Do You Think Barack Obama Represents ??Change??
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
but I've been wrong before. Ignorance is bliss right? heh
To be honest with you, i have never thought anyone was the anti-christ, But obama is going to surprise us all in the end..
I dont fall into the hype of 2012. I think we have about another 25/30 years. I know there is a lot more that has to come to pass.
Like the EU, the footprint of the roman empire. Talked about 2000 years ago.
I am not going to bore people with my personal opinions..
But what I can say is daihashi has one HELL of a green thumb.. I loved the grow log you put together..
Do You Think Barack Obama Represents ??Change??
Quote:
Originally Posted by illnillinois
To be honest with you, i have never thought anyone was the anti-christ, But obama is going to surprise us all in the end..
I dont fall into the hype of 2012. I think we have about another 25/30 years. I know there is a lot more that has to come to pass.
Like the EU, the footprint of the roman empire. Talked about 2000 years ago.
I am not going to bore people with my personal opinions..
But what I can say is daihashi has one HELL of a green thumb.. I loved the grow log you put together..
With the way things are going I can see a collapse of some sort happening like you suggest. :thumbsup: And please continue with your opinions. Naturally people are going to agree/disagree but that's the fun in being able to intelligently discuss a subject. I like reading all the posts in here whether I agree or not :jointsmile:
bleh.. I was actually disappointed in that grow, but i'm glad you enjoyed it. I have some new stuff planned starting soon. It should be some very quality stuff.
Sour Northern Lights x Nevilles Haze. Stay tuned for that log starting up in a few weeks :D
Do You Think Barack Obama Represents ??Change??
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
:thumbsup: And please continue with your opinions. Naturally people are going to agree/disagree but that's the fun in being able to intelligently discuss a subject. I like reading all the posts in here whether I agree or not :jointsmile:
I do agree with you, its ok to have a good ol' debate :) or just sharing of thoughts and ideas..
Do You Think Barack Obama Represents ??Change??
I have pondered this for a while. I don't believe Obama could do much to change the culture inside the beltway. It's too embedded with money, power, too pompous to change. Even the most well-intention would realize they'll need to work with the devil in order to get things done. The difference between McCain and Obama is McCain has been embedded in the culture for too long to represent change. Obama has a fresher outlook on trying to steer the culture in a different direction. McCain will continue to be the status-quo of every republican beltway-insider, making DC richer rather than America richer.
I believe Obama will try to change some things. He'll steer health care in the right direction. He'll push to have a more sound fiscal policy. He'll implement an energy policy. Although I believe he'll deliver empty in a lot of his promises, I don't think he'll mess it up. Much of my decision to vote for him will depend on the vice president he chooses. If it's a democrat known for his fiscal responsiblity, I'd most likely vote for Obama.
Do You Think Barack Obama Represents ??Change??
Anything has got to be better than what the Bushes' have left Americans to deal with ,While they retire to thier lovely ranch...And Mcain offers the same Bushology...Is there really any choice?Obama or..........Bushology.
Do You Think Barack Obama Represents ??Change??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
wasting billions of dollars, including $23B not accounted for...
And the government has put a gag order on it so the public won't know about it.
A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions
how I am ever thankful for BBC news.
Do You Think Barack Obama Represents ??Change??
I believe the first change Obama will make is like Arnie in Calif.: He'll have to have his cigarette smoking room, latest is: he can't change his smoking habit! If he can't change himself and he so deperately states he wants and tries to--what can he change for us! Arnie built a cigar smoking shak in CA capital at his own expense. Then set off fire
sprinklers, etc. flooded the capital's first floor and parking lots--taxpayers had to pay for that.
What change did Obama bring for Illinois? Said he supported lowering gas prices, but people did not get lower gas price, the distributors took the profit. So, he did not think the plan out completely as to who would have to make up for the break and pay for it. So, it did not work. Well, it never got fixed, but he tried. So, will he represent change or trying and in so doing, making it worse. I think most Presidents are benign, it is the way our system is designed that is malignant! That is where we need change. For substantial, permanent change. The Senate and Congress! Every election is important. You must vote every time and on every issue, provide you understand it and if you cannot and try, don't!
Seriously, I was involved in JFK from nomination on; very interesting as a child.He was change; Every political platform is for change-new day, different words!
Change really happens in the Senate and Congress and if we take those elections any less serious than the president, we are foolish.
The most dramatic change I have seen is Nixon. like him or not: He did end Viet Nam. I attended many of my friends funerals then. Nothing like Iraq. Now, if he does something like that-sure that is a true change. I will not forget the day our guys got to come home from Viet Nam, Canada and everywhere else they fled to avoid the draft.
To change the climate of the nation, it takes more than someone sitting in a big white house smoking cigarettes consumed with inexperience to really make long lasting economical changes that we all so desperately need! If he does make great change, it will depend a lot on the people that are in the cabinet; congress and senate.
One way or another, it will be a change; Even if it is just ethnic! It will instill some hope for some, in one way or another and hope for all that Bush is gone with his dictorial type of presidency. His father wasn't even that bold and lost re-election. Maybe people liked a Czar type thing, but they are now tired of it. So, change, is it us who change our views or the president changing our views by what he says or tries to do?
We were upset on 9/11. If my insurance Co. cheated me in a settlement and it was wrong, do I go kill them. We have paid more innocent lives for 9/11 than it took. But, it was never about 9/11 anyway, just a good excuse to do what our czar planned. People loved it! Who knows what is right or wrong in the world scheme of things. Is Bush a good man. I am sure he and his family think so. Was he good for the nation. Well, maybe he is the reason this election is so popular! Once you eat beans for a long time then have steak, which would you prefer. A vegan, beans!
Change of the man or the real things that matter, health care has a solution, it may not
be socialized medicine, that would suck, I feel, but we knew the economic backbone of this nation wad going when, just like the Oil Co., Emeron and Insurance have all been allowed to price so high no one can afford the living they had with the ceiling on wages! Change, would be to increase wages, consistant with costs and interest rates. when the cost of living goes up over 9% and you can't even get 2% on your savings acct. that is wrong. I don't know how many of you remember, I use to get interest on my checking acct., instead of paying to let them use my money. The interest was around 8% or better. I actually made money on my checking acct.
The informed and educated that really care about planet Earth, economy, justice, war, peace, civil liberty, etc. I do not feel he has a lot to do with it! As bush tried to change the (I'd like to say 10 commandments) but I mean constitution, he could not and thank God!
The middle East problems, have been as old as time, blame Clinton or whomever you please, until they stop having religious wars there, they will always fight! In Iraq, we got into that with Reagan and maybe before, but I am not a history major and that is as far as I remember we did over there! We had a lot of little wars that went unnoticed with Clinton. I think Bosnia and dare I try to crack my brain open, I might find the others.
If you really study the '60's or lived it; you may see, as I do; same broken policies and a lot of Presidents later, we have not had change, as one person said; they go on a Pendulum. What goes up must come down or disappear, I guess!
The debt of the nation; Well, savings is when you decrease the rate of which you are rapidly going into debt by offsetting it. In doing so, you decrease the rate with which you go bankrupt and eventually pull out of it! We would need to see the U.S. Treasury reports from 2001 until now (with Iraq) to really see the spending difference! I do know, if the funds had not been taken from the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers and diverted to Iraq, Katrina would not have happened (but who cries over spilled milK). Funds for Social Security got so tight with this Iraq war, there were new policies in place for SSI and SSD. Many were taken off and it is too hard to get on without going to court now. We have taken funds from everything that matter to us as individuals to pay for this war.
n take it on a smaller scale. Calif. was in an economic mess, Arnie came along, let's consolidate and start all over. Well we did and now we do do! Meaning, he is looking for a way to pay off all the debt that kept growing and did not stop! Calif. is now in just as bad, if not, worse shape than when he took over, and we still have the debt he started with, set aside and not being paid!
Sure Obama is change! That is my answer. They all are! As psteve said; check your pocket and I believe that will be my gauge!
whew, didn't know I really had any strong feelings about it. But tired of hearing change and the only change I've seen is: from my pocket to the gov't and more of it. The penny costs more than a penny to make and we still make it! Nickel is no longer of nickel and the silver coins are not of silver! I did not vote on the McDrain, because too many times they run on one issue and do another. So, I won't vote on the Osama one either. I'll wait and see.
I guess we need to ask Oprah? I do think our liberties are going the wrong direction! If that changes, I guess I'll be happy. What has been screwed with for decades to make better is only getting worse. I don't remember, but one guy has a signature that says it all. We fight for freedom and then legislate our freedom away--or something like that!
Do You Think Barack Obama Represents ??Change??
ARLINGTON, Va., June 12 /Standard Newswire/ -- Today, on the fourth day of Barack Obama's "Change That Works For You" tour, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds issued the following statement:
"Barack Obama's assertion that the only problem with higher gas prices is that they've gone up too fast -- saying he'd prefer a 'gradual' increase instead -- shows how clearly out of touch he is with Americans struggling with record gas prices. At a time when Americans need relief at the pump, Barack Obama's support for higher gas prices and higher energy taxes is just another example of his weak economic judgment."
This Week In An Interview With CNBC, Barack Obama Said He Would Have Preferred If Higher Gasoline Prices Happened More Gradually:
In An Interview With CNBC, Barack Obama Said He Would Have Preferred A "Gradual" Increase In Gasoline Prices. BARACK OBAMA: "Well, I think that we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn't had an energy policy. And as a consequence, we've been consuming energy as if it's infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are. So..." HARWOOD: "So could these high prices help us?" BARACK OBAMA: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out o f this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now." (CNBC, 6/10/08)
Watch Barack Obama: YouTube - Obama: Higher Oil Prices Are Good? What???
Barack Obama Has Called For Taxing Coal And Natural Gas -- The Two Largest Sources Of Electricity In America:
Barack Obama Told A Texas Newspaper: "What We Ought To Tax Is Dirty Energy, Like Coal And, To A Lesser Extent, Natural Gas." ("Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama," San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)
Coal Is The Largest Source Of Electricity In America, Accounting For Nearly 49 Percent Of U.S. Total Net Generation In 2006. (Energy Information Administration Website, Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government, Accessed 6/9/08)
"The U.S. Has The World's Largest Coal Reserves, With The Western U.S. Accounting For 55 Percent Of Current U.S. Coal Production." (Energy Information Administration Website, tonto.eia.doe.gov, Accessed 6/9/08)
Natural Gas Is The Second Largest Source Of Electricity In America, Accounting For 20 Percent Of U.S. Total Net Generation In 2006. (Energy Information Administration Website, Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government, Accessed 6/9/08)
"The U.S. Is The World's Largest Consumer And Second-Largest Producer Of Natural Gas." (Energy Information Administration Website, tonto.eia.doe.gov, Accessed 6/9/08)
Barack Obama Has Called For A $15 Billion A Year Windfall Profits Tax:
Barack Obama Is Proposing A $15 Billion A Year Windfall Profits Tax On Oil Companies. "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year's profit levels, a campaign adviser said. ... Among the options Illinois Senator Obama is mulling is imposing a 20 percent tax on the cost of a barrel of oil above $80, said [Obama adviser Jason] Grumet, who spoke at a conference in Washington today." (Daniel Whitten, "Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit," Bloomberg News, 5/1/08)
The Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service Found That The Windfall Profits Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Production And Increased Our Dependence On Foreign Oil By As Much As 13 Percent. "From 1980 to 1988, the WPT may have reduced domestic oil production anywhere from 1.2% to 8.0% (320 to 1,269 million barrels). Dependence on imported oil grew from between 3% and 13%." (Salvatore Lazzari, "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications For Current Energy Policy," Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)
The Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Supply And Increased Demand For Imported Oil. "The WPT had the effect of reducing the domestic supply of crude oil below what the supply would have been without the tax. This increased the demand for imported oil and made the United States more dependent upon foreign oil as compared with dependence without a WPT." (Salvatore Lazzari, "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications For Current Energy Policy," Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)
During The Eight-Year Imposition Of The Windfall Profits Tax, Domestic Oil Output Fell To Its Lowest Level In Two Decades. "Skeptics who want to check the data need to search no further than the eight-year 1980s run of the energy industry windfall profit tax. During that time, domestic oil output fell to its lowest level in two decades." (Editorial, "A Bleak Future," Investor's Business Daily, 5/29/08)
The Wall Street Journal: The Windfall Profits Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Production And Increased Prices At The Pump. "The last time Congress imposed a form of the windfall tax was the final gloomy days of Jimmy Carter, and the result was: a substantial reduction in domestic oil production (about 5%), thus raising the price of gas at the pump; and a 10% increase in U.S. reliance on foreign oil. A windfall profits tax is the ultimate act of economic masochism because it taxes only domestic production, while imports and foreign oil subsidiaries bear almost none of the cost." (Editorial, "Windfall Accounting Tax," The Wall Street Journal, 11/30/05)
Heritage's Ben Lieberman: The Windfall Profits Tax Ended Up Harming Consumers With Increased Energy Prices. "The track record for punitive measures like the windfall profits tax shows that they usually harm consumers along with the targeted industry. ... In the end, the tax hurt consumers more through higher energy prices than it helped them through higher tax revenues, which turned out to be far lower than originally predicted because the tax discouraged production." (Ben Lieberman, "Raising Taxes On Oil Companies Is No Way To Reduce Gas Prices," The Heritage Foundation: Devoted to the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense., 3/1/06)
Obama Plans To Pay For A Number Of His Proposals With The Tax. "The tax would help pay for a $1,000 tax cut for working families, an expansion of the earned- income tax credit and assistance for people who can't afford their energy bills." (Daniel Whitten, "Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit," Bloomberg News, 5/1/08)
The Congressional Research Service Found That When The Windfall Profits Tax Was Implemented From 1980 To 1988, Gross Revenues Were Significantly Less Than Projected. "The $80 billion in gross revenues generated by the WPT between 1980 and 1988 was significantly less than the $393 billion projected." (Salvatore Lazzari, "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications for Current Energy Policy," Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)
Former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) Said Obama's Windfall Profits Tax Is Bad Energy Policy; It "Will Produce Less Energy And Not More." MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell: "John Breaux, you are from the oil patch. How do you feel about your candidate talking about a windfall profits tax?" Former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA): "Well a windfall profits tax is not going to produce a single barrel of oil. When we had a windfall profits tax back in the 1980s, we produced less energy than before we had the tax. A windfall profits tax may make you feel good as a punitive measure against the energy companies, but until we get the guys and women who produce the energy working with those that consume it, we are never going to solve the problem. A windfall profits tax will produce less energy and not more." (MSNBC's "MSNBC Live," 6/9/08)
FLASHBACK: Obama Is Following Jimmy Carter's Economic Policies, Supporting Higher Taxes During A Time Of Economic Weakness And Imposing A Windfall Profits Tax:
Carter Raised Taxes During An Economic Decline, Which Further Weakened The Economy. "There were two other occasions in recent American history when government raised taxes going into economic decline. Herbert Hoover tried it in the early 1930s; Jimmy Carter tried it in the late 1970s. Carter was the lucky one: He got 'only' a deep recession, Hoover got the Great Depression." (Editorial, "The Gingrich Recipe," The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal, 9/14/90)
President Carter Urged Congress To Enact A Windfall Profits Tax "Without Delay." President Carter: "These [energy independence] efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment." (President Jimmy Carter, Speech, Washington, D.C., 7/15/79)
In The U.S. Senate, Barack Obama Voted For Higher Energy Taxes That Would Have Driven Up The Cost Of Oil And Gas In America:
Obama Voted In Favor Of An Amendment To Add A $32 Billion Tax Hike Package To The CLEAN Energy Act Of 2007. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #223: Motion Rejected 57-36: R 10-34; D 45-2; I 2-0, 6/21/07, Obama Voted Yea)
The Tax Hike Would Have Hurt Domestic Oil And Gas Manufacturing. "Meanwhile, most of the revenue-raising offsets in the measure would affect the oil and gas industry, which would lose a deduction for domestic manufacturing and face a new tax on operations in the Gulf of Mexico." (Richard Rubin, "Baucus Says Energy Tax Package Can Be Revived, But Details Are Sketchy," Congressional Quarterly Today, 7/10/07)
The Tax Hike Would Have "Contributed To Higher Gasoline Prices." "[The tax increase] would have excessively burdened oil companies that operate in Louisiana and other oil-producing states. It would have discouraged oil exploration, and contributed to higher gasoline prices." (Editorial, "A Sensible Energy Policy," The [New Orleans] Times-Picayune, 6/23/07)
A Heritage Foundation Study Found The Tax Increase Would Have Raised Gas Prices To Over $6 By 2016. "A study by the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank showed that the proposed tax increase would boost the average price of regular unleaded gasoline from $3.14 per gallon to $6.40 in 2016." (S.A. Miller, "Senate Votes To Raise Auto Mileage Standards," The Washington Times, 6/22/07)
Obama Voted At Least 3 Times To Impose A Temporary Windfall Profits Tax On Oil Companies. (S. 2020, CQ Vote #339: Motion Rejected 50-48: R 9-45; D 40-3; I 1-0, 11/17/05, Obama Voted Yea; S. 2020, CQ Vote #331: Motion Rejected 35-64: R 0-55; D 34-9; I 1-0, 11/17/05, Obama Voted Yea; S. 2020, CQ Vote #341: Motion Rejected 33-65: R 0-54; D 32-11; I 1-0, 11/17/05, Obama Voted Yea)
In The Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama Voted To Tax Natural Gas Purchased From Out Of State
In 2003, Obama Voted To Tax Natural Gas Purchases. "Creates the Gas Use Tax Law. Beginning October 1, 2003, imposes a tax upon the privilege of using in this State gas obtained in a purchase of out-of-state gas at the rate of 2.4 cents per therm [sic] or 5% of the purchase price for the billing period, whichever is the lower rate. Amends the Gas Revenue Tax Act to eliminate an exemption on October 1, 2003 and to provide that beginning with bills issued to customers on and after October 1, 2003, no tax is imposed under the Act on transactions with customers who incur a tax liability under the Gas Use Tax Law. Effective October 1, 2003." (S.B. 1733, Bill Status, Illinois General Assembly Home Page, Accessed 2/11/08; S.B. 1733: Concurrence In House Amendment #4, Passed 31-27-00, 5/31/03, Obama Voted Yea)
The Tax On Natural Gas Purchased Outside Of Illinois Was Estimated To Cost $42 Million Annually To Illinois Businesses, Making It One Of The Largest Increases In Illinois In 2003. "One of the largest increases will be a new 5 percent tax on the sales of natural gas bought from out-of-state suppliers, which could reap $42 million for the state. Virtually every manufacturer in Illinois could face increased costs as a result, business leaders said. But they doubt the increases will produce the revenue Blagojevich is counting on because businesses will move quickly to avoid the new or higher fees and taxes." (John Schmeltzer, "New Taxes And Fees Are Bad For Business, Industrial Leaders Say," Chicago Tribune, 6/2/03)
The Natural Gas Tax Made Natural Gas More Expensive For Industrial Buyers Such As Steel Mills And Other Manufacturers. "The natural gas tax. A new policy under Blagojevich's budget will make natural gas more expensive to industrial buyers. Currently, Illinois offers an exemption on the sales tax paid for natural gas, but the new budget ends that exemption, a move that could become a major expense for steel mills and other factories that use large quantities of natural gas." (Kevin McDermott, "Area Dodged Legislative Hit On Schools, Roads," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6/8/03)
The Natural Gas Tax Threatened Jobs At The Same Time That Illinois Was Leading The Nation In Jobs Lost. "Just as harmful to the state's economy are the large taxes on natural gas brought from out-of-state suppliers and the rolling stock sales tax. Both of these taxes will negatively affect important businesses as well as the employees who are dependent on these Illinois companies. I have received phone calls and letters from all sectors of the business community who reported that the projected loss of revenues due to these increased taxes and fees may well cause them to close their facilities in Illinois and move to a more business-friendly surrounding state while still serving Illinois customers. Illinois leads the nation in jobs lost. We cannot afford to drive more businesses from our state." (State Rep. Carolyn Krause, Op-Ed, "Increase Tax Incentives, Not Taxes For Businesses," Chicago Tribune, 6/13/03)
Barack Obama's 'Gradual Adjustment' to Higher Gas Prices - Standard Newswire
Quite a long read but if your looking to see what type of change Obama would make....this might shed some light.
Have a good one!:s4:
Do You Think Barack Obama Represents ??Change??
Quote:
Originally Posted by thcbongman
I believe Obama will try to change some things. He'll steer health care in the right direction. He'll push to have a more sound fiscal policy. He'll implement an energy policy. Although I believe he'll deliver empty in a lot of his promises, I don't think he'll mess it up. Much of my decision to vote for him will depend on the vice president he chooses. If it's a democrat known for his fiscal responsiblity, I'd most likely vote for Obama.
But what will he change and how will he change it?
Obama has actually said nothing except for "change" and "hope". Change and hope don't mean anything, they are just words. If you explain what you plan to change and how you plan to change it then you are actually saying something that MIGHT be worth listening too.
Where is he going to get the money for change? Raise taxes?? If so then do the American people, in our economic downturn, need to lose even MORE of their money? We are already paying inflated prices for oil, which effects a number of other goods that we recieve. Food, delivery services, even things such as the cost of water may go up. If he plans on cutting funding to government programs then how does he plan on doing this? What are we going to have to lose and are we actually going to lose programs that are useless or will we lose something that is actually important?
We don't know because Obama doesn't actually say anything.
McCain is not my ideal choice, not even my 1st choice.. hell not even my 100th choice, but I would choose him any day over Obama. :hippy:
Do You Think Barack Obama Represents ??Change??
Great post P4B... keep spreading the truth!! :thumbsup:
