PDA

View Full Version : Elections Obama:The Devils in His Details


bkkcoh
08-28-2008, 09:24 AM
Link (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/obama_should_address_russian_a.html)

DENVER -- When Barack Obama feeds rhetorical fishes and loaves to the multitudes in the football stadium Thursday night, he should deliver a message of sufficient particularity that it seems particularly suited to Americans. One more inspirational oration, one general enough to please Berliners or even his fellow "citizens of the world," will confirm Pascal's point that "continuous eloquence wearies." That is so because it is not really eloquent. If it is continuous, it is necessarily formulaic and abstract, vague enough for any time and place, hence truly apposite for none.

If Socrates had engaged in an interminable presidential campaign in a media-drenched age, perhaps he, too, would have come to seem banal. But the fact that Obama lost nine of the final 14 primaries might have something to do with the fact that when he descends from the ether to practicalities, he reprises liberalism's most shopworn nostrums.

Russia, a third-world nation with first-world missiles, is rampant; Iran is developing a missile inventory capable of delivering nuclear weapons the development of which will not be halted by Obama's promised "aggressive personal diplomacy." Yet Obama has vowed to "cut investments in unproven missile defense systems." Steamboats, railroads, airplanes and vaccines were "unproven" until farsighted people made investments. Furthermore, as Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute notes, Democrats will eventually embrace missile defense in Europe because they "will have nowhere else to go short of pre-emptive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities."

Obama, who might be the last person to learn that schools' cognitive outputs are not simply functions of financial inputs, promises more money for teachers, who, as usual, are about 10 percent of the Democrats' convention delegates and alternates. He waxes indignant about approximately 150,000 jobs sent overseas each year -- less than 1 percent of the number of jobs normally lost and gained in the creative destruction of America's dynamic economy. U.S. exports are fending off a recession while he complains about free trade. He deplores NAFTA, although since it was implemented in 1994 the U.S., Mexican and Canadian economies have grown 50 percent, 46 percent and 54 percent, respectively.

Recycling George McGovern's 1972 "Demogrant" notion, Obama promises a $1,000 check for every family, financed by a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies. Obama is unintimidated by the rule against legislating about subjects one cannot define.

Obama thinks government is not getting a "reasonable share" of oil companies' profits, which in 2007 were, as a percentage of revenues (8.3 percent), below those of U.S. manufacturing generally (8.9 percent). Exxon Mobil pays almost as much in corporate taxes to various governments as the bottom 50 percent of American earners pay in income taxes. Exxon Mobil does make $1,400 a second in profits -- hear the sharp intakes of breath from liberals with pursed lips -- but pays $4,000 a second in taxes and $15,000 a second in operating costs.

Obama's rhetorical extravagances are inversely proportional to his details, as when he promises "nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy" in order to "end the age of oil." The diminished enthusiasm of some voters hitherto receptive to his appeals might have something to do with the seepage of reality from his rhetoric. Voters understand that neither the "transformation" nor the "end" will or should occur. His dreamy certitude that "alternative" fuels will quickly become real alternatives is an energy policy akin to an old vaudeville joke: "If we had some eggs, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some ham."

When he speaks Thursday night in a venue consecrated to the faux combat of football, the NATO alliance, which was 12 years old when he was born, may be collapsing because of its unwillingness to help enough in Afghanistan and its inability to respond seriously to Russia's combat in Georgia. It is unfair to neither NATO nor Obama to note that the alliance is practicing what he preaches: It is preaching to Vladimir Putin, who is unimpressed. NATO, said Lord Ismay, speaking of Europe in 1949, was created to "keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out." That Germany's appeasement reflex is part of NATO's weakness is perhaps progress, of sorts.

Journalism often must be preoccupied with matters barely remembered a week later. But decades hence, historians will write about today's response to Russia by the West, perhaps in obituaries for the idea of "the West." If Obama does not speak to this crisis Thursday night, that will speak volumes.

--------------------------------------

George Will seems to be a highly respected columnists that doesn't appear to be too extreme in either direction.

HonestChieffan
08-28-2008, 09:43 AM
excellent job by GW

tiptap
08-28-2008, 10:01 AM
Does Bush need cover?

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2008, 10:13 AM
George Will is the best

mikey23545
08-28-2008, 10:19 AM
Does Bush need cover?

Great response - you've swayed me.

bkkcoh
08-28-2008, 12:44 PM
Does Bush need cover?

That is absoluetly amazing, Bush isn't even mentioned in the article.

When you can't defend, deflect. Is that the political talking points? Both sides are guilty of that... Not just the dems.

ROYC75
08-28-2008, 12:54 PM
Does Bush need cover?


How ? Please explain, hurry up too, I have to go to the doctor @ 2:15pm.

Dick Bull
08-28-2008, 01:01 PM
George Will seems to be a highly respected columnists that doesn't appear to be too extreme in either direction.

what?

George will is so freaking conservative it ain't even funny

Here is a link for you to read up on, since you don't seem to know who he is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Will

mlyonsd
08-28-2008, 01:09 PM
Obama thinks government is not getting a "reasonable share" of oil companies' profits, which in 2007 were, as a percentage of revenues (8.3 percent), below those of U.S. manufacturing generally (8.9 percent). Exxon Mobil pays almost as much in corporate taxes to various governments as the bottom 50 percent of American earners pay in income taxes. Exxon Mobil does make $1,400 a second in profits -- hear the sharp intakes of breath from liberals with pursed lips -- but pays $4,000 a second in taxes and $15,000 a second in operating costs.


This is the part that gets me.

$19,000 a second in taxes and operating costs? Crazy.

Punishing a company by redistributing it's wealth for political gain is one step closer to a socialist society. Wake up people.

bkkcoh
08-28-2008, 01:11 PM
what?

George will is so freaking conservative it ain't even funny

Here is a link for you to read up on, since you don't seem to know who he is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Will

Awards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Will#Awards)

Works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Will#Works)

tiptap
08-28-2008, 01:11 PM
According to Euripicles, Socrates was banal. (Socrates hated Democracy so he isn't high on my list of Philosphers)

Russia reflects that it was kicked to the side by the US and west after the Soviet fall. That in its hour of need it was left to its own demise. And with the penchant from Czars to Communism for central control, one shouldn't be surprised at the trend. The new wealth is offset by the the cut in half of population, with those lost now residing in new nations. Their birth rate is down and if oil is there source of revenue than moving away from oil hurts them.

While the product of schools cognitative output is not a simple function of teacher's salaries, funding for adequate NUMBER of teachers IS, IN GETTTING CLASSES SMALLER which has been shown to help instruction. That is helped by recruiting more teachers with better paying jobs. Meeting the retraining needs of displaced workers is the focus on lost jobs.

The 1000 dollar check isn't from wind fall. It is from a framing of Progressive INCOME tax. No one's existing wealth is being deprived. Only income. As such money will be provided to a larger number of Americans. I have every confidence that those in business will win back those revenues. And in the process the American economy will be more efficient.

The rhetoric of the Republicans is chiMcCainery. Where are their details. The details will be at the discretion of the Congress. Anybody should know that. Candidates simply set goals.

And then back to Russia by way of Georgia. Doing away with missile treaties always is a good way to make friends.

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2008, 01:16 PM
According to Euripicles, Socrates was banal. (Socrates hated Democracy so he isn't high on my list of Philosphers)

Russia reflects that it was kicked to the side by the US and west after the Soviet fall. That in its hour of need it was left to its own demise. And with the penchant from Czars to Communism for central control, one shouldn't be surprised at the trend. The new wealth is offset by the the cut in half of population, with those lost now residing in new nations. Their birth rate is down and if oil is there source of revenue than moving away from oil hurts them.

While the product of schools cognitative output is not a simple function of teacher's salaries, funding for adequate NUMBER of teachers IS IN GETTTING CLASSES SMALLER. That is helped by recruiting more teachers with better paying jobs. Meeting the retraining needs of displaced workers is the focus on lost jobs.

The 1000 dollar check isn't from wind fall. It is from a framing of Progressive INCOME tax. No one's existing wealth is being deprived. Only income. As such money will be provided to a larger number of Americans. I have every confidence that those in business will win back those revenues. And in the process the American economy will be more efficient.

The rhetoric of the Republicans is chiMccainery. Where are their details. The details will be at the discretion of the Congress. Anybody should know that. Candidates simply set goals.

And then back to Russia by way of Georgia. Doing away with missile treaties always is a good way to make friends.



If we tax oil companies EVEN MORE they are just going pass that on to the consumer. It's not a progressive tax.

mlyonsd
08-28-2008, 01:21 PM
No one's existing wealth is being deprived. Only income.

Oh, as long as you put it that way it makes sense.

tiptap
08-28-2008, 01:25 PM
Where you around during a real oil boom. Exxon bought companies like Montgomery Ward and Zilog and a host of others making them much more a conglomerate than an oil company for a while. This time around it will be industries in other countries. That will be generating jobs in those areas. The taxes ON PROFITS, does not necessarily get passed on. Profits are money above expenses and passed to share holders. (So shareholders miss out YES and so does ExxonMobile in buying that extra boutique in the Emirates). So re think your position.

tiptap
08-28-2008, 01:27 PM
Oh, as long as you put it that way it makes sense.
I am up front with you on this. And I doubt you will be paying that tax. Unlike me. I have been paying the higher rates and Clinton surtaxes and AMT for ever so long now. But I am not afraid of hard work and bailing out the debt the Republicans gave us if the goals I want are being met by my government.

Dick Bull
08-28-2008, 01:29 PM
Awards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Will#Awards)

Works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Will#Works)

what does that have to do with anything?

The quote said he wasn't extreme on either side, that guy's so far right he can't even see the center.

tiptap
08-28-2008, 01:35 PM
Will likes baseball. He always liked baseball. It is the more high brow sport and all the intelligent pundits prefer baseball. That is why he is here on the Royals board.

Logical
08-28-2008, 01:48 PM
According to Euripicles, Socrates was banal. (Socrates hated Democracy so he isn't high on my list of Philosphers)

Russia reflects that it was kicked to the side by the US and west after the Soviet fall. That in its hour of need it was left to its own demise. And with the penchant from Czars to Communism for central control, one shouldn't be surprised at the trend. The new wealth is offset by the the cut in half of population, with those lost now residing in new nations. Their birth rate is down and if oil is there source of revenue than moving away from oil hurts them.

While the product of schools cognitative output is not a simple function of teacher's salaries, funding for adequate NUMBER of teachers IS, IN GETTTING CLASSES SMALLER which has been shown to help instruction. That is helped by recruiting more teachers with better paying jobs. Meeting the retraining needs of displaced workers is the focus on lost jobs.

The 1000 dollar check isn't from wind fall. It is from a framing of Progressive INCOME tax. No one's existing wealth is being deprived. Only income. As such money will be provided to a larger number of Americans. I have every confidence that those in business will win back those revenues. And in the process the American economy will be more efficient.

The rhetoric of the Republicans is chiMcCainery. Where are their details. The details will be at the discretion of the Congress. Anybody should know that. Candidates simply set goals.

And then back to Russia by way of Georgia. Doing away with missile treaties always is a good way to make friends.

Outstanding response, George Will has fallen to the wayside given the Fox news media craze and he is merely trying to gather the attention he wants to reaquire. The article was really mundane right wing pablum for the right wing masses. Undoubtedly he will do a similar article next week on McCain and cronies.

mlyonsd
08-28-2008, 02:12 PM
I am up front with you on this. And I doubt you will be paying that tax. Unlike me. I have been paying the higher rates and Clinton surtaxes and AMT for ever so long now. But I am not afraid of hard work and bailing out the debt the Republicans gave us if the goals I want are being met by my government.
I don't doubt your sincerity but the bolded part is the part I take issue with. Just because I won't pay the tax doesn't make it right. That's my problem with the whole progressive tax system, raising taxes is no big deal as long as you aren't the one who's income is reduced because of it.

I don't get the whole what's yours is mine mentality. If we all paid the same income tax rate I believe spending would go down because people would pay more attention knowing that new bridge to nowhere is coming out of their pockets. I digress, getting off the soap box now.

Getting back on for a second....But besides all that, to consider a special tax on oil companies just to score political points with the public is nothing but a stunt, one intended to reinforce the what's yours is mine mentality.

Someday we're going to look around at each other and ask where did all the rich people go and now who's going to pave my road? Ok, getting down for the last time.

Everyone have a great weekend.

Ultra Peanut
08-28-2008, 02:24 PM
George Will is a ****ing hack.

KEEP TRYING TO PROVOKE A NEW COLD WAR

TEACHERS ARE LEECHERS, GRRRRRRRRR

OIL COMPANIES GOOD, GIVE THEM MORE TAX BREAKS

He writes the same goddamned article every time. Well, the Russia stuff wasn't in there last time, but that's because Saakashvili hadn't made his spectacularly retarded move yet.

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2008, 02:28 PM
George Will is a ****ing hack.

KEEP TRYING TO PROVOKE A NEW COLD WAR

TEACHERS ARE LEECHERS, GRRRRRRRRR

OIL COMPANIES GOOD, GIVE THEM MORE TAX BREAKS

He writes the same goddamned article every time. Well, the Russia stuff wasn't in there last time, but that's because Saakashvili hadn't made his spectacularly retarded move yet.


Speaking of hacks

Ultra Peanut
08-28-2008, 02:30 PM
Speaking of hacksloool