BF2S Forums Obama may not be able to follow up on his promises...

Hakei wrote:

As apposed to most politicians who don't make promises they can't keep to get into government.

Oh...

"thats not change, thats more of the same"


wat

Cut billions in crap to pay for it. War on Drugs alone would be 500 billion. There is your healthcare.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Cut billions in crap to pay for it. War on Drugs alone would be 500 billion. There is your healthcare.

Which War on Drugs costs $500B a year?

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Cut billions in crap to pay for it. War on Drugs alone would be 500 billion. There is your healthcare.

Which War on Drugs costs $500B a year?

SOrry. TOTAL of the cost is 500 biliion thus far. What could that have bought?

bombs baby.  big bombs

At least he's honest about not keeping his promises for all these expanded programs.  Even he realizes that this kind of bailout while we're in the middle of Iraq is not responsible.

Spearhead wrote:

I guess Feos + co. would rather have Obama lying about the truth.  As opposed to McCain, who has basically tried promising everything Obama was talking about first?  "Change", for example?

None of this would've happened if we had just bowed and took it up the ass for the motherland like we should've in during the Cold War.  Now its too late.  jk.

Oh...I'd come down off that pedestal.  Obama does NOT have a copyright on promising "Change" during a campaign.  Almost EVERY politician running for office promises change.  Even incumbents often promise change...how ridiculous is that.   Very few come claiming "more of the same".  When they do...they usually don't fare very well.

Last edited by 462nd NSP653 (2008-09-24 20:00:16)

As far as healthcare goes, it's cheaper to run a national healthcare system. The financial problems the US is having makes sorting out the healthcare system far more important. Yes you will have to raise taxes to pay for it, but then, you don't have to pay for health insurance and everyone (except for insurance companies) saves money.

Have you ever experienced a politician that fulfilled all his promises ? ... goes for both McCain and Obama ...

Since the Republicans have so screwed the US economy and the budget there's no point voting for the Democrats?
Kind of like running your ship into a reef so no-one else can play Captain.

WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday the deepening American financial crisis and prospect of a massive government bailout meant he likely would have to delay expansive spending programs outlined during his campaign for the White House.

I'd pick a realist with aspirations over Bush II any day.

What we are seeing a running up of the debt and its an old political trick. Its called "the deficit made me do it"

generally no government can tie the hands of a future government  except by leaving a huge debt as a poison pill.
The political parties play games where they promise lots during the election campaign and if the ruling party believes its going to be thrown out on its a$$ it spends like crazy to buy the election and leave a huge deficit for the incoming party. then when the other party gets in they claim austerity "I didn't know it was this bad!!, I can't fulfill my promises to you." and if its really bad and your a conservative you say "we need to cut entitlements."

Eventually the voters get pi$$ed off at the incoming party and just as the economy gets back to normal, in 4 years, the people vote the party out. Running up the debt is one way to for a ruling party to ensure that it will return to power in 4 years.

With Obama, because he is liberal, another thing you are going to see is a capital strike, the more likely he is to win, the more that large corporations will remove investment from the US and cause our economy to spiral downward, while at the same time these companies will have their hands out for a bail out welfare check. and lame duck Bush will be more than happy to hand over the keys to the treasury.

May be Obama should keep all of his promises and charge multi-national corporations high taxes on their worldwide assets. fair is fair.

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2008-09-25 15:18:52)

^^^ Such sarcasm is too true - moronic rhetoric would label that as "flip-flopping."

Diesel_dyk wrote:

May be Obama should keep all of his promises and charge multi-national corporations high taxes on their worldwide assets. fair is fair.

Taxes reduce overall business activity and that means collectible tax-revenue - thereby reducing taxes. It's a wash. Actually taxing more - often flat-lines collected tax revenues - there is no change in the patient when the placebo has been administered.

Last edited by topal63 (2008-09-25 13:45:47)

topal63 wrote:

^^^ Such sarcasm is too true - moronic rhetoric would label that as "flip-flopping."

Diesel_dyk wrote:

May be Obama should keep all of his promises and charge multi-national corporations high taxes on their worldwide assets. fair is fair.

Taxes reduce overall business activity and that means collectible tax-revenue - thereby reducing taxes. It's a wash. Actually taxing more - often flat-lines collected tax revenues - there is no change in the patient when the placebo has been administered.

true. but if companies go on a capital strike and withdraw from the US, then broaden the scope of tax collection to include worldwide assets. It would get at those large offshore hedge funds that are making the stock market so volatile right now that the market is on the verge of a heart attack. It would also help to stop international price transfers that are designed to avoid taxation.