Okay, I am going to guess that Sen. Obama has a little bit too much going on right now, and probably doesn't have time to respond to your questions, and I personally hate for it to appear that I am responding to your obvious desire to pick a fight, but what the heck...
1. You say John McCain is content to "watch [Americans'] home prices decline." So, government should prop up housing prices generally? How? Why? Were prices ideal before the bubble popped? How does a senator
know ideal prices? Have you explained to young couples straining to buy their first house that declining prices are a misfortune?
You have taken 4 words out of a text that I am sure was just a little more detailed than what you have displayed. The fact is that the drop in housing prices affects the entire community, not just the misguided individual who may have bought a house that they could not afford. Foreclosures are bad for everyone and the idea of the government stepping in to in some way help these communities seems like a good idea to me, not to artificially raise the prices, as we can tell now, bubbles pop and the result of that is never a good thing, but to provide assistance to those who need to refinance so that they can stay in their home and not add to the problem.
2. Michelle Obama, who was born in 1964, says that most Americans' lives have "gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl." Since 1960, real per capita income has increased 143 percent, life expectancy has increased by seven years, infant mortality has declined 74 percent, deaths from heart disease have been halved, childhood leukemia has stopped being a death sentence, depression has become a treatable disease, air and water pollution have been drastically reduced, the number of women earning a bachelor's degree has more than doubled, the rate of homeownership has increased 10.2 percent, the size of the average American home has doubled, the percentage of homes with air conditioning has risen from 12 to 77, the portion of Americans who own shares of stock has quintupled … Has your wife perhaps missed some pertinent developments in this country that she calls "just downright mean"?
Well, I would say that it would depend on what your idea of good and bad are, and what you would say is most important to your happiness. I can say that personally, I feel that the fact that most families are now dependent on 2 incomes is a negative, it leads to families that are not as close as they used to be, mothers and fathers that are too tired from working all day to pay real attention to the goings on in the lives of their children and not having the time or energy to provide good nutritous meals for their children. I think this is a very big problem and one that has definately become more of an issue in my lifetime than in my mothers or grandmothers lifetime. I can say that the fact that peoples houses are larger is not a good thing, the fact that more people have A/C could be a good thing, but also probably contributes to our obesity problem, b/c people are more likely to sit inside and not participate in outdoor activities. Woman have advanced in getting bachelors's degrees, which is a good thing, but I think that also points to the fact that women must work, staying at home is no longer an option.
Obviously all of the advances in healthcare are good things, but I would also add that the younger generation now has a lower life expectancy that their parents due to the increased obesity rate which contributes to diabetes, heart disease, and certain cancers. Not a good legacy to leave to the future generations.
3. You favor raising the capital gains tax rate to "20 percent or 25 percent." You say this will not "distort" economic decision making. Your tax returns on your 2007 income of $4.2 million show that you and Michelle own few stocks. Are you sure you understand how investors make decisions?
I can't say that I have any real knowledge of the pros and cons of higher capital gains taxes, the first time I heard anything about them was when Charlie Gibson starting getting all hot and bothered about them at the last debate, I will make it a point to read up on them and hopefully get back to you later on that.
4. You favor eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the 12.4 percent Social Security tax, which now covers only the first $102,000. A Chicago police officer married to a Chicago public-school teacher, each with 20 years on the job, have a household income of $147,501, so you would take another $5,642 from them. Are they undertaxed? Are they rich?
Taxes... how about pay your fair share? I don't know how that can be any more clear. I pay taxes because I enjoy having safe roads, safe highways, safe airways, (relatively) safe food and medications, police protections, fire department in case I have a fire, public schools to educate our children, and a military to defend our country, among other things. If you make more, you should pay more. I pay about 15%, not including sales taxes, and that seems okay to me, I will probably be moving to a state with a higher tax rate in the future because I want to be in area with better schools when I do have children. And I wouldn't say that the couple in your example are rich, but they seem to be doing pretty well for themselves, so they shouldn't complain about the taxes that they are paying, especially since given their professions, they are paid from these same tax dollars.
5. This November, electorates in four states will vote on essentially this language: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting." Three states—California, Washington and Michigan—have enacted such language. You made a radio ad opposing the Michigan initiative. Why? Are those states' voters racists?
This seems to be a reference to some sort of anti-affirmative action program, I don't live in any of those states, so I am not that educated on these ballot measures, however, I do feel that affirmative actions exists for a reason, I think it's pretty obvious after what we have seen recently, that race and ethnicity do affect peoples decisions in many things still today and I do think that includes hiring practices. I hope that one day we can honestly say that there is a truly even playing field, where schools in all communities are equally funded so that students everywhere are equally prepared to enter college and that people's membership in "good 'ol boys" club no longer influences the hiring of individuals, but I don't think that we are there yet, and until we have progressed farther, we must continue these measures to try to give everyone a fair chance.
And no, I do not think that people that disagree are "racists"
6. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?
I don't recall hearing the Rev Wright use words similar to the KKK. Unless I missed his call for black people to start lynching white people.
7. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her "Religious Advisory Committee" of his or her presidential campaign?
As his Rev, his job was to be his reverend, I am in no way a fan of Wright, and I cannot defend his craziness, but I think Obama has faced the fact that he cannot stand by and let this guy continue to make a fool out of him and everything that Obama stands for. He has denounced him for the harmful things that he has said, and that's good enough for me.
8. Why are Hamas, the Nation of Islam, Iranian government, Hugo Chavez, Islamic Jihad in Gaza, the PLO, the New Black Panther Party, Louis Farrkhan... all racist, anti-American groups endorsing you, Mr. Obama? Any idea why they like you so much??
He would probably say... no, I don't like them, but I have no control over whether they like me or not. Possibly they received one of those chain emails saying that I was a closet Muslim, or a anti-American or something.
I would also add that some of these extreme groups also have members who are not as extreme as many would think and not talking to these people is a mistake, Also, given that their other two options are John "Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain or Hillary "let's obliterate Iran" Clinton, I can't say I am not surprised by their preference.
For some more questions Obama will NEVER answer, thanks to his "media shield" (the media that protects this guy and praises his 24/7):
Questions for Obama | Print Article | Newsweek.com
Lanny Davis: Two Questions for Senator Obama - Politics on The Huffington Post[/quote]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They can't even give an accomplishment so I'm not surprised......neither are you I guess.
