Faith, Beer, and Other Things That Interest Geoff

If You Vote Against Obama You Are a Racist

I saw this on a LA Time blog (in the comments):

I have a Master's Degree, 30 years of social work experience and a daughter at Harvard. I am not a "redneck" or "hillbilly", you condescending Obamites. But I am a woman who has spent years watching shallow young men being promoted over hard working women based on their ability to BS.

Is it so hard to see why I don't want to vote for a candidate with no experience, unbelieveable arrogance and a sense of entitlement. I am no racist but I resent being told by Black pundits that I have to vote for an "empty suit" or Blacks will be rioting in the streets. That is called blackmail and I won't be intimidated.

I see a lot of Obama supporters saying stuff like "everyone knows Kentucky is filled with racists." Yeah, keep that talk up.

Labels: barack obama

Obama the Naive

Obama has some problems. First, he freaks out when President Bush comes out against appeasers. "Hey, stop talking about me!" So he admits he's an appeaser. Not good.

Then he tries to say that Kennedy talked to the Russians, what's the big deal with talking to the Iranians? Kennedy's first meeting with Kruschev made him think that Kennedy was a light-weight. Kennedy then brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Does anyone seriously think that the Iranians are going to take Obama seriously if he threatens them?

I have no problem with talking with our enemies. But this "stop before I say 'stop' again" stuff has to go.

Labels: barack obama, iran

Is Barack Obama the New Adlai Stevenson

Labels: barack obama

WSJ Doesn't Want Obama to Raise Capital Gains Rates

Barack Obama recently released his tax records, and it was notable how little he and his wife appear to invest in the stock market. That may explain the Senator's odd belief that a significant hike in the capital gains tax rate won't matter to shareholders or harm the economy.

Or so Mr. Obama's replied to CNBC's Maria Bartiromo when she asked how much he'd increase the cap-gains tax, something he's said is necessary to restore "fairness" to the tax code. Thanks to the 2003 tax cuts, the top rate is currently 15%.

"When I talk to people like Warren Buffett or others and I ask them, you know, what's – how much of a difference is it going to be if it's 20 or 25%, they say, look, if it's within that range then it's not going to distort, I think, economic decision making," he said. He concluded that a higher rate would boost federal receipts, which would allow the government to redistribute "relief to middle class and working class families."

With apologies to economists Buffett and Obama, the history of this tax isn't on their side.

The interesting thing to me, at least, is their references to JFK and Clinton. Well, maybe not JFK. He seems to have been a tax-cutter.

The capital gains rate is crucial to investment decisions; higher rates make capital more expensive, dampening incentives to invest and reducing economic growth. John F. Kennedy understood this, as he proposed a capital gains tax cut. Bill Clinton joined with Republicans in 1997 to sign legislation lowering the rate to 20% from 28%.

Critics howled this would reduce tax revenues, and they howled when Republicans cut the rate to 15% in 2003. What followed in both cases was an enormous "unlocking" effect, as investors sold more stock and assets to take advantage of the lower rate. Capital gains realizations soared to an estimated $729 billion in 2006 from $269 billion in 2002. This goosed Treasury receipts from capital gains, to an estimated $110 billion in 2006 from $49 billion in 2002.

Mr. Obama doesn't have to guess what sort of "distortion" would come from significantly raising the cap-gains rate. In 1986, the tax rate jumped to 28% from 20%, a 40% increase. Tax revenues spiked briefly in anticipation of the hike (as investors moved to cash in at the lower rate), then dropped precipitously. Four years later, in 1990, the federal government was still taking in 13% less revenue at the 28% rate than it did in 1985 at the 20% rate.

That history seems pretty damning to Obama's position.

I would like to say that Warren Buffett's positions on the estate tax and capital gains tax are curious. I guess if you have $40 billion you don't really care much. But as others have pointed out about the estate tax, Buffett benefits from a higher estate tax because it forces people to sell...to him.

Labels: barack obama, capital gains, tax policy, warren buffett

"White Folks' Greed Runs the World"

Obama's pastor has real issues, and this will continue to harm Obama. Primarily because Obama answers seem less than forthright or consistent.

Labels: barack obama

Buried in Eloquence, Obama Contradictions About Pastor

Not to mention throwing Grandmom under the bus. You got to hand it to Obama. Equating a pastor saying the US government is intentionally spreading the HIV virus in the black community to 5000 church members with a grandmom saying she was scared by a black man...that's definitely a new kind of politics.

And people are starting to point out how he handled the Imus situation. It appears hypocritically.

This isn't nearly the worst political gaffe ever. But if you portray or allow others to portray you in glowing other-worldly Messianic terms, this is a problem.

Labels: barack obama

Canadian Television Says Obama Demogoging NAFTA, Names Names

Labels: barack obama, NAFTA

Elephant in the Room: Obama a Harsh Idealogue Hidden by a Feel-Good Image

American voters will choose between two candidates this election year.
One inspires hope for a brighter, better tomorrow. His rhetoric makes us feel we are, indeed, one nation indivisible - indivisible by ideology or religion, indivisible by race or creed. It is rhetoric of hope and change and possibility. It's inspiring. This candidate can make you just plain feel good to be American.

The other candidate, by contrast, is one of the Senate's fiercest partisans. This senator reflexively sides with the party's extreme wing. There's no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None. It's basically been my way or the highway, combined with a sanctimoniousness that breeds contempt among those on the other side of any issue.

Which of these two candidates should be our next president? The choice is clear, right?

Wrong, because they're both the same man - Barack Obama.
...
[C]onsider his position on an issue that passed both houses of Congress unanimously in 2002.

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.

The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."

Labels: abortion, barack obama

Democratic-YouTube Debate

Apparently, Joe Biden tried to give a realistic answer about pulling out of Iraq. He has no hope for being President.

Hillary Clinton completely smoked Obama in one answer.

Senator Obama said in the debate that he would meet with the leaders of rogue nations; Senator Clinton said she would first make sure that such meetings were not intended as propaganda.

Pundits generally saw hers as the better answer, underscoring her experience on the world stage and at the same time casting Senator Obama as inexperienced.

Today, Senator Clinton drove home the point by directly criticizing Senator Obama’s statement.

“I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naïve,” Mrs. Clinton told the Quad-City Times in Iowa.

Hillary Clinton is completely right. Obama's answer is incredibly naïve.

Diplomacy is a good thing. But when you need to be diplomatic from a position of strength, craziness, etc. Not weakness. I think Hillary actually understands this.

Unless Obama is just saying what he thinks will sound good to Democratic voters.

Labels: barack obama, diplomacy, hillary clinton, iraq, joe biden