Parse error: syntax error, unexpected '<' in /opt/bitnami/apache2/htdocs/forums/archive/global.php(117) : eval()'d code on line 1
Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities [Archive] - StangBangerz Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities



Waffles
10-30-2008, 01:03 PM
Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer – Wed Oct 29, 9:18 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are — beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:

THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

___

THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."

THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.

___

THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."

THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years — and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

___

THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "

THE FACTS: His proposals — the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more — cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged — although not in his commercial — that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."

Maximus
10-30-2008, 01:23 PM
So basically, we are FUCKEDeither way.:mad:

TONYT
10-30-2008, 01:26 PM
THAT WHY ITS CALLED POLITICS.

NAW U GONE BE OK U GET SPECIAL DISPENSATION

Timido
10-30-2008, 02:01 PM
Obama wants to take troups out of Irag and put them right into Afghanistan.

Both of them are lieing one way Mofos.

Black Horse
10-30-2008, 02:11 PM
Its just another clear cut example of Obama avoiding the question/topic asked. This time he avoided himself!


I think Maximus should be President - we would get shit done!

cstreu1026
10-30-2008, 02:30 PM
What do you think that air time cost his campaign? I read that he spent something like $105 million in the first 15 days of October alone. He is the poster child for campaign finance reform.

Stangman
10-30-2008, 02:50 PM
I think Maximus should be President - we would get shit done!

Drunken rants/State of the Union messages... I can see it now :lol:

Cracker '08!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

k062693w
10-30-2008, 02:59 PM
What do you think that air time cost his campaign? I read that he spent something like $105 million in the first 15 days of October alone. He is the poster child for campaign finance reform.

$4,000,000 :bigthumb

Waffles
10-30-2008, 05:16 PM
So basically, we are FUCKEDeither way.:mad:

This is why we should have had a true conservative candidate. McCain bad, Obama worse. McCain moderate, Obama liberal. The further left they get, the worse off we are.

And no one better go talking about some imaginary Clinton surplus either, because it never happened. :lol: The National Debt increased from $4.1 trillion in 1993 to $5.67 trillion in 2000.

04 Venom
10-31-2008, 07:54 AM
And no one better go talking about some imaginary Clinton surplus either, because it never happened. :lol: The National Debt increased from $4.1 trillion in 1993 to $5.67 trillion in 2000.

True, but it was the smallest increase in the national debt since Jimmy Carter was President and the two years of budget surpluses during Clinton's second term were the first since a single year during Nixon's first term. When Carter left office in January 1981, the national debt was $1 trillion. Twelve years later, after 2 Reagan terms and one Bush the Elder term, the debt quadrupled to $4.2 trillion. During 8 years of Clinton, it increased $1.4 trillion to $5.6 trillion. Then, during George the Conqueror's 2 terms, it nearly doubles again to slightly more than $10 trillion dollars. So the largest percentage increase occurred during the Reagan-Bush years and the largest volume of debt increase occurred during George the Conqueror's reign.

Whoever becomes President, and much to your chagrin it will be Obama, the fiscal mess will severely limit any new spending on discretionary programs, which is only 21% of the federal budget.

Rick93coupe
10-31-2008, 08:00 AM
Whoever becomes President, and much to your chagrin it will be Obama, the fiscal mess will severely limit any new spending on discretionary programs, which is only 21% of the federal budget.

:rolleyes: You start your sentence with whoever wins and then tell us who it's going to be. No, your not on Obama supporter. As I said before, your not fooling anybody.

cstreu1026
10-31-2008, 08:31 AM
$4,000,000 :bigthumb

Sounds like he got a hell of a deal on airtime. I guess we know who the media outlets like.

02mingryGT
10-31-2008, 08:48 AM
True, but it was the smallest increase in the national debt since Jimmy Carter

Two wrongs don't make a right. Plus it's more an issue of Congress than it is the President.

Waffles
10-31-2008, 09:35 AM
During Reagan it was the cold war, and during Bush 43 it's the war in Iraq. War costs money. When military force is necessary and not taken, we get 9/11, and that costs lives. I'll be the first one to bitch that Iraq has a surplus while we're still spending money, but be sure that's because Dems would be screaming even louder if we were using their money. It'd be a whole new reason, or confirmation of other reasons, for why we're there.

04 Venom
10-31-2008, 10:09 AM
During Reagan it was the cold war, and during Bush 43 it's the war in Iraq. War costs money. When military force is necessary and not taken, we get 9/11, and that costs lives. I'll be the first one to bitch that Iraq has a surplus while we're still spending money, but be sure that's because Dems would be screaming even louder if we were using their money. It'd be a whole new reason, or confirmation of other reasons, for why we're there.

Your post simply addressed the imaginary surpluses under Clinton. Iraq has accounted for less than 20% of the deficit under George the Conqueror. The military buid-up under Reagan did not account for even a majority of the deficit during that period either. Sure Congress was a major factor in all of these deficits, but that was not the point of your original post.

04 Venom
10-31-2008, 10:26 AM
:rolleyes: You start your sentence with whoever wins and then tell us who it's going to be. No, your not on Obama supporter. As I said before, your not fooling anybody.

Well sorry to disappoint you, but I didn't vote for either of them.

If you read any of my prior posts, you will understand the reason for the statement. There has never been an occasion during modern political history in this country where the incumbent party has held the White House during a major economic downturn and when the incumbent President was deeply unpopular. Usually only one factor need be present--the economic downturn. But here we have a deeply unpopular President, an economic downturn, consumer confidence at the lowest levels ever and 80% of the voters saying that the country was headed in the wrong direction.

Look at the 1992 election. George the senior had a 91% approval rating after the first Gulf War and less than 18 months later he lost the election because the country was in a recession. Get it? Under these circumstances, no Republican will win and if there was a Democat was President now, no Democrat would win either. The only factor that may keep the popular vote close is the race factor. It will not be close in the electoral college vote, and that is the only one that counts.

It really is that simple. Is it impossible for McCain to win? No. Is it likely? No, again. As DeckerEnt would say, "put on your big girl panties and deal with it."

Goldenpony
11-01-2008, 09:07 PM
Well sorry to disappoint you, but I didn't vote for either of them.

If you read any of my prior posts, you will understand the reason for the statement. There has never been an occasion during modern political history in this country where the incumbent party has held the White House during a major economic downturn and when the incumbent President was deeply unpopular. Usually only one factor need be present--the economic downturn. But here we have a deeply unpopular President, an economic downturn, consumer confidence at the lowest levels ever and 80% of the voters saying that the country was headed in the wrong direction.

Look at the 1992 election. George the senior had a 91% approval rating after the first Gulf War and less than 18 months later he lost the election because the country was in a recession. Get it? Under these circumstances, no Republican will win and if there was a Democat was President now, no Democrat would win either. The only factor that may keep the popular vote close is the race factor. It will not be close in the electoral college vote, and that is the only one that counts.

It really is that simple. Is it impossible for McCain to win? No. Is it likely? No, again. As DeckerEnt would say, "put on your big girl panties and deal with it."



This person makes a lot of sense.