55 Comments

1. Victor Erimita:

Obama is utterly clueless on substance. But he is very gifted at covering it up in many settings. He is a gifted mouther of slogans he has picked up here and there or that others have given him. And he is a liar. Not in the sociopathic Bill Clinton way of actually believing whatever he is saying at the moment he is saying it, but in the Alinsky way of cynical manipulation. Obama doesn’t so much believe what he is saying while he is saying it, as he believes that he personally is the answer to the world’s problems, and so he is entitled to say whatever it takes to manipulate people into voting for him. He is the fruit of 40-odd years of radicalism, and for those radicals, he very much is The One.

The problem is that he is extraordinarily gifted at artifice, he has the media that is fully cooperative, in a media-shaped culture, and a voting public that is shallow and uniformed in great enough numbers to carry him into office. Once he is elected, as I now think he will be, he will be a front many for far more thought out interests and power players who will be all too happy for him to be their presentable puppet.

Sep 26, 2008 - 10:22 pm 2. Tcobb:

The really sad thing is that someone like Bill Clinton was smart enough to confine most of his lies to subjects which could not easily be subjected to inquiries that would prove them to be lies. Obama isn’t that smart.

And even though it doesn’t have anything substantive to do with the debate, although it does have to do with underlying credibility of the candidate,–did Obama REALLY have a bracelet with the name of a soldier who had died in Iraq given to him under the actual circumstances he described, or was this just a convenient lie of the moment? Surely there are members of the military out there who would know something about the name (and no, I don’t remember it) who could verify it or not. I mean, did the big O have a swiftboat moment? Inquiring minds want to know.

Sep 26, 2008 - 11:17 pm 3. California Dreamer:

I found it encouraging that Obama lost confidence steadily through the debate. He started strong with numerous “When I am president” and “My administration” references, but by the end he had retrenched to “the next president” and “the next administration”. By the time he had been battered on the surge, the Pakistan question, completely outclassed on the Russian question, and made the giant reach for a Kissinger moment, he appeared to have subconsciously surrendered. It was quite a relief to read between the lines and see his psychological balloon deflate.

Sep 27, 2008 - 12:58 am 4. srlucado:

California Dreamer: I was counting his stammers, pauses, “umm’s”, etc. throughout (I got a total of 165), and they were occuring at an increasing rate as the debate wore on, getting quite obvious at the end.

As to the Kissinger statement, I think it might have been another attempt by Obama to get a rise out of McCain (as he tried earlier with the litany of things McCain had been “wrong” about). Much to McCain’s credit, he kept his cool despite the taunts.

Overall, I think Obama was clearly trying to do two things: Tie McCain to Bush and blame businesses for all economic problems. The first point is absurd, and the second reflects Obama’s hostility toward capitalism.

Has anyone noticed that Obama knows nothing about how money is made? He pictures the capitalist as a misanthropic Scrooge McDuck, sitting on piles of cash while laughing at the misery of the peasants. (Even McDuck knew better than that; see 1967’s “Scrooge McDuck and Money”. Obama would be well-advised to watch it.)

Anyway, economic prosperity depends on business doing well, expanding its efforts, making more capital investment, hiring more workers, finding new markets around the world. Prosperity does not come from the government, which is confiscatory at its foundation.

A glaring ignorance for someone who wants to be the leader of the nation with the world’s largest economy.

Scott

Sep 27, 2008 - 3:59 am 5. SAF:

I don’t agree that Obama lied about Kissinger’s position on Iran. He just misquoted it or misinterpreted it. The problem Obama has in being Obama is that his position on anything seems to be to give an answer that wins votes. Not having core beliefs about many issues (other than capitalists are evil and the US is usually wrong) lead to misstatements and bad interpretations.

So the net result is Obama winds up saying dumb things. Not because he is a dumb guy but because there exists so much conflict within his brain. So he wants to bomb an ally, Pakistan, instead of having serious discussions on working with them to fix their terror problem and he wants to talk with Iran who trains and equips terrorists to kill our boys in Iraq.

Only a loving MSM has allowed such nonsense to be considered new age thinking.

Sep 27, 2008 - 4:48 am 6. DrQ:

Sept. 15, Kissinger said: “I am in favor of negotiating with Iran.” He went on to say, “I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level” and the U.S. should go into the talks with “a clear understanding of what is it we’re trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can’t achieve what we’re talking about? But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.”

Sep 27, 2008 - 5:08 am 7. Barry Dauphin:

But the Kissinger position is one thing Katie Couric tried to use to trip up Palin. And how does that play with journos? I read a newspaper account of the interview. It portrayed Palin as basically clueless for suggesting that Kissinger wants no preconditions on presidential talks with Iran. Couric’s folks “fact checked” (scare quotes intentional) and said Kissinger did indeed support that. It was a “gotcha” moment. Of course two problems there. First Kouric had to have her staff make phone calls after the interview (so Couric didn’t really know it at the time when trying to discredit Palin). Second, even after making phone calls Couric gets it wrong.

Q: Why did Obama say what he said? A: He gets his information from Katie Couric.

Sep 27, 2008 - 6:20 am 8. ricpic:

I caught the debate on radio so don’t know how the visuals affected people, but McCain’s passionate love for America and our soldiers came through loud and clear. I say this as someone who hates our interventions all over the world but still would rather go with a president who at least loves our country. Obama sounded his usual supercilious callow self.

Sep 27, 2008 - 6:46 am 9. Jim B:

1) Obama’s supposed “intelligence” is waaaay overrated. If we had an objective media, his gross incompetence and, yes I’ll say it, glaring stupidity, would have been run out of the campaign before he won his first primary. He suffers from, as Bush would say “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” He’s a Black man and pretty much gets credit from the media for getting up in the morning and tying his shoes without uttering the words “Hate Whitey.”

The number of Quayle-level gaffes he has come up with throughout the campaign (57 states, etc.) would have sunk a Republican months ago because the media would have actually covered them. The only thing he has going for him is the color of his skin and the (D) behind his name. Sadly, that may wind up being enough.

2) He was way off in his remarks on Kissinger. Again, with an objective media that would have been the huge-font headlines on the front pages today. It was a gaffe, and a bad one. Given the manner in which he and his campaign have twisted and distorted statements from McCain, Limbaugh and others; I’m not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. It was clearly a “set piece” he was planning to use if the subject came up, not an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the debate. For a supposedly intelligent man, it was a dumb mistake. If McCain is smart, he’ll put out a campaign pointing out that if Obama can’t understand the plainly-spoken words of a foreign policy lion from our own country, how dangerous would it be to put him in charge of negotiating with other countries

Sep 27, 2008 - 6:50 am 10. dmk:

Well I’m sure nothing would change your view. Especially since Obama has continued to say that he would not begin talking to these leaders directly from the presidential level. He has already said that he wouldn’t be the first to go, but I don’t see the problem with him talking to them at some point. I guess McCain just would not go at all. Is that the difference here? Maybe this was a wrong interpretation of what Kissinger said, but I don’t believe it was some kind of crazy, “I’m trying to mislead the country,” lie. Let’s say he was just deliberately lying, either way it does not change anything about what’s going on today. Even if we decide its best for the president not to go, and say speaking with the president directly will not do any good that does not change what is happening in the world. We still have these countries and leaders continuing to be a threat so what good does it do to continue saying the same thing as if for some reason that is getting us anywhere right now. Will doing and saying the same thing and getting the same results mean we should keep trying till they just give in? So GOOD we need someone with the balls to go over and talk to them directly, without a gun! I think it’s time to try something new. Don’t be scared, change is good! :p

Sep 27, 2008 - 7:07 am 11. dmk:

You all love to blame the media Just an observation. How about people have ideas of their own, and whether they’re fed things by the media or not some of them do have “learnin’”( said with sarcasm of course) enough to know better and check up on some of these things. In case you all haven’t figured it out some of you all have very easily believed what is being said on the opposite end of the spectrum. I’m glad you’re counting pauses and such in the speech. If you counted problems with speeches that Bush said you would probably have been kept up longer. McCain has his stupid moments as well. Focus people focus. Just because someone says they do not want to give big business tax breaks or cover any loopholes does not mean that they have hostility towards capitalism. Let’s not get carried away. Let us try to listen, take what meaning we can get, discuss, and not just spew out the regular sayings. What does Obama mean, and what does McCain mean? On both sides, please. It’s pretty annoying for anyone that wants to understand the meaning behind general statements.

Sep 27, 2008 - 7:23 am 12. David Thomson:

“Is Obama clueless or just a sleazy liar? ”

Barack Obama knows he can get away with it. We are presently discussing his blunder—but it will be considered ancient news within the next 48 hours. The MSM will never again mention the gaffe. Only center-right individuals will remember by the end of next week. The opposite, of course, would be the case if Obama were the Republican candidate. In that case, his campaign would be seriously damaged.

Sep 27, 2008 - 7:34 am 13. david levavi:

…Obama lost confidence steadily through the debate…

‘I agree with my opponent’ with which obama opened his responses seven or eight times is the equivalent of a clinch in a boxing match. When a boxer’s strength and will are flagging, he hugs his opponent and hangs on, buying precious seconds of blind rest and respite while the clock runs down.

Obama is a rehearsed and studied actor. Appearing on stage with McCain and debating him on an equal footing immeasurably raises his stature. As Ahmadinejad’s thuggish pipsqueak stature would be raised by negotiating with an American President.

Kissinger, incidentally, has repudiated Obama’s ridiculous assertion. But Kissinger is a liar in the tank for McCain as every Democrat knows.

Sep 27, 2008 - 8:29 am 14. NRA Life Member:

Obama made a reference to the FDR administration that I’ve never heard of before. Does anyone know if this is accurate, or did he confuse it with the S&L bailout from the 90’s:
OBAMA: There’s no doubt it will affect our budgets. There is no doubt about it. Not only — Even if we get all $700 billion back, let’s assume the markets recover, we’ holding assets long enough that eventually taxpayers get it back and that happened during the Great Depression when Roosevelt purchased a whole bunch of homes, over time, home values went back up and in fact government made a profit. If we’re lucky and do it right, that could potentially happen but in the short term there’s an outlay and we may not see that money for a while.

Sep 27, 2008 - 8:33 am 15. Roger L Simon:

dmk, in defense of the readers here, I think they are extremely interested in meaning, especially compared to other websites. If, as a newcomer, you scroll back you will see that. Many, including myself, criticize Bush regularly. He is indeed an atrocious communicator – one of the tragedies of our time. Further, if you play the video above, which is hugely critical of the Democratic apparat on the economy, you will find something missing. It does not mention that BUsh did nothing about the sub-prime problem on his watch, even if a bad Democratic system caused it. John McCain, of all people, at least tried. That’s one reason he is a vastly more attractive candidate than Bush. Ironically, Obama is more similar to Bush than McCain, but you are perhaps to recognize that.

Sep 27, 2008 - 8:35 am 16. Dinocrat » Blog Archive » Who do you want in your home?:

[...] sure what it means. Neither side appears to have lost this rather tepid affair. Obama committed a gaffe, but it’s hard to see that anyone will care very much about it. We noticed Obama’s [...]

Sep 27, 2008 - 9:05 am 17. Michael Smith:

Scott asked: Has anyone noticed that Obama knows nothing about how money is made?

Yes, I’ve noticed and I agree with you. Obama spouts virtually every Keynesian economic fallacy in the book.

For instance, be advocates government spending 150 billion dollars to “create 5 million new green jobs.” This particular fallacy operates by ignoring the fact that the only way for government to get its hands on 150 billion is to take it away from individual taxpayers in the private sector — which means, that particular 150 billion dollars is money those private sector individuals will no longer have to spend. So any jobs “created” by government spending that 150 billion dollars will be cancelled out by the jobs that are lost when the taxpayers no longer have that money to spend. You can’t create economic growth, i.e. you can’t cause a net increase in employment, by transferring money from one pocket to another.

Another fallacy Obama spouts is the notion that raising taxes on the rich has no economic consequences, on the grounds that the “rich can afford it”. What that fallacy ignores is that any increased taxes on the rich are really taxes on the savings and investments of the rich, who are, by far, the biggest sources of savings and investment in the country. Well, those savings and investment are the prime sources of capital that is required for two things: 1)To expand businesses, thereby creating additional jobs, and 2) To improve labor productivity, thereby making higher wages possible.

So Obama’s “tax the rich” schemes are actually economic daggers aimed straight at the heart of what makes additional employment and higher wages possible. Obama supporters will claim that this is “trickle down” economics, but it is a fact of reality: when you raise taxes on the rich, you reduce the capital available to create jobs and improve wages through higher labor productivity.

That’s just two of the fallacies Obama promulgates. There are others. His administration will be an economic disaster — he’ll be worse than Carter.

Sep 27, 2008 - 9:23 am 18. Steve Smith:

Sen. Obama said last night that Kissinger agreed that we should participate in high-level talks with Iran (which is accurate). Obama did not mention A-jad in his reference to Kissinger, and in fact explicitly said that since A-jad didn’t really run things in Iran, he wasn’t the person to meet. In any event, since McCain can’t even look the mild-mannered Obama in the eye when he debates him, he’s probably not the best person to complain.

Sep 27, 2008 - 9:32 am 19. SAF:

Michael Smith:

Nice analysis. Obama is a creation of the MSM. What he knows how to do is get the democratic nomination and perhaps the presidency. But he doesn’t have much understanding of economics or how to run a real organization.

We’ll be longing for the Jimmy Carter days after a couple of months of the Obama presidency.

Sep 27, 2008 - 9:41 am 20. avi:

The whole Kissinger discussion reminded me of the Marshall McLuhan scene in Annie Hall. Too bad that when McCain informed Obama that McCains friend Kissinger would never say what Barry said, he couldn’t pull Kissinger out from behind a sign to tell barry that he didn’t know what he was talking about.

Sep 27, 2008 - 10:40 am 21. Anita Hope:

Last night’s debate gave proof how important it is to improve our public school’s and bring economics back
into the basic’s.

Classic Line could be used, but with different word’s…” I KNOW KISSINGER & THIS IS NOT WHAT HE SAID “

Sep 27, 2008 - 10:53 am 22. Promoguy:

NRA: Good question and wish I knew how to use the computer to look it up. Anybody?????

That was a comment that jumped out at me and it sounded more like what happened with the RTF of the ’90’s.

Sep 27, 2008 - 10:57 am 23. becca:

THE COMMENT ON KISSINGER WAS BECAUSE OF THE WAY COURIC TREATED PALIN SHE NEVER WOULD HAVE TREATED OBAMA OR BIDEN THAT WAY. LOOK AT IT THIS WAY KATIE COURIC HAS LOST HER APPEAL TO MANY OF US OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. SHE IS TRYING TO PUT HERSELF BACK ON TOP AT ANY COST EVEN WITH LIES.
IT IS SAD THAT THIS COUNTRY HAS JOURNALISTS OR WHATEVER SHE IS, THAT CANT BE EQUAL WITH ALL SIDES OF ALL STORIES. SHE CAN INTERVIEW MURDERERS ETC AND SHOW THEM RESPECT AND CAN NOT SHOW RESPECT FOR THE LIKES OF SARAH PALIN.

*******SHAME ON YOU KATIE COURIC*****
ITS OK I DONT WATCH YOU ANYMORE ANYWAY, REMEMBER YOUR RATINGS ARE NOT WHAT THEY USED TO BE…

Sep 27, 2008 - 11:12 am 24. NRA Life Member:

I’ve been asking this question the blogs, and was provided the following link. Looks like Obama did not get this out of thin air.

http://www.allbusiness.com/banking-finance/banking-lending-credit-services-mortgage/11461606-1.html

Sep 27, 2008 - 11:41 am 25. Markus:

Obviously, it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what Kissinger says today. To check out Obama’s veracity, compare what he said (he did NOT refer to meeting with Admdinejad either last night or before, he even said last night that Admad was not the top official in Iran) with Kissenger’s earlier commments which prompted Obama’s claim.

Those earlier commments are here: http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,695261802,00.html?printView=true

That said, I thought overall McCain did quite well, and Obama was quite flat. McCain spoke clearly and controlled the subject matter (shifting talk away from middle class economic anxiety to talk about taxes and the purely symbolic issue of “earmarks”) Both especially failed to acknowledge the tremendous grass roots anger brewing over the bailout. Obama was halting in his speech, and less confident than McCain overall. I just don’t think Obama made the sale, which given who much voters want change is what this election is all about.

Pat Buchanan on MSNBC scored it right: 15 rounds, no knock-outs, 10 rounds to 5 for McCain.

Sep 27, 2008 - 11:51 am 26. Roger L Simon:

The point here is unprepared PRESIDENTIAL contacts, which Kissinger was clearly never advocating at whatever point. A President sitting down with a foreign leader has immense symbolism. Indeed, when Obama first mentioned it, it was doubly ludicrous because, unlike like last night, he appeared not to realize that Ayatollah Khamenei was the true head of state. It was have been interesting if either of the candidates gave some indication of Iranian eschatology (the assembly of experts, mahdi, etc) for the Americna audience last night. Too bad.

As a sidelight, I wonder if Larry King has even the slightest knowledge of these things. His tete-a-tete with Ahmadinejad was black comedy in the extreme. Well, anything for ratings, I suppose.

Sep 27, 2008 - 12:10 pm 27. Michael Smith:

NRA Life Member:

I’m sure that Obama subscribes to the myth that Roosevelt’s “New Deal” rescued us from the Great Depression. But the fact is the “New Deal” only prolonged the depression. In 1939, after 7 years of “New Deal”, the unemployment rate in the U.S. still stood at 20%, stock prices and business profits were still 60% below the levels they had been in 1929 and economic output was still down over 50%.

Real economic recovery did not begin until after Roosevelt’s death, when Republicans regained control of the Congress and repealed most of the “New Deal”. For the facts about how government caused — and then tragically prolonged — the Great Depression, see the four part series by Richard Salsman in the June, July, August 2004 and January 2005 issues of “The Intellectual Activist”.

Sep 27, 2008 - 1:09 pm 28. Godzilla:

Also, do not miss this video, which is along the line of the one Roger linked to, but with the culprits in their own words defending Freddie and Fannie. Ends with Clinton saying that the biggest problem was the resistance of democrats to the attempts of republicans to increase oversight of Freddie and Fannie.

Sep 27, 2008 - 1:17 pm 29. Mike_K:

That was a good article but one fact makes the present time different and impossible to comapre.

MORTGAGE DISTRESS DURING THE DEPRESSION

As the U.S. economy contracted, loan delinquencies and foreclosures soared, fueled by falling household incomes and property values. Many home loans had terms of five years or less and often involved no, or only partial, payment of principal before a balloon payment was due when the loan matured or was refinanced.14 Refinancing was common and easily accomplished in the 1920s, an environment of rising incomes and property values, but next to impossible during the Depression. Falling incomes made it increasingly difficult for borrowers to make loan payments or to refinance outstanding loans as they came due. The failure of thousands of banks and other lenders contributed to the difficulty of refinancing, as customer relationships were severed and the costs of credit intermediation rose.15

This is a different era. Some of the foreclosures in the Depression involved homes with only 10% mortgages. Even in the 1940s, when I was a child, most mortgages were less than 50% of the house’s value.

Sep 27, 2008 - 1:55 pm 30. Herb:

Weak! Kissinger’s actual words that Obama referenced:
“One should be prepared to negotiate, and I think we should be prepared to negotiate about Iran,” Kissinger, who brokered the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur war and peace talks with the North Vietnamese, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Asked whether he meant the U.S. should hold direct talks, Kissinger, 84, responded: “Yes, I think we should.”

http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,695261802,00.html?printView=true

Obama’s words from last night:
“Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who is one of his advisers, who along with five recent secretaries of state just said we should meet with Iran _ guess what? _ without preconditions.”

And now Kissinger says: “I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level.”

Way to move the goal posts, bud! No one said anything about “talks with Iran AT THE PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL.” That “presidential level” nonsense is a straw man.

Are you clueless, too, Roger, or just a sleazy liar?

Sep 27, 2008 - 2:30 pm 31. tim maguire:

I’m going with clueless. I don’t think Obama was lying, I just don’t think he knows the difference. Just as he’s unable to understand that a meeting with the president can in and of itself grant legitimacy–his America hatred won’t allow for such things.

Sep 27, 2008 - 2:56 pm 32. tim maguire:

Herb, Obama said it.

In July of 2007, Barack Obama was asked by a video questioner: “Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?…..”

“I would,” he answered.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/parsing_obama_without_precondi.php

Sep 27, 2008 - 3:00 pm 33. chrisa798:

Herb,

You are projecting when you refer to Roger as sleazy. If you can’t make an intelligent article without the trademark personal insults of the left, go away.

Hints: you can’t, and you should.

Sep 27, 2008 - 4:11 pm 34. Roger L Simon:

Herb,you can call me anything you want (except late for lunch, as they say) but the topic at hand when Obama let fly with the Kissinger reference was his (Obama’s) statements about how he would behave with Ahmadinejad when President. So you can interpret that any way you want. Obviously, Kissinger was alarmed. He didn’t seem to waste much time with his clarification. But go ahead and call me sleazy. I’ve heard a lot worse in my decades as a writer. Pauline Kael once called me a “well known author of pop drivel” – and that was in the New Yorker. (And she put her name to the insult. You’re just some drive-by coward posting anonymous insults on a blog. Nice guy, you are.)

Sep 27, 2008 - 4:43 pm 35. Charlie (Colorado):

It does not mention that Bush did nothing about the sub-prime problem on his watch, even if a bad Democratic system caused it.

Roger, I can understand how you mght have that impression, but it’s not actually true.

Unike McCain, though, Bush can’t actually introduce legislation. People forget that, but the President actually has to ask permission to even enter either house of Congress.

Like McCain, he can’t overcome millions of dollars in payoffs contributions,

Sep 27, 2008 - 5:29 pm 36. Charlie (Colorado):

Memo to self: strikeouts don’t work well on here.

Sep 27, 2008 - 5:30 pm 37. Barbara Skolaut:

“Is Obama clueless or just a sleazy liar?”

Both.

Sep 27, 2008 - 6:15 pm 38. Edan Naud:

You all arguing over minutia while our financial health circles the drain. Even that crazy rapture believing idiot we got now, it was recently reported, told the Israelis not to BOMB BOMB Iran. Why? Because we have already bit off more than we can chew with Iraq and Afghanistan and maybe soon Pakistan. Who ever is next won’t have a pot to piss in much less start a band new war with a modern, rich, semi-democratic (remember I said semi) country of over 70 million folks. McCain or Obama will negotiate they won’t have a choice thanks to George. So please stop this gotcha witch hunt and let us have a government of national unity. My choice Obama president Palin for vice. McCain and Biden are too old and kinda of loose cannons. Lets get some one who doesn’t remember where they were when Pearl Harbor was bombed.

Sep 27, 2008 - 11:47 pm 39. Ralph Woods:

I think the worry over the main stream press and talking heads media is just about over. If people look around the blogs have become the main outlet for news for a large number of people. I know that when I wanted to find out what was happening in Iraq a few years back I went to Michael Yon’s website (along with a few others) that were actually on the ground with the soldiers. Magazines and newspapers with leftist agendas that I used to read have slipped from my mind. Big news media names that thrived on star status no longer draw my attention.

Sep 28, 2008 - 6:46 am 40. Edan Naud:

You all are arguing over minutia while our financial future circles the drain. Even the rapture believing idiot we got now understands we just can’t start another war and as reported by an Israeli newspaper told god’s instrument of righteousness, Israel, not to bomb bomb Iran. Who ever is the next president will have to negotiate with someone in Iran because we have all ready bitten off more than we can chew with our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and soon maybe Pakistan. What we need is a government of national unity. My choice Obama for president and Palin for vice. McCain and Biden are too old and a couple of loose cannons. Besides I don’t want a president in the 21st century who remembers where they were when Pearl Harbor was bombed.

Sep 28, 2008 - 7:53 am 41. Shirley Knot:

Are you kidding me? The entire debate and you all pick up on Obama’s interpretation of Henry Kissinger’s remarks. I think you all missed the point entirely. John McCain “knows” a lot of people for a “long” time. Wow…. look where it has gotten him so far. A maverick…surely not. Review the record.

Sep 28, 2008 - 8:58 am 42. Barry Dauphin:

Gee, lots of drive by posters on this thread. Must have hit a nerve. Yeah, and we already know that Obama supporters are hoping to disrupt the so-called right wing blogs. Nice try. This ain’t Missouri.

Sep 28, 2008 - 3:34 pm 43. California Dreamer:

So Shirley, I’ll play along and raise another point. Let’s talk about the taxation part of the debate. BO seems to acknowledge that the nominal business tax rate is 35% but thinks that all of the business tax loopholes mean that US businesses are paying “far less” than the 35% rate. By “loopholes” I would suppose he means deductions of which there are many. But McCain’s point was that the effective rate is still above Ireland’s 11% which has driven such impressive growth in Ireland.

So the question to BO is “If the business tax regime in the US is so advantageous, why are companies leaving?”

He never seems to get around to the logical conclusion of his position. If it’s not tax rates, then maybe it’s labor rates. Wait, he can’t say that because of the unions. If it’s not tax rates or labor costs maybe it’s insurance costs or regulatory burdens. Wait, he can’t say that because he wants businesses to bear more insurance costs (nationalized or not) and he can’t say it’s regulatory burden because he wants more regulations.

So Shirley….what do you think BO’s answer would be? We need to hear from you or Edan because you can bet BO will never answer the question.

Sep 28, 2008 - 3:56 pm 44. Edan Naud:

Dear California Dreamer I checked the World Bank site http://www.doingbusiness.org to try and answer your question. You are right the US effective business rate (according to the World Bank) is higher than 35% it is 42.3% of course so was Ireland’s rate at 28.8%. Also there were many countries with even lower rates. Some are places I would enjoy living (i.e. Iceland 26.8%, Chile 25.9, Korea 33.7%…) but among the lowest were places I wouldn’t go to save my life, OK maybe to save my life but for no other reason. Some of those are Saudi Arabia 14.5%, the West Bank and Gaza 16.8%, Iraq 24.7% and Pakistan 28.9%, so I’m not sure tax policy equals better quality of life. Some of course pay more and I wouldn’t mine living in some of those too (i.e. Costa Rica 55.7%, Belgium 58.1%). Now I certainly am no expert in economics and from recent events I’m not sure anyone else qualifies anymore, but I don’t think we are losing companies to places like Iraq. Maybe if Ireland would join us in paying for the those wars in far away places they could enjoy the same tax rate as us.

Sep 28, 2008 - 7:38 pm 45. California Dreamer:

So if I may paraphrase your answer, it is basically that I am right and you therefore must ignore the rest of my comment since you have no answer or expertise. Thanks, that was helpful.

Sep 28, 2008 - 9:24 pm 46. Edan Naud:

Sorry California Dreamer I don’t agree with your assessment. You did what we should do in Iraq, declare victory and leave the field of combat. What I had hoped to convey was the idea that tax rate doesn’t equal companies staying or quality of life. It is part of the equation but there are other things to consider. On a side note my main reason for being here is I loved Roger Simon’s early books and then I discovered this. I not sure when the alien life forms took you all over but I don’t think the early Roger Simon would recognize the later pod person Roger Simon.

Sep 28, 2008 - 10:13 pm 47. California Dreamer:

I can’t speak to the earlier Roger, but the current version makes a lot of sense here.

One more college try: There was no mention of quality of life, Iraq or any other war in my original question, so please try to stay on point.

If business tax rates, labor costs, insurance costs or regulatory burdens are not the reason businesses are leaving the US, what is? I hear BO whine about the losses often, but I never, ever hear him say what he would do to keep them. All of his policies make the business environment worse!

His idea of helping businesses seems to be to use taxpayer money to crowd them out of the green technology, health insurance and other industries.

Sep 29, 2008 - 12:58 am 48. hermie:

Also, Obama still has his claim that we will be energy self-sufficient in 10 years if we elect him.

Sorry Barry, but there is no way in 10 years that we’ll be able to replace or convert every car, truck, plane ship, train, factory, etc, so that we won’t need to import oil. Especially since you are again, saying that we don’t need to drill and you don’t want nuclear; and your running mate says that there will be no coal plants built either. At least McCain knows that additional drilling is part of a transition to nuclear and alternatives. BTW, Obama didn’t have too much to say about Reid’s attempt to block oil shale processing…another way to make ourselves energy self-sufficient.

Sep 29, 2008 - 5:05 am 49. Edan Naud:

Please give me a number. How many businesses have we lost under king george II’s reign, and if you could give me a source for your info it would be helpful.

Sep 29, 2008 - 8:02 am 50. California Dreamer:

So now you are going to switch to the argument that things aren’t that bad under Bush and expect that I will switch in response? You are truly hopeless. I cannot have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Sep 29, 2008 - 9:01 am 51. Edan Naud:

I’m sorry to be such a disappointment to you California Dreamer. But as Mr. Rumsfeld said “…you have to go to war with the army you have…” My interest is foreign policy and military history not economics, but you asked me to respond, so I did. My mistake.

Sep 29, 2008 - 9:32 am 52. Greenie:

I’m not sure Roger really understands this one. If you parse Dr. K’s language, it’s clear he’s not disagreeing with BO. Hitchens agrees here: http://www.slate.com/id/2201140/.

Just to be fair, Roger, you might want to mention at McCain’s gaffes (not that I think he’s a sleazy liar or anything).

He was wrong about his vote on the Marines in Lebanon (they were there before he got to Congress).

He was wrong about the nominal corporate tax rate in Ireland (it’s higher).

He was wrong about Reagan’s unconditional willingness to negotiate with Brezhnev (he was).

He was when he stated Pakistan was a failed state when Musharraf came to power (it wasn’t).

He was wrong when he referred to the leader of Pakistan as “Qadari” instead of Asif Ali Zardari.

As for that video — now that’s sleazy!

Sep 29, 2008 - 2:24 pm 53. California Dreamer:

We seem to be making some progress even if it is due to a drive-by post by some Kossack who can cut and paste.

At least we are now discussing whether the “nominal” corporate tax rate was misquoted at 11% instead of 12.5% with a big exception of 10% in the enterprise zone that has driven much of the growth in Ireland, especially in technology companies. Both rates are about 1/3 of the US rate, but BO is not satisfied that the US rate is “fair”.

So will Greenie be picking up the gauntlet to answer the question that Edan has abandoned?

Sep 29, 2008 - 8:11 pm 54. California Dreamer:

Perhaps this could be called progress since we are now fussing over whether the nominal corporate rate in Ireland is 11 or 12.5%, but we still need to note that the enterprise zone that has driven Ireland’s growth has had a 10% rate for some time with the expected results. And all of these rates are 1/3 of the US rate.

So now that Greenie has done his drive-by post with the Kossacks’ shallow talking points, will he be picking up the gauntlet to answer the basic question of how BO will improve the business climate in the US by raising the tax rate to be more “fair”?

Sep 29, 2008 - 8:19 pm 55. ex-democrat:

Roger – that video’s been taken down – supposedly for copyright violation.

Sep 30, 2008 - 9:29 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: