount of support. By February, Obama began to overtake her.

The Gallup Poll has found that Clinton's support has hardly shifted among white men or women since mid January. In comparison, Obama has improved 23 percentage points with white men and 15 percentage points with white women. Clinton now wins white women by 11 points over Obama. But Obama wins white men over Clinton by 17 points. End result: nationally Clinton went from a double-digit lead over Obama to a double-digit deficit. Obama has captured Edwards and other Democratic candidates' supporters.

In a turn of fate, the candidate whom focused on women will have to win more men to revive her candidacy. And her chance is swiftly fleeting.

Two surveys out this week by Public Policy Poling demonstrate how crucial white men will be in Texas and Ohio this Tuesday. Even Clinton's husband acknowledged she must win both states to remain seriously competitive.

Clinton leads Obama 64 to 31 percent among white females in Ohio, while white men split evenly between the two. In Texas, Clinton leads with white women 50 to 45 percent while Obama leads with white men 58 to 37 percent. Both reflect his recent white male support in Wisconsin and Virginia.

The steady stream of Democratic white men away from Clinton's candidacy is forcing her to win a remarkably high amount of Hispanics and white women. That strategy is now failing her. Obama has won 10 contests in a row. The month didn't begin this way.

White Men as Swing Voters

At the onset of February white males were the sole constituency split between the two candidates (little more than 45 percent support for each). For other groups in the coast-to-coast primary on Super Tuesday, six in 10 Hispanics and white women backed Clinton.

Only 35 percent of both groups voted for Clinton. Meanwhile, at least eight in 10 blacks have backed Obama. The gender gap for minorities is negligible.

In effect, the largest swing vote in this race has been talked about the least. Representation is not conversation. Simply because white men are talking on television doesn't mean white men are being discussed. A Nexis search of the past two months of news transcripts from CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News showed Hispanics or Latinos came up 851 times in the context of the names of Clinton and Obama. In that same context and time span, white male or white men came up 127 times.

The central problem with much of the analysis is not that white men are the only group shifting toward Obama. He has improved with white women and Hispanics. But white men have been essentially left out of the Democratic conservation, despite them constituting a larger share of Democratic voters than all Hispanics and blacks combined.

That chasm between influence and attention is a bad omen for the political left. Democrats need to narrow the white male gap in the general election. Demographics are simply not changing fast enough to ignore these men, as Democrats have strategically done since at least 1984.

"We should have a candidate who actually appeals to white independent men," Obama pollster Cornell Belcher told me in a recent conversation.

Indeed. White men are so critical in the Democratic race because they are so heavily represented among independents. On Super Tuesday, white women were 35 percent of independents and an equal share of Democrats. White men however were only 24 percent of Democrats. But they were 36 percent of independents. Within the overall electorate, white men are, by at least 5 percentage points, the largest portion of all independent voters. They are the untold swing vote.

White Men, Obama, and the Democratic Past

That Obama has proven more capable of winning white men of late, particularly independents, is germane to the general election ahead. Overwhelmingly, the voters who left the Democratic Party in the past half century are white working and middle class men. The outcome of the 2008 presidential race will depend on whether Democrats can win a portion of these men back.

"The irony is whether its Clinton or Obama, the big swing group in the fall is going to be white independent men," Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway told me. "I wrote a book called What Women Really Want and I'm the first to admit it's going to be about men."

Many political reporters, a good portion of which are white men, have become so accustomed to seeing the world in the constituencies of identity politics that they often fail to identify the constituency that still shapes our politics. And when they do notice white men, reporters all too often get it wrong.

The media only recently began to take note of white men after a front-page story last week in the Wall Street Journal. The article correctly explained that many of these white men left the Democratic Party in the Reagan era. Then it erroneously stated that Bill Clinton "won many of them back to the Democratic Party in 1992."

In fact, Clinton did not. Exit polls actually show that in 1992 Bill Clinton won essentially the same portion of white men as Michael Dukakis in 1988. It was Ross Perot who siphoned off these men, as well as a lesser portion of white women, and undid George H.W. Bush.

History matters because it shapes our conception of the present. Democrats have not competed for white men since Watergate and the Ford-Carter race. But in a year where the Republican Party and its standard bearer remain remarkably unpopular, as a war led by Republicans is out of favor with the public, during a struggling economy stateside, and at the 40-year mark of the Republican majority (no presidential coalition has lasted more than four decades), Democrats have their best opportunity since Carter to regain a majority. Yet that grand Democratic ambition will only be realized by winning more white men.

Not Only a Southern Problem

Before any relationship can be mended the breakup must be properly understood. The bulk of the white men voting in Democratic primaries are not the same white men who migrated from the Democratic Party in the last half century. Those men left Democrats and took a presidential majority with them.

As I discuss my book, The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma, with readers I continually run into one common misconception. It was born of a Paul Krugman column. In it he argued that only Southern white men left the Democratic Party. In short, the New Deal coalition collapsed because Democrats lost hick sexist bigots.

Of course bigots left Democrats, but not all of those who left Democrats were bigots. Let's finally put this factoid to rest.

In more detail online, Krugman referenced correspondence with Princeton's Larry Bartels on white men. Bartels wrote: "unless you have a peculiar nostalgia for the racially coercive Democratic monopoly of the Jim Crow era, it makes sense to focus on the rest of the country. There, the Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among white men was 40% in 1952 and 39% in 2004." Krugman added: "White men didn't turn against the Democrats; Southern white men turned against the Democrats. End of story."

But it was not the end of the story. Soon many of the political left, like Nation editor Katrina Vanden Heuvel, accepted this fiction as fact. Why? It felt right: liberals lost white men for fighting the good fight on civil rights. Therefore, Democrats could feel good about losing. Yet as I have written, even in the South that explanation is simplistic. But the theory that Democrats problem with white men is merely a Southern phenomenon is more problematic.

Bartels uses 1952 as a starting point. That was the first year regional presidential election breakdowns were possible with polling. Yet in 1952 both parties attempted to convince Dwight Eisenhower to be their nominee. And for good reason, as the Republican nominee Ike won every state in the non-south. 1952 was an outlier. Bartels missed the real picture.

In general terms -- no pun intended in Ike's case -- white men were an unusually low share of the Democratic vote in 1952. That year, Republicans nominated a centrist who was the hero of the Second World War. The result was humiliating for liberals. The GOP trounced Democrats by a striking double-digit margin.

The 1960 race is a far more accurate starting point. It was a narrow contest and prior to the modern paradigm shift -- between 1964 and 1972 -- that defines presidential politics to this day. Between 1960 and 2004, Democrats lost 12 percent of the non-Southern white men and 17 percent of white men in the South. For once and for all: the Democratic decline was not merely due to the "Southern Flip." Conventional wisdom is easily born and dies hard in presidential politics.

The Other White Man

The Southern misconception is often used to prove this blowback thesis, epitomized in Matthews' question. That so many continue to explain white men's vote in terms of "resistance" to a woman or a black man -- especially in the framework of the Democratic race -- demonstrates how deep our biases run with the same group said to be most biased.

The Journal article also captured this impulse to assume the worst in white males. One theory floated: because white males are trending toward Obama it proves that they are more sexist than they are racist.

If that speculation holds, why were white men initially with Clinton? Prejudice is, after all, a vice of instinct.

Like all Democrats -- female, male, black, white, brown -- Democratic white men's first instinct was to be with the frontrunner. But unlike white women, as Obama became more widely known, white men had no stake in the symbolism of her candidacy. Therefore, they were more willing to swing to his electoral coffer.

Many of these men casting Democratic ballots today are of the 37 percent of white males who voted for John Kerry in 2004. Yet neither campaign understands exactly how to reach out to them. This is true in part because Democrats have largely ignored white men as a constituency.

But if broad swaths of the population like Hispanics or women are a constituency, surely white men are as well. And a look at the 2004 Election Day exit poll provides a telling lesson for Clinton and Obama.

Those white men who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 said the "issue that mattered most in deciding their vote" was terrorism (35 percent) or moral values (31 percent). Yet among the minority of white men who voted Democratic, only five percent said terrorism and 10 percent said moral values. In other words, Clinton's muddled stance on Iraq and hawkish stance on Iran was wrong for most Democratic white men.

For those Democratic white men, the foremost issue in 2004 was Iraq (26 percent) and economy/jobs (35 percent). Clinton's recent effort to mount a broad economic appeal may prove too late.

Clinton failed to consider white men in her strategy. She is reaping that whirlwind today. It is not, however, that Obama's campaign did study these men. His was a broad appeal, less obsessed with individual groups. He reflected the overall framework of the Democratic mind. Therefore he attracted white men sympathetic to that mind.

Consider when 2004 voters were asked what issue mattered most in deciding whom to support. White men who voted Republican said they supported the candidate who "has clear stands on the issues" (30 percent), is a "strong leader" (31 percent), or is "honest and trustworthy" (18 percent). This is why I emphasize in my book that "grit" is the value underlying all values politics. This is especially true for the white men who Democrats lost.

Meanwhile, of those white men who voted for John Kerry: five percent valued that their candidate was a "strong leader," 10 percent valued most that he had "clear stands on the issues," and nine percent said is "honest and trustworthy." White men, like white women, are not one monolith. Yet in the general election, the patterns shared by all those white men who left Democrats will have to be considered by the political left.

Those white males who supported Kerry most valued the personal qualities of a candidate who "will bring about needed change" (47 percent), is intelligent (17 percent), and "cares about people like me" (13 percent). That "change" ranked so high on the list explains Obama's appeal, at least in part.

Using education level in the Democratic field, as an indicator of class, also sheds more light on what's occurring today. Those white male Democrats without college educations were roughly three times more likely than those who graduated college to value that the candidate who "cares about people like me." In comparison, those who graduated college were roughly three times more likely than those who did not value that the candidate "is intelligent." White male Democrats who graduated college were also three times more likely to say the issue that mattered most was the war in Iraq, where Obama benefited from his early stance against the war. It is no surprise that they would be more sympathetic to Obama today.

Equally, that working class white male Democrats want to believe that the candidate "cares about people like me" certainly explains in part why Clinton has generally held on to their support.

It should also startle few that Obama's strategy to leave behind the cultural politics of the '60s and run a post-racial campaign -- when the burden of America's original sin of slavery and racism has fallen on white men today -- appeals to some independent white men. But in John McCain, any Democrat will find a daunting opponent with white men. He is the embodiment of much they admire.

What we can say, however, is that the 2006-midterm elections proved that white men are open to supporting Democrats, particularly moderates.

It will be this presidential election that tests whether Democrats can turn frustration with Republicans into a new majority. This is why the contest for white men is larger than the Democratic primary. It will not only likely decide the nominee. It may prove a harbinger for who becomes our next president.

pikesome
02-28-2008, 08:51 AM
White men who voted Republican said they supported the candidate who "has clear stands on the issues" (30 percent), is a "strong leader" (31 percent), or is "honest and trustworthy" (18 percent).

Is this guy living under my bed? This would be 3 of the top things I look for. The last one is why I might just desert the Repubs this year.

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2008, 08:55 AM
Is this guy living under my bed? This would be 3 of the top things I look for. The last one is why I might just desert the Repubs this year.

Yup. Me too. It's a male thing. Especially a conservative/independent white male thing.

pikesome
02-28-2008, 09:02 AM
Yup. Me too. It's a male thing. Especially a conservative/independent white male thing.

The worst part is I trust (as much as you can a pol) Obama to try to do what he says. I just don't want all of his ideas, most perhaps.

On the other hand McCain says a lot of the right things but I don't trust him. At all. How much of the things I want he'd do is debatable.

Of the two I'd rather have a focused, firm leader who I don't agree with than a feckless finger-licker who tells me things I want to hear.

Cochise
02-28-2008, 09:05 AM
I don't think Clinton failed to consider white men.

It's pretty often that a leftist candidate tries to win by convincing everyone else that they are the reason for all their problems. White dudes are the reason for the war, for racism, they're the rich folk who are victimizing you economically each and every day, they are the ones who get preferences in hiring supposedly, they get education and the firstfruits of what america has to offer, therefore, the platform is to soak them.

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2008, 09:11 AM
I don't think Clinton failed to consider white men.

It's pretty often that a leftist candidate tries to win by convincing everyone else that they are the reason for all their problems. White dudes are the reason for the war, for racism, they're the rich folk who are victimizing you economically each and every day, they are the ones who get preferences in hiring supposedly, they get education and the firstfruits of what america has to offer, therefore, the platform is to soak them.

I understand and appreciate your sentiments (and many Democratic candidates do play that card--when they can get away with it,) however in fairnesss I can't think of too many times when I think Hillary has played that card.

I think her mistake, and perhaps it was unavoidable because she was fighting a losing battle....was to totally dismiss the white male vote (minus the liberal-intellectual/metrosexual white male crowd.)

dirk digler
02-28-2008, 09:15 AM
I don't think Clinton failed to consider white men.

It's pretty often that a leftist candidate tries to win by convincing everyone else that they are the reason for all their problems. White dudes are the reason for the war, for racism, they're the rich folk who are victimizing you economically each and every day, they are the ones who get preferences in hiring supposedly, they get education and the firstfruits of what america has to offer, therefore, the platform is to soak them.

Nope that isn't it. I think to alot of men she reminds them of our mothers-in-law :D

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2008, 11:11 AM
Nope that isn't it. I think to alot of men she reminds them of our mothers-in-law :D

No kidding. Guess I'm lucky, cause mine ain't as bad as she is. :)

MurphDog
02-28-2008, 06:07 PM
Actually he has to worry about people who dont agree with his policies and how much more tax burden he will place on US taxpayers

Perhaps he should worry about that instead of white, yellow or little purple men...

Since you like long C&P's

Washington Times - Feb 20
In an effort to add a larger dose of substance to his rhetoric, Barack Obama unveiled a detailed economic plan last week. In doing so, he provided unmistakable proof why the National Journal's ideological ratings, based upon votes, ranked him as the Senate's most liberal member for 2007.

On the spending side of the ledger, Mr. Obama proposed a 10-year, $60 billion "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank," which is a highfalutin name for a scheme to fund dubious pork-barrel projects that can't pass muster in our pork-addicted Congress. The $60 billion is just a down payment; it will be used to leverage "almost half a trillion of additional infrastructure spending." Guess who's going to pay for all that. Not to worry because the whole scheme will "generate nearly 2 million new jobs." Mr. Obama has also proposed a 10-year, $150 billion program "to establish a green energy sector that will create up to 5 million new jobs." His nearly universal health care plan, which he implausibly asserts will reduce the average family's insurance premium by $2,500 per year, is projected to cost between $50 billion and $65 billion per year.

If Mr. Obama is beholden to taxpayer-funded, government-designed highway and energy pork projects, he has gone hog wild over "refundable tax credits," which is the polite description of taxpayer-financed cash payments to people who pay no income taxes. Mr. Obama promises a $4,000 refundable tax credit to finance college tuition for students who spend 100 hours performing community service. There will be a refundable 10 percent mortgage-interest tax credit for married couples who take the $10,900 standard deduction because their itemizable deductions (including mortgage interest) fall below that level. Couples will also receive a refundable $1,000 tax credit to offset payroll taxes even if their refundable earned-income tax credit (EITC) has already eliminated their payroll-tax burden. Taxpayers will also finance a $500 refundable tax credit to augment a $1,000 savings-account deposit made by families earning up to $75,000.

Mr. Obama also promises to "triple the [EITC] benefit for minimum-wage workers." Let's do the math. For a married couple with two children working full-time and earning the minimum wage ($5.85 per hour, $24,336 per year), their refundable EITC would rise from $3,225 to $9,675. They already qualify for refundable child tax credits totaling about $1,850. Mr. Obama would increase their refundable child-care tax credit to $3,000. Don't forget his refundable $1,000 tax credit to partly offset their $1,500 Social Security taxes, which had already been more than offset by their nearly $10,000 refundable EITC. If they put that $1,000 in the bank, they would get another refundable tax credit of $500. A future editorial will examine how Mr. Obama intends to pay for all this.

MurphDog
02-28-2008, 06:08 PM
Obama's economic plan is magical
Denver Post

What has not been noticed much is the way this oratorical skill continues to distract public attention from Obama's specific policy proposals. Why would any voter, mesmerized by the Obama campaign magic, want to spend time reading long and detailed policy outlines?

Obama clearly believes that the nation is facing a subprime mortgage crisis mostly because predatory lenders took advantage of badly informed borrowers who didn't "understand their long-term obligations."
The candidate has a dozen ideas on how to help these "innocent homeowners." He plans to extract money from penalties on lenders "who acted irresponsibly" and create a fund that will either allow homeowners to avoid foreclosure or sell their homes without the usual commissions and charges that might otherwise damage their credit. Among other things, he wants to give bankruptcy judges the right to modify (lower) mortgage payments that are part of Chapter 13 filings. Such courts currently lack the authority to interfere with these secured priority debts.


The heart of his economic plan are refundable credits that would flow to selected citizens. There would be a refundable mortgage credit (that is, a check from the government) for those who don't itemize their tax returns. There would be another refundable credit for "working families" that pay the Social Security tax. There would be a check for college tuition, and another for those with child care expenses. Seniors who have incomes less than $50,000 a year would pay no taxes. There would be a check from the federal government for working families that start a savings program.

American workers under an Obama presidency would have low-cost health insurance, greater job security and fairer trade agreements. Unspecified billions would also be spent on job training and creating so-called "green jobs."


This ambitious agenda points up the fact that legislators like Obama, and even McCain and Hillary Clinton, tend to believe that the answer to every problem is more legislation, more regulation, or both.


Somehow, as in this case, there just doesn't seem to be room to include a rough estimate of cost. Including such details would, after all, make them seem decidedly less magical, and nobody would want that — would they?

pikesome
02-28-2008, 06:14 PM
The two above posts only prove it's Turd Sandwich vs Giant Douche.
http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/808/808_img_11.jpg
http://umtailgate.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/turd.jpg

MurphDog
02-28-2008, 06:15 PM
I agree 2 bad choices to choose from 3 including Hillary

HolmeZz
02-28-2008, 06:15 PM
Actually he has to worry about people who dont agree with his policies and how much more tax burden he will place on US taxpayers

Please lay out his tax plan for the middle class.

MurphDog
02-28-2008, 06:16 PM
Define the middle class for me (this should be fun to see)

pikesome
02-28-2008, 06:19 PM
Define the middle class for me (this should be fun to see)

Everyone who gets ****ed by the increased taxes without getting any the benefits or having accountants to "caress" their taxes.

HolmeZz
02-28-2008, 06:20 PM
About 50-75K.

MurphDog
02-28-2008, 06:22 PM
Are you familiar with Obama's tax plan?

HolmeZz
02-28-2008, 06:27 PM
I'm asking you to expand on the 'burden' of new taxes you say Obama will unleash on taxpayers. You made the statement. Tell me who's getting taxed and how much more in comparison to what's being paid for now.

MurphDog
02-28-2008, 06:29 PM
I think its outlined fairly well - the impact is at least an additional $874 billion and thats just what he has proposed so far

Updated February 14, 2008: Obama’s National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank Will Cost $60 Billion Over Ten Years; Equal To $6 Billion A Year And $24 Billion Over Four Years. Obama: “I’m proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Economic Policy, Janesville, WI, 2/13/08)


Obama’s Health Care Plan Will Cost Up To $65 Billion A Year; Equal To $260 Billion Over Four Years. “[Obama] campaign officials estimated that the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion to $65 billion a year, when fully phased in, and said the revenues from rolling back the tax cuts were enough to cover it.” (Robin Toner and Patrick Healy, “Obama Calls For Wider And Less Costly Health Care Coverage,” The New York Times, 5/30/07)


Obama’s Energy Plan Will Cost $150 Billion Over 10 Years, Equal To $15 Billion Annually And $60 Billion Over Four Years. “Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 25)


Obama’s Tax Plan Will Cost Approximately $85 Billion A Year; Equal To $340 Billion Over Four Years. “[Obama’s] proposed tax cuts and credits, aimed at workers earning $50,000 or less per year, would cost the Treasury an estimated $85 billion annually.” (Margaret Talev, “Obama Proposes Tax Code Overhaul To Help The Poor,” McClatchy Newspapers, 9/19/07)

* Obama’s Plan Would Raise Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends, And On Carried Interest. Obama’s tax plan includes: “[i]ncreasing the highest bracket for capital gains and dividends and closing the carried interest loophole.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama: Tax Fairness For The Middle Class,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/8/08)

Obama’s Economic Stimulus Package Will Cost $75 Billion. “Barack Obama’s economic plan will inject $75 billion of stimulus into the economy by getting money in the form of tax cuts and direct spending directly to the people who need it most.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama’s Plan To Stimulate The Economy,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 1/13/08)


Obama’s Early Education And K-12 Package Will Cost $18 Billion A Year; Equal To $72 Billion Over Four Years. “Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama’s Plan For Lifetime Success Through Education,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 11/20/07, p. 15)


Obama’s National Service Plan Will Cost $3.5 Billion A Year; Equal To $14 Billion Over Four Years. “Barack Obama’s national service plan will cost about $3.5 billion per year when it is fully implemented.” (Obama For America, “Helping All Americans Serve Their Country: Barack Obama’s Plan For Universal Voluntary Citizen Service,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 12/5/07)


Obama Will Increase Our Foreign Assistance Funding By $25 Billion. “Obama will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 53)


Obama Will Provide $2 Billion To Aid Iraqi Refugees. “He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 51)


Obama Will Provide $1.5 Billion To Help States Adopt Paid-Leave Systems. “As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 15)


Obama Will Provide $1 Billion Over 5 Years For Transitional Jobs And Career Pathway Programs, Equal To $200 Million A Year And $800 Million Over Four Years. “Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 42)


Obama Will Provide $50 Million To Jump-Start The Creation Of An IAEA-Controlled Nuclear Fuel Bank. Obama: “We must also stop the spread of nuclear weapons technology and ensure that countries cannot build -- or come to the brink of building -- a weapons program under the auspices of developing peaceful nuclear power. That is why my administration will immediately provide $50 million to jump-start the creation of an International Atomic Energy Agency-controlled nuclear fuel bank and work to update the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Renewing American Leadership,” Foreign Affairs, 7-8/07)

HolmeZz
02-28-2008, 06:36 PM
Yes, I'm familiar with what he wants to spend. You accused him of creating a 'burden' of taxpayers. I'm asking you how much more the average person is going to have to pay, particuarly if we aren't continuing to waste billions of dollars in nation-building overseas. Contrary to popular belief, Republicans don't = lower taxes and small government anymore.

MurphDog
02-28-2008, 06:42 PM
Its a burden - you are asking tax payers to put in more to cover the increase on top of the massive burden the current administration has placed on tax payers. And if you want to throw in nation building I guess you are including the billions going to Africa and other locations as well that decades later dont reveal much.

We have to deal with the here and now - no hypothetical's no if's and's or buts - Iraq and Afghanistan like it or not will continue to cost billions. Its an obligation that America is left with that we will not back off of. So given that, and the current federal spending Obama is pushing for an additional $874 billion dollars on top of reducing taxes for the middle class (which to him is $50k and under).

So yeah I would say thats a burden - it sure isnt a favor is it?

HolmeZz
02-28-2008, 06:51 PM
So given that, and the current federal spending Obama is pushing for an additional $874 billion dollars on top of reducing taxes for the middle class (which to him is $50k and under).

So yeah I would say thats a burden

There's already an easy way to account for a lot of that money and if you've been fine with nation-building, spending less money on actual problems here shouldn't make your ass pucker.

I'm still looking for your estimate on how much you or I am going to have to pay than we do now. Throwing out spending amounts means little to nothing after this last administration.

MurphDog
02-28-2008, 06:58 PM
There's already an easy way to account for a lot of that money and if you've been fine with nation-building, spending less money on actual problems here shouldn't make your ass pucker.

I'm still looking for your estimate on how much you or I am going to have to pay than we do now. Throwing out spending amounts means little to nothing after this last administration.

Now your assuming I am fine with nation building which after all is a democrat concept. But again we have to deal with the hand we have been dealt which means you cant gloss over the current obligations.

Talking about spending amounts means a lot when you have a candidate looking to exceed the already expensive $3+ trillion budget. Again you have to deal with the current situation and not hypothetical's. The unforeseen piece is how much Obama will increase remaining tax brackets to compensate for the increases. The money has to come from somewhere.

This also doesnt address the fact that Obama has not laid out any concrete plan to reduce the current deficit ON TOP OF his spending plans. So unless I have missed something those making $50k or less will benefit greatly, others will carry the burden and we will carry the huge deficit forward...

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2008, 10:24 PM
MurphDog....you still have not answered HolmeZz's basic question:

SPECIFICALLY, what taxes has Obama pledged to raise?

If you want to be substantive, to talk about the "issues" this is your chance...seriously.

WHAT taxes has Obama pledged to raise? Be specific. :hmmm:

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 05:29 AM
Cmon you can do better than that - you are diverting attention away from the issues - I suspect that at least ONE of you is able to hold the conversation? But I guess you all have bought in to the hope and change mantra with out understanding the details...

Besides its all quite clear to find, not like its a trick question like you thought
As of Feb 15, 2008
39.6 percent personal income tax
52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax
28 percent capital-gains tax
39.6 percent dividends tax
55 percent estate tax

Mr. Kotter
02-29-2008, 06:39 AM
Cmon you can do better than that - you are diverting attention away from the issues - I suspect that at least ONE of you is able to hold the conversation? But I guess you all have bought in to the hope and change mantra with out understanding the details...

Besides its all quite clear to find, not like its a trick question like you thought
As of Feb 15, 2008
39.6 percent personal income tax
52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax
28 percent capital-gains tax
39.6 percent dividends tax
55 percent estate tax

Well, you got a link to that info....sport?


Let me guess....it's a link to Rush Limbaugh's site???? :hmmm:



Still don't want to answer the question, eh? :shrug:

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 06:46 AM
I think I answered your question as to what taxes will increase - what did I miss?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_gloomy_biggovernment_vi.html

Mr. Kotter
02-29-2008, 07:25 AM
I think I answered your question as to what taxes will increase - what did I miss?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_gloomy_biggovernment_vi.html

:spock:

So we are to accept a former Reagan advisor's column demagoguing Obama, and one Wall Street Journal reporter's estimates of what he claims Obama's tax increases might be....

as evidence of specific proposals from tax increases that Obama, himself, has articulated during his campaign (which, BTW, was the specific original question?)


Heh. Nice one. LMAO

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 07:28 AM
I would be much more inclined to believe the Wall Street Journal then a bunch of liberals in Kansas City on whats its going to take to pay for Obamas plan. Its now quite obvious that Obama fans have no clear interest or understanding of his plans... But I really didnt expect much more - just a confirmation of the obvious...

Mr. Kotter
02-29-2008, 09:33 AM
I would be much more inclined to believe the Wall Street Journal then a bunch of liberals in Kansas City on whats its going to take to pay for Obamas plan. Its now quite obvious that Obama fans have no clear interest or understanding of his plans... But I really didnt expect much more - just a confirmation of the obvious...

English must not be your first language.....

The question was NOT "who and what are you 'inclined to believe'".....the question, basically, is: what taxes, specifically, has Obama said he will raise, by how much, and who will be affected?

And you still haven't answered it.

pikesome
02-29-2008, 09:53 AM
English must not be your first language.....

The question was NOT "who and what are you 'inclined to believe'".....the question, basically, is: what taxes, specifically, has Obama said he will raise, by how much, and who will be affected?

And you still haven't answered it.

In Murphdog's defense increased spending means either increased taxes or more debt. I'm not sure even the US could increase our deficit spending to the levels it would take to pay for all the stuff previously posted. That means more taxes. Sure, the increased taxes might only hit the really rich but it's not the least bit unreasonable to assume that the people too rich to enjoy these programs but not really rich (which is where I think of the middle class) will end up bearing some (if not most, proportionally) of the burden.

I also think you'll have a hard time finding Obama being clear and firm on who's going to pay for all this. Politicians don't like to talk about who pays, just who benefits. Especially when they are trying to get elected.

Mr. Kotter
02-29-2008, 09:57 AM
In Murphdog's defense increased spending means either increased taxes or more debt. I'm not sure even the US could increase our deficit spending to the levels it would take to pay for all the stuff previously posted. That means more taxes. Sure, the increased taxes might only hit the really rich but it's not the least bit unreasonable to assume that the people too rich to enjoy these programs but not really rich (which is where I think of the middle class) will end up bearing some (if not most, proportionally) of the burden.

I also think you'll have a hard time finding Obama being clear and firm on who's going to pay for all this. Politicians don't like to talk about who pays, just who benefits. Especially when they are trying to get elected.

I understand that. The point is, most Americans are willing to accept taxes increases....so long as they are properly targeted. Yeah, it will most likely hit some middle class, and especially upper middle class folks. I think most of us understand, and depending on the scale of the increases....would be, reluctantly supportive, if it moves us toward a more fiscally responsible budget. We won't like it, but the bottom-line is we can't continue down the road we are on.

banyon
02-29-2008, 10:05 AM
I also think you'll have a hard time finding Obama being clear and firm on who's going to pay for all this. Politicians don't like to talk about who pays, just who benefits. Especially when they are trying to get elected.

How to pay for what, exactly?

Baby Lee
02-29-2008, 10:15 AM
I understand and appreciate your sentiments (and many Democratic candidates do play that card--when they can get away with it,) however in fairnesss I can't think of too many times when I think Hillary has played that card.

I think her mistake, and perhaps it was unavoidable because she was fighting a losing battle....was to totally dismiss the white male vote (minus the liberal-intellectual/metrosexual white male crowd.)

She's explicitly playing it, but when she states she's the better candidate because she's ready and equipped to fight, who do you think she's ready to fight?

xbarretx
02-29-2008, 10:26 AM
I understand that. The point is, most Americans are willing to accept taxes increases....so long as they are properly targeted. Yeah, it will most likely hit some middle class, and especially upper middle class folks. I think most of us understand, and depending on the scale of the increases....would be, reluctantly supportive, if it moves us toward a more fiscally responsible budget. We won't like it, but the bottom-line is we can't continue down the road we are on.

Kotter you Son OF a :cuss: why the :cuss: arent you running for office? no im not joking....many politicians CANNOT seem to get that idea. to them its in a language other than english!

seriously, well played (said) sir :clap:

Mr. Kotter
02-29-2008, 10:36 AM
She's explicitly playing it, but when she states she's the better candidate because she's ready and equipped to fight, who do you think she's ready to fight?

Well, that true enough. She certainly isn't "courting" the vote; that's for sure. :hmmm:

pikesome
02-29-2008, 11:26 AM
How to pay for what, exactly?

????

Did you read any of Murphdog's posts?

patteeu
02-29-2008, 11:35 AM
MurphDog....you still have not answered HolmeZz's basic question:

SPECIFICALLY, what taxes has Obama pledged to raise?

If you want to be substantive, to talk about the "issues" this is your chance...seriously.

WHAT taxes has Obama pledged to raise? Be specific. :hmmm:

Why does MurphDog have to explain how Obama is going to pay for his expansive new spending? Shouldn't Obama or one of his worshippers be explaining that?

And on top of all the spending that MurphDog has outlined, let's not forget that Obama refuses to commit himself to a complete withdrawal from Iraq so let's not make the mistake of thinking that all of the money being spent in Iraq will be available for use to fund the Obamananny state (even if we completely ignore the current deficit).

pikesome
02-29-2008, 11:46 AM
I understand that. The point is, most Americans are willing to accept taxes increases....so long as they are properly targeted. Yeah, it will most likely hit some middle class, and especially upper middle class folks. I think most of us understand, and depending on the scale of the increases....would be, reluctantly supportive, if it moves us toward a more fiscally responsible budget. We won't like it, but the bottom-line is we can't continue down the road we are on.

No they aren't. People are not willing to pay more taxes, they're willing to make someone else pay more taxes.

The only way a person supports these things is if they get the benefits without paying for them. And we'll all end up paying for it in the end some place. Increased spending is always bad.

patteeu
02-29-2008, 11:56 AM
No they aren't. People are not willing to pay more taxes, they're willing to make someone else pay more taxes.

The only way a person supports these things is if they get the benefits without paying for them. And we'll all end up paying for it in the end some place. Increased spending is always bad.

Amen to that (with a few exceptions). I think there are probably some comfortable liberals who are willing to pay slightly higher taxes in order to feel good about wanting taxes to be raised on a bunch of other people too, but I'd love to see how they'd react if the biggest tax increase fell right on their narrow tax bracket instead of lightly on them and more heavily on those who make even more money.

pikesome
02-29-2008, 12:01 PM
Amen to that (with a few exceptions). I think there are probably some comfortable liberals who are willing to pay slightly higher taxes in order to feel good about wanting taxes to be raised on a bunch of other people too, but I'd love to see how they'd react if the biggest tax increase fell right on their narrow tax bracket instead of lightly on them and more heavily on those who make even more money.

I doubt those "comfortable liberals" would even pay most of the extra taxes. There are a myriad of ways someone wealthy can avoid taxes and your political party plays no part of it.

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 12:19 PM
Liberals just want someone to cover their tax liability - get someone else to pay their bills - push it off on the rich... they can pay for it right?

xbarretx
02-29-2008, 12:32 PM
i stick by my guns, Kotter is correct. the US cant continue. anyone who believes that we can sustain this kind of fiscal hemorrhaging lacks any economic or mathematical knowledge what so ever. the war = a good way to crap shoot billions each month with no return except for the continued depreciation of the greenback and inflation gains (mother f'n OIL). taxes will be raised, that’s a fact and as we all know the saying regarding death and taxes. those who complain are the same who will wonder why any road in MO is a complete joke...unless of course they have a range-rover and like to pretend that the bumps are there because there on safari in Africa hunting pink elephants.

pikesome
02-29-2008, 12:39 PM
i stick by my guns, Kotter is correct. the US cant continue. anyone who believes that we can sustain this kind of fiscal hemorrhaging lacks any economic or mathematical knowledge what so ever. the war = a good way to crap shoot billions each month with no return except for the continued depreciation of the greenback and inflation gains (mother f'n OIL). taxes will be raised, thatís a fact and as we all know the saying regarding death and taxes. those who complain are the same who will wonder why any road in MO is a complete joke...unless of course they have a range-rover and like to pretend that the bumps are there because there on safari in Africa hunting pink elephants.

I agree we're spending too much. That's why Obama should scrap all of these entitlements he's talking about and balance the checkbook first. Although the fault isn't real with the President, it's Congress who's ****ed this up and is going to have to fix it.

xbarretx
02-29-2008, 12:42 PM
I agree we're spending too much. That's why Obama should scrap all of these entitlements he's talking about and balance the checkbook first. Although the fault isn't real with the President, it's Congress who's ****ed this up and is going to have to fix it.

then Dr Giggles, were cool :toast:

Mr. Kotter
02-29-2008, 12:52 PM
Look, I know most Americans don't want their taxes increased....however, the bottom-line is most Americans also insist on maintaining, and in some instances growing government programs and spending that exceeds our willingness to pay for it.

Champagne taste on a beer budget.

I agree that we should cut spending; but Congress and the American people continue to demonstrate again and again....they won't accept the cuts that would be necessary to balance the budget.

That said, we are left with two choices:

1. Continue on the current road of fiscal irresponsibility, and impose an unconscionable financial burden on our children or grand children.

2. Realize that we are going to have to raise taxes somewhere. Of course it should be done in a reasonable and fair fashion that will not cripple the economy.

It's not an easy job, but someone is going to have to be an adult before we bankrupt the country.

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 12:57 PM
I agree we're spending too much. That's why Obama should scrap all of these entitlements he's talking about and balance the checkbook first. Although the fault isn't real with the President, it's Congress who's ****ed this up and is going to have to fix it.

I agree - why not clean up first - why jump in with expanded programs? If its to pander to the vote then say so. If he has no intentions of following through and is just doing it to get the vote, then say so. Otherwise this is just a bigger disaster waiting to happen.

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 12:59 PM
Look, I know most Americans don't want their taxes increased....however, the bottom-line is most Americans also insist on maintaining, and in some instances growing government programs and spending that exceeds our willingness to pay for it.

Champagne taste on a beer budget.

I agree that we should cut spending; but Congress and the American people continue to demonstrate again and again....they won't accept the cuts that would be necessary to balance the budget.

That said, we are left with two choices:

1. Continue on the current road of fiscal irresponsibility, and impose an unconscionable financial burden on our children or grand children.

2. Realize that we are going to have to raise taxes somewhere. Of course it should be done in a reasonable and fair fashion that will not cripple the economy.

It's not an easy job, but someone is going to have to be an adult before we bankrupt the country.

Which is going to commit political suicide Obama, Hillary or McCain? One of them will become the next POTUS and will have to address this. It will be hero or zero in a heart beat. I dont see any of them doing much - especially without the full backing of Congress.

Mr. Kotter
02-29-2008, 01:00 PM
I agree - why not clean up first - why jump in with expanded programs? If its to pander to the vote then say so. If he has no intentions of following through and is just doing it to get the vote, then say so. Otherwise this is just a bigger disaster waiting to happen.

Why not? Because the moment most politicians start cutting programs, they are booted out of Congress--their constituents fire them.

As a nation, we keep electing politicians who pander to us....because we damand it. Until that changes, you are left with that stark choice that I just posted.

Which is going to commit political suicide Obama, Hillary or McCain? One of them will become the next POTUS and will have to address this. It will be hero or zero in a heart beat. I dont see any of them doing much - especially without the full backing of Congress.

Yup. I agree. But we can't continue down this road for much longer either.

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 01:02 PM
So you are admitting that all three candidates are pandering to the vote with no real clear way to scale back spending and bring it under control and not further expand social programs?

Mr. Kotter
02-29-2008, 01:04 PM
So you are admitting that all three candidates are pandering to the vote with no real clear way to scale back spending and bring it under control and not further expand social programs?

Absolutely. To do otherwise, would be political suicide...as you said.

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 01:07 PM
Well at least you and I agree that all three are pathetic pandering candidates with no real honest clear way for digging us at of the hole we are in.

Should be an interesting administration who ever it is - I have to admit it, you are one of the first to admit that none of the three are willing to address the current issues but instead are pandering

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 02:06 PM
Whats funny is all these hollow Obama supporters - you know the ones with the huge Obama graphics and the 20 talking point bullets in their signature line...

They are no where to be found when someone actually drags out Obamas policy, lays it on the table and asks one of them to back it up.

Funny they dont show up but are willing to put up a billboard for the man but cant speak to his policies...

tiptap
02-29-2008, 03:20 PM
I agree - why not clean up first - why jump in with expanded programs? If its to pander to the vote then say so. If he has no intentions of following through and is just doing it to get the vote, then say so. Otherwise this is just a bigger disaster waiting to happen.

Fiscal constraint only is essentially the Republican refrain and it was too bad they couldn't refrain from over spending on their priorities of oil first when they controlled all of government. Too satisfy the voters who put the Democrats in power the Health Insurance concerns HAVE to be met, period. Republicans do not get to set agendas because they wrecked the economy and left it a difficult endeavor. They had their turn to show they could cut taxes, fight wars and secure a better life for Americans. They really didn't know how to manage the government to their ends. At least the Democrats are addressing American personal concerns.

Reaper16
02-29-2008, 03:43 PM
I don't even bother to read the posts of Obama supporters before making accusations.
Fixed your post.

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 03:56 PM
I see I have come across another brilliant liberal... Care to try and discuss the points or just post pithy little sentences? I am talking about one of these hollow supporters - not one has shown their face and discussed the points I have posted - who knows maybe your one of them except with out the cute little Obama hope logo...

Then again I dont see much from most of the Obama fans

dirk digler
02-29-2008, 04:00 PM
Well at least you and I agree that all three are pathetic pandering candidates with no real honest clear way for digging us at of the hole we are in.

Should be an interesting administration who ever it is - I have to admit it, you are one of the first to admit that none of the three are willing to address the current issues but instead are pandering

Whats funny is all these hollow Obama supporters - you know the ones with the huge Obama graphics and the 20 talking point bullets in their signature line...

They are no where to be found when someone actually drags out Obamas policy, lays it on the table and asks one of them to back it up.

Funny they dont show up but are willing to put up a billboard for the man but cant speak to his policies...

As an Obama supporter I readily admit there is pandering going on but not with just Obama but it happens will all of the candidates. I think if Clinton or Obama become POTUS there will be significant changes especially if what is predicted that the Dems will hold a large majority in the House and Senate. Now we might not like those changes but I think we are going to see some pretty big changes coming.

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 04:08 PM
All three (Obama Hillary and McCain) have been pandering to a degree - the issue is that it is fiscally irresponsible to think about expanding social programs with the current state of affairs. I can see if he wanted to raise taxes in order to decrease the hole left from spending under Bush but nothing has even come close. Its taxing corporation raising income taxes on various brackets, capital gains etc all to expand social programs with no regard to the current debt. Who gets elected better be concerned with the debt, the US dollar and out of control spending. Just doesnt make sense to spend more when your in the hole. It is fiscally irresponsible and if democrats have any "hope" they better hope they learned something from they way spending has become a mess. Otherwise democrats shouldnt do too much whining when they lose control of congress and or the white house.

pikesome
02-29-2008, 04:28 PM
Fiscal constraint only is essentially the Republican refrain and it was too bad they couldn't refrain from over spending on their priorities of oil first when they controlled all of government. Too satisfy the voters who put the Democrats in power the Health Insurance concerns HAVE to be met, period. Republicans do not get to set agendas because they wrecked the economy and left it a difficult endeavor. They had their turn to show they could cut taxes, fight wars and secure a better life for Americans. They really didn't know how to manage the government to their ends.
Republicans learned the same thing the Democrats did with the New (Raw) Deal, giving people money is a good way to get them to vote for you. It's as simple as that.
At least the Democrats are addressing American personal concerns.
When did this happen? While they were, repetedly, voting to fund the war in Iraq?

whoman69
03-01-2008, 07:28 PM
Seems odd to me that all the pundits are putting down the tax giveaway this year because we have infrastructure to rebuild. We need to put our economy back on track by investing in America. I think those in Minneapolis would agree.

Mr. Kotter
03-02-2008, 12:41 PM
Seems odd to me that all the pundits are putting down the tax giveaway this year because we have infrastructure to rebuild. We need to put our economy back on track by investing in America. I think those in Minneapolis would agree.

I assume you are being sarcastic, but....yeah, the rebates is really nothing more than a symbolic attempt to psychologically manipulate folks into "spending" IMO, and the money could be put to better uses, probably. Like bridges.

Not that I'll complain, when I cash mine though. :shrug:

StcChief
03-02-2008, 01:01 PM
If that's the case, then the likely vote along AGE lines.