McKren:

If you read all of this thread you will know that am in no way shallow of Obama's[b] policies[/b]. Its been a while I started researching the man even before he declared.

However to think you will zero your mind on nothing and come here to expect me to repeat myself over Obama's policies is simply funny and also an excercize in futility, hence why I told you that.

Your opinnion simply adds nor removes nothing from who Barack Obama is. so why should I worry

More talks about policies like I cannot write policies maself?  Well we all know where we stand.  Let just sit back and enjoy the quest for "super mumu delegates"!

almondjoy:

I rest ma case.  As usual words with not meanings and the quest for super delegates continues!  What did I expect from you anyway?  We know what your thinking capabilities are! Always posting rubbish!

Move jo!

This article about Barack Obama is not rubbish, if you dont like the article dont read it instead of calling it rubbish!! .Move bitch!!

almondjoy:

More talks about policies like I cannot write policies maself? Well we all know where we stand. Let just sit back and enjoy the quest for "super mumu delegates"!

I obviously agree with you which is why I said you echo Obama's policies. That reply was never meant for you

It was meant for those who still think Gorge W. Bush is worth anything even now. If he was such a great President he wont be in Africa begging for legacies.

McKren:

I obviously agree with you which is why I said you echo Obama's policies. That reply was never meant for you

It was meant for those who still think Gorge W. Bush is worth anything even now. If[b] he was such a great President he wont be in Africa begging for legacies.

[/b]

Oh Gosh!

he he he he he!

It was a reflex action to reply to anywhere I see "policies" or "change"!

Oooops---friendly fire!

@Mckren,

Kudos to you. I am at a loss as to how to brand this your style. Is it the Babangida's style of stepping aside form the topic, or is it the Obama's style of all rhetoric with no substance. Either way, we still have no clue what Obama plans to do differently than anyone on the campaign trail right now, or better still from what George bush stands for.

As for the things for which we know the differences, I will be ready to debate anybody on such issues.

And has anybody noticed how Obama either abstains from voting or is missing in action during many key votes on the Senate floor. this is the guy we are supposed to believe in?

Barack Obama after winning Wisconsin - 1
Video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JfRWwZNv6FA&feature=user

Barack Obama after winning Wisconsin - 2
Video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=R1AvNqnramA&feature=user

@ tayo let me attempt to show you the economic implication of your tax cuts.

The reason for the support of the current bush tax cut is because of the current situation of the economy, consumer confidence is at an all time low so to avoid the economy going into a recession aggregate demand has to be stimulated and one way of doing this is cutting taxes.

The paradox is that more money has its problems as well which is inflation but in this situation since the risk is recession, lowering taxes could be a useful fiscal policy.

Now back to why i asked the differences if any between the 2 tax cuts, i was actually referring to the economic pecularities surrounding both as it is usually a lay mans arguement that tax cut is good since it puts more money on the table. The Implications on a macro level is not as simple.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I read this article a whileago and had it as a favourite read it, the introduction is shown below.

"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

Skip to next paragraph The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.   ,

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years."

See the fraud highlighted above, the average marginal tax rate for the middle class increases while that of the rich reduces.

This is one of the change Obama is talking about, no one is TOTALLY against tax cuts but when the bulk of the income gain is by a certain income bracket, the stimulation to the economy is non-existant.

Obama proposes tax cuts that will put more disposable income in the pockets of the middle class, the working America and less to the extremely rich. Secondly he proposes incentives to companies that will grow and build the American Market against those that take jobs abroad (this is another arguement).

Furthermore, the most ridicolous aspect of Bush is that in a time of war, the bush govt has kept on reducing taxes from the $1.6 trillion tax cut to this (which as i have shown above is different), the effect is that you have rising Government Expenditure, but reducing Revenue/Income, the effect is you start driving the level of budget deficit so high it can't be sustained, it is at level almost 4% of GDP (almost), that my friend is an economic disaster.

Finally the effect of this can be seen on the US exchange rate, interest rate and Inflation, the credit crunch has helped distort the analysis hence its not that simple but on the average the tax cuts has led to economic slow down, i really don't see the wisdonm in that.

Now this is my debate, First, OBAMA is a complete change from BUSH, the tax gain from any cut would be higher for the middle income than the high income. BUSH and by extension republicans seek to protect the interest of the rich through aggressive tax cuts that give the little top 1% more, that are damaging to the economy as a whole.

Hmmm,

I have lived in the US almost 17 years and voted in at least 3 presidential elections,
but come to think of it, I have no idea what Hillary stands for or what qualifies her
for presidency, other than the fact she was former 1st lady turn senator.

On McCain, I knew he was a POW and was once considered a political maverick, but
he had dirtied his reputation severally since George Bush came on board. I could have
voted for him 8 years ago. What does he stands for now? I have no idea.

Having said that, I am perfectly OK with the little I know about Obama! He is a
community organizer and a senator just like the other two. He is probably smarter
than the other two. He scores higher than either McCain or Hillary when it comes
to past integrity. He will be far more successful at reaching across party lines than
either McCain or Hillary, thats how you really get something done. He showed this
in Illinois. Hillary is toast (I would have voted for her if Obama was not in)!

Iyke-D:

Hmmm,

I have lived in the US almost 17 years and voted in at least 3 presidential elections,
but come to think of it, I have no idea what Hillary stands for or what qualifies her
for presidency, other than the fact she was former 1st lady turn senator.

On McCain, I knew he was a POW and was once considered a political maverick, but
he had dirtied his reputation severally since George Bush came on board. I could have
voted for him 8 years ago. What does he stands for now? I have no idea.

Having said that, I am perfectly OK with the little I know about Obama! He is a
community organizer and a senator just like the other two. He is probably smarter
than the other two. He scores higher than either McCain or Hillary when it comes
to past integrity. He will be far more successful at reaching across party lines than
either McCain or Hillary, thats how you really get something done. He showed this
in Illinois. Hillary is toast (I would have voted for her if Obama was not in)!

The truth is that McCain stands for more aggressive US foreign Policy, more tax cuts to the rich (disastrous economic policy) and the rest is just BUSH policies. I find it funny when republicans accuse Obama of politics, McCain is keeping a long and far distance to Bush because of his approval rating but needs him for fund raising, what other political deception can he play.

Hillary and OBAMA have the same core message but Hillary can't bring about the change in the way things are done because she is compromised and divisive, she will continue the same Dems vs Republican approach. She can't stand up to lobbyst because her campaign was funded by them, she is part of the old school that experience gets the job done, geez such crap.

I find it distasteful when people say OBAMA has no substance just because they chose not to enlighten themselves. They say they can't idenify the Change and his supporters are emotional, thats just Sour Grapes of loosers. Let the contest go his way, i will gladly enlighten Nairaland on the CHANGE WE BELIEVE IN Philosophy. Its not just words, i read it from the website they all condem, because they can't take the pain to read and understand issues.

OBAMA would be different from Hillary (CHANGE) in his approach because he has not yet been compromised (hopefully). His campaign is funded by his followers (so called movement), his policy approach (though same in content) is different from Hillary. He wants an all inclusive approach and has said more young people involved, republicans and democrats with the ideas get involved. If thats not CHANGE, please i don't know what is?

I have no idea what Hillary stands for or what qualifies her
for presidency

She boast of 35 years of experience which includes 8years of experience as US First Lady and Akansas First Lady for 12years. Thats total of 20years Experience as First Lady, I dont know how that qualifies her to be Commander in Chief.

Whether that should even qualify as political experience is debatable because she was not appointed First Lady nor was she elected to the office of First Lady. She only became First Lady by default owing to a decision Bill and Hill made in the 70s.

It is no wonder that her campaign which has been the largest organisation she has ever run has not benefited from her 35years of experience. It does not reflect in her spending, style or staff loyalty.

This whole experience talk for me is a mirage.

@away4real,

@ tayo let me attempt to show you the economic implication of your tax cuts.

And I will attempt to show you the gaps in your arguments in brevity.

The reason for the support of the current bush tax cut is because of the current situation of the economy, consumer confidence is at an all time low so to avoid the economy going into a recession aggregate demand has to be stimulated and one way of doing this is cutting taxes.

The economy will always be stimulated when people have more money, either in times of economic uncertainty or otherwise. this is the reason why the economy of the US has continued to grow since 911. The tax cut ensures people have more money in their pockets to invest.

The paradox is that more money has its problems as well which is inflation but in this situation since the risk is recession, lowering taxes could be a useful fiscal policy.

The recession is primarily due to the housing market slump and fueled by outsourcing. Recession is having 2 consecutive negative growths of the econmy. Don't you find it funny that the economy didn't experience this recession for almost 7 years of Bush presidency?

Now back to why i asked the differences if any between the 2 tax cuts, i was actually referring to the economic pecularities surrounding both as it is usually a lay mans arguement that tax cut is good since it puts more money on the table. The Implications on a macro level is not as simple.

I have told you the bottom line. It is wealth redistribution, plain and simple. It is the Government playing the role of a philanthropist when it shouldn't be doing so.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I read this article a whileago and had it as a favourite read it, the introduction is shown below.
"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.
Skip to next paragraph The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.  
Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

Can you see how hollow your logic is from the bolden statement above? The fact is that Bush's tax cut affected everyone and is credited for creating more millionaires in the US than anytime in history. These are the same people who reinvest in the economy to help those in the lower bracket make a daily living for themselves and their families. But of course, they get punished for their industry by the socialist party of the Democrats.

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years."

This has nothing to do with the policies. The world is changing and if you choose to remain in one place, you will grow poor. These same poor people have the opportunities that the rich guy have, but why should they work when they are sure Obama and Co will pay their rent and provide them food and allowances?

See the fraud highlighted above, the average marginal tax rate for the middle class increases while that of the rich reduces.

Your summary is faulty. The tax rates for both groups fell, though the diference in the rates vary.

This is one of the change Obama is talking about, no one is TOTALLY against tax cuts but when the bulk of the income gain is by a certain income bracket, the stimulation to the economy is non-existant.

Do you know what happens when you tax the rich? They take their investments elsewhere. NWA and Delta Airlines are about to merge, and Minnesota is going to lose out becuase the headquarters will be relocated to Atalanta. You know why? Minnesota charges a whooping 7.5% tax on NWA profits over and above that which the FG does. Now why won't they relocate to a more frindly place? the truth is, taxation kills investment because it is more or else a penalty for industry. The change Obama should make is to reduce the size of Government, but he aint gonna do that. The Govt should only be involved in governance and not social welfare.

Obama proposes tax cuts that will put more disposable income in the pockets of the middle class, the working America and less to the extremely rich. Secondly he proposes incentives to companies that will grow and build the American Market against those that take jobs abroad (this is another arguement).

The middle class gets enough tax breaks. Chevron is taxed 48% here in the US, and who do you think bears the brunt of it - of course the consumers. What incentive can you give a company to remain in america other than tax break, and when the govt gives you a tax break, it will take the money elsewhere unless it reduces its size. That is the whole truth.

Furthermore, the most ridicolous aspect of Bush is that in a time of war, the bush govt has kept on reducing taxes from the $1.6 trillion tax cut to this (which as i have shown above is different), the effect is that you have rising Government Expenditure, but reducing Revenue/Income, the effect is you start driving the level of budget deficit so high it can't be sustained, it is at level almost 4% of GDP (almost), that my friend is an economic disaster.

The country had a deficit too during world war 2. Why should you increase taxes in a time of war? What that will do is to make people not invest without wich there'll be no jobs, and the few who have the jobs will be taxed more to sustain the government spending.

Finally the effect of this can be seen on the US exchange rate, interest rate and Inflation, the credit crunch has helped distort the analysis hence its not that simple but on the average the tax cuts has led to economic slow down, i really don't see the wisdonm in that.

Are you for real? You can never go wrong when the people have money to spend. The economic slow down is not because of the tax cuts. Look elsewhere for somethin to blame. If the tax cut is the problem, the Democrats won't agree to provide more as witnessed with the economic stimulus plan. It is their interest in a bigger, welfare driven government that is making them ask for more of your money. Let them cut the programmes and there'll be less deficit.

Now this is my debate, First, OBAMA is a complete change from BUSH, the tax gain from any cut would be higher for the middle income than the high income. BUSH and by extension republicans seek to protect the interest of the rich through aggressive tax cuts that give the little top 1% more, that are damaging to the economy as a whole.

The top 1% you are talking about are the investors and enterpreneurs without which there will not be the economy we are talking about. Believe me, the middle incomers are fairing well and have a significant tax break. This is tax period and I will be getting a check of almost $15,000.00 in tax returns, which of course I'll invest again in the economy. That money in the hands of the government will likely go to doing more welfare work which will be a burden on the economy.

Still nothin' about immigration. Will come back later in July then!

All this long long grammar!

See the fraud highlighted above, the average marginal tax rate for the middle class increases while that of the rich reduces.

This is one of the change Obama is talking about, no one is TOTALLY against tax cuts but when the bulk of the income gain is by a certain income bracket, the stimulation to the economy is non-existant.

When Bush entered into office,the economy was in the midst of a slowdown which tipped into a recession shortly thereafter.Bush's policies didn't stimulate economy?Unless you want to ignore the fact that the US economy bounced back from the 2001 recession to post GDP growth rates above US historical and OECD averages.If that isn't a stimulation,I wonder what is.

As for the supposedly skewed nature of Bush's first 2 tax cuts.The question is whether you actually want to stimulate the economy or simply play class politics.The rich,like it or not,own a disproportionate share of the country's wealth and any major tax cuts that doesn't include them is often futile.When Reagan cut the top rates of income tax from 70% to 40%,did the economy tank?Absolutely not.Instead,as we have seen with the Bush tax cuts,the rich now bear a higher share of the nation's tax burden.http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7718/EffectiveTaxRates.pdf

Lets not be fooled the by the idea that Bush's tax policies only benefit the rich.In 2000,the bottom 40% collectively paid no income taxes.With the 2001 tax rebates-which mailed $600 to couples on low income and $300 to those who are single,the bottom 40% collective share of income taxes fell to -4% between 2000 and 2004.

Secondly he proposes incentives to companies that will grow and build the American Market against those that take jobs abroad (this is another arguement)

Companies are guided by economic logic.Using US taxes to subsidise decisions that may go against a companies' economic logic is hardly a judicious use of money.

Furthermore, the most ridicolous aspect of Bush is that in a time of war, the bush govt has kept on reducing taxes from the $1.6 trillion tax cut to this (which as i have shown above is different), the effect is that you have rising Government Expenditure, but reducing Revenue/Income, the effect is you start driving the level of budget deficit so high it can't be sustained, it is at level almost 4% of GDP (almost), that my friend is an economic disaster.

Stay factual,the biggest Bush tax cuts(the 2001 $1.3trillion tax cuts) was signed into law in July 2001-hardly a time of war:http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/

If you are referring to the smaller 2003 tax cuts,that led to an increase in the GDP annual growth rate from just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts to,in the six quarters following the tax cuts, a growth rate of 4.1 percent.

Does such expansion of the GDP growth rate lead to a fall in the Govt revenue/income?Your complaints about higher Govt expenditure is ironic given that Obama's campaign promises require a monumental increase in Govt expenditure that will only serve to widen the deficit and wipe out any theoretical revenue benefits from ending the Iraq war and letting the Bush tax cuts expire.You do remember that all these campaign promises have to paid for,don't you?

4Play, lets not go too far . . . if campaign organisation were a brief insight into the executive capability of both candidates then Hillary shld just concede to Obama. It is not about waving tattered policies in our face but about showing us a capacity to lead effectively.

4Him:

4Play, lets not go too far . . . if campaign organisation were a brief insight into the executive capability of both candidates then Hillary shld just concede to Obama. It is not about waving tattered policies in our face but about showing us a capacity to lead effectively.

Wouldn't that,for instance, make Bush a more capable executive than Kerry?Given that the former was said to run one of the most efficient campaign organisations in recent memory.

Equating campaign efficiency to executive capability will lead to absurd results.Was A.Hitler more capable than his German rivals in 1933,Herbert Hoover more capable than his rivals in 1928? These men hardly demonstrated much in terms of executive capability,and that is being euphemistic,but they still ran extra-ordinarily efficient campaigns.

Note the use of the word "if". I'm not saying organizational efficiency is exactly a criteria for choosing the next president . . . just making an observation.

I thought Hillary was supposed to be the "ready on day one" candidate? How can she do that
if she can not manage an effective campaign organization? I am not even talking about fund raising
here or the fact that her campaign was in the red few weeks ago, but it was reported that she
was not even aware of this very important fact.

Also, all along her strategy seemed to have been to take Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in order
to checkmate Obama's lead, but again it was reported a couple of days ago that her campaign
was shocked to learn about the very complicated nature of the primary election system in Texas,
due to zoning, and the way delegates are to be assigned as factors like the turnout in the last
election cycle were considered.

The implication of this is that her campaign was already targeting some Latino heavy districts that
may not necessary have offer sufficient delegates because their turnout in the last election was
abysmal, meaning she may win the popular vote in Texas but still lose when it comes to delegates!
Contrast that with Obama's team who seems to be on top of things wherever the battle shifts to.

Can you say "ready on day one" again? If you have a firewall strategy, you will think an effective
manager/leader would have taken the time to understand and implement what is needed to make
sure that the firewall is actually a firewall. I thought she was more capable than this, but she is
proving me wrong daily.

Lastly, per Bush's elections, there was no question that either Gore or Kerry lost to him due to
the Republican funny business in Florida and Ohio respectively, we shouldn't forget that. The
2004 election exit polls worked everywhere except Ohio? ? ? Big Businesses have had it so good
this past 7 years, and while there is not much wrong with that, it is also time for some re-alignment
in favor of public policies that will benefit most people.

Hillary has no Firewall strategy, her strategy is rather that of a figher fighter (I mean extinguishing at the last minute with a hose).

How can any good manager plan that primaries will end on February 5 when the election time table shows that primaries end in June.

Her whole strategy depends on the failure of her opponent not the success of her team.

There was even no room for plan B in case election went past February 5, what a poor Judgement. (reminds everyone of voting for a war in Iraq that has no exit strategy).

Please educate yourselves:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/02/20/clinton-v-obama-legislative-accomplishments/

People must learn to get past their emotions and use their heads for a change.

Enjoy!

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama won the Democrats Abroad global primary in results announced Thursday, giving him 11 straight victories in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Illinois senator won the primary in which Democrats living in other countries voted by Internet, mail and in person, according to results released by the Democrats Abroad, an organization sanctioned by the national party.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has not won a nominating contest since Super Tuesday, more than two weeks ago.

More than 20,000 U.S. citizens living abroad voted in the primary, which ran from Feb. 5 to Feb. 12. Obama won about 65 percent of the vote, according to the results released Thursday.

Voters living in 164 countries cast votes online, while expatriates voted in person in more than 30 countries, at hotels in Australia and Costa Rica, at a pub in Ireland and at a Starbucks in Thailand. The results took about a week to tabulate as local committees around the globe gathered ballots.

"This really gives Americans an opportunity to participate," said Christine Schon Marques, the international chair of Democrats Abroad.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_delegates

The tribe has spoken

Hillary has no Firewall strategy, her strategy is rather that of a figher fighter (I mean extinguishing at the last minute with a hose).

How can any good manager plan that primaries will end on February 5 when the election time table shows that primaries end in June.

Her whole strategy depends on the failure of her opponent not the success of her team.

There was even no room for plan B in case election went past February 5, what a poor Judgement. (reminds everyone of voting for a war in Iraq that has no exit strategy).

It was so obvious that she did not have a plan all she does is to wait for Obama to make any speech, she would then go to dissect it for errors and Inconsistencies. Now she has a partner in McCain at BArackbashing

Here is an article on cnn. The writer, like a number of us is still trying to find out what the "change we can believe in" is. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/22/sanchez.latinos/index.html

Several Hispanics I spoke with in south Texas on Friday tell me about Hispanic Democrats who have remained reluctant to commit to Clinton. They are open to Obama's message. But these voters are wondering, as are independents and even some Republicans, what all this talk about "change" really means.

On taxes

Texas is also home to 20 percent of the nation's Hispanic-owned businesses, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And the family- and community-oriented people who own these businesses, many of which classify as small businesses that pay taxes as individual rates, do not regard the Bush tax cuts as "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans."

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire, as both Obama and Clinton have pledged to do, will be seen by these voters as a massive tax increase, not the restoration of fairness in the system.

Neither Obama nor Clinton spent enough time on this. Increased trade will certainly result once U.S.-Cuba relations are eventually normalized -- meaning more jobs for Texas -- but neither seems to have a plan.

And if, as both Clinton and Obama suggest, though Obama does it better, the election is about "change," both candidates continue in their failure to explain in any meaningful way what that means.

i really dnt see obama winning this election, politics is crazy. it tends to swing in ur favour for a loong time, only to swing the other way at the last moment

Clinton & Obama: CNN Texas Debate Final Question
Video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xk5dXazv-g0