Obama's Promises To Consumers

Obama just gave his acceptance speech to become the Democratic candidate for the next President of the United States of America. Here’s what was in it for consumers, he promised to:

  • Cut taxes for working families and the middle class.
  • Get rid of capital gains tax for small-businesses and entrepreneurs.
  • Some kind of rollback on the changes in bankruptcy law in ’05 that made it harder for people to declare personal bankruptcy.
  • Get rid of unproductive tax loopholes that only benefit corporations.
  • Lower health insurance premiums for all.
  • Insure the uninsured with the same level of coverage Congress gives itself
  • Reduce dependence on foreign oil in 10 years.
  • $150 billion for renewable energy solutions and next-generation biofuels
  • More sick days and paid time off.

He said these will be paid for not by raising taxes, but by getting rid of corporate tax beaks and loopholes, and eliminating ineffective line items in the federal budget as well as making other items more efficient.

What do you think? Can he deliver?

(Photo: BohPhoto)


Edit Your Comment

  1. Sandtiger says:

    Time will tell unless McCain gets elected instead.

    • ViperBorg says:

      @Sandtiger: Sorry, if McCain gets elected, I’m moving to Canada.

      I am NOT looking at that butt-ugly man for the next 4 years. Not on my TV.

      I put him right up there with Bob from those damn Enzyte commercials.

      Oh, and personally, I think he’s full of crap.
      Go Obama!

  2. Quatre707 says:

    Will more sick days and paid time off apply to only full time salaried employees, or will it also help the numerous people who are currently forced to work two or three part-time jobs with no benefits and paid time off?

    • Squot says:

      @Quatre707: Well, he specifically used the example of a waitress, and I’ve never met any salaried waitress(es), so…

      I would hope. *is a current full-time-no-benefits-no-sick-time person*

  3. I was the only one in the bar cheering when he said Nuclear Energy. I love me some fission reactors and fusion research.

    • zigziggityzoo says:

      @Michael Belisle: Nuclear power is great, but many nuclear plants currently fail to process their nuclear waste, and instead opt to dumping it in international waters.

      • @zigziggityzoo:

        Nuclear power is great, but many nuclear plants currently fail to process their nuclear waste, and instead opt to dumping it in international waters.

        Can you provide a source or two to back up that claim? Not being adversarial, I’ve just never heard this claimed, so I’d like to hear it from a reputable source.

      • @zigziggityzoo: The US is not allowed to reprocess their spent fuel for fear of plutonium being stolen by terrorists. This ban was put in place in the 70s (Jimmy Carter, iirc).

        Currently, US nuclear waste is stored in highly capable containers in various places, including onsite. Yucca Mountain is currently being built, significantly over budget and way past original completion date, to hold the country’s waste. However, we already have enough waste to fill Yucca Mountain.

        This information came from a presentation by Dr. Audeen Fentimen of Purdue University.


      • Major-General says:

        Hmm, seems to be everything but a chicken in every pot and a new Chevrolet in every driveway.

      • pigbearpug says:

        @zigziggityzoo: Proof?

  4. Thaddeus says:

    One would hope. And dream.

  5. BytheSea says:

    Lower premiums isn’t going to do it, though. We need comprehensive coverage, and for insurance companies to stop having the autonomy to act like the mob. They shouldn’t be able to charge whatever they want and offer a minimal amount of coverage.

    These sound like a nice start. We’ll see how it goes.

    • TouchMyMonkey says:

      @BytheSea: I’m sure there was also something in Obama’s speech about insurance companies “discriminating against the sick.” I think that would cover the sort of Mob-like activity that has people fighting tooth and nail for what they’ve paid for in premiums. If not, I’m sure if someone were to ask Sen. Obama about it, we’d like what he would have to say about the subject.

  6. elvisaintdead says:

    What do you think? Can he deliver?

    I take these promises “Very Seriously.”

  7. Szin says:

    Here’s hoping.

  8. Mykro says:

    At least he knows how many houses he owns.. or what kind of car he drives. Or won’t die of old age while in his first term…

  9. seth1066 says:

    Getting rid of capital gains and corporation tax breaks is a proven method of *lowering* tax revenues. Whose advising this clown?

    • MrEvil says:

      @seth1066: Tax revenues are only depressed in the short-term. Over the long run you come out farther ahead. Unfortunately too many people are only concerned with what’s happening 3 months from now, not 3 years from now.

      • seth1066 says:

        @MrEvil: Wrong. An investment has to be held for a year before capital gains tax rates apply. If the capital gains rate is removed, so is any incentive to invest long term.

  10. Geewhiz… rolling back the bankruptcy laws to allow more consumers to declare bankruptcy is a good thing?

    Guess who pays for the increased number of bankruptcies? Give you one guess… it ain’t going to be the CC companies… which means consumers are going to pay the piper.

    • Sam Glover says:

      @Corporate-Shill: Wrong. The bankruptcy “reform” is one of the major causes of the subprime meltdown. Well, maybe not wrong. I guess you could say we are all paying for that error in judgment (of which Biden was a primary architect, FYI).

  11. firestarsolo says:

    “Get rid of capital gains tax for small-businesses and entrepreneurs.”

    What does this mean? I wasn’t aware that small businesses and entrepreneurs paid capital gains taxes. Can anyone give me some information on this?

    • MrEvil says:

      @firestarsolo: If you’re a sole-proprieter or in an LLP you pay capital gains any time you sell a non-inventory asset at a higher price than what you paid. So if you’re wanting to start a new venture and want out of your current venture, you’ll pay capital gains taxes on any profits you make from the sale of your share of the business.

      i.e. A man that runs a computer repair business is looking to retire, he sells his business (all of the equipment, customer database, inventory, rights to the name and signage), to a younger man looking to get a start. The old man owes capital gains tax on the sale of his business. Which is why most small business just have a fire sale and shutter the doors when it comes time to retire.

    • chrylis says:

      @firestarsolo: There are two simple ways this could happen: The owner/entrepreneur could sell the business (think IPO or buyout by a larger company), or the business could distribute profits in excess of what the equity holders invested.

      What I find nonsensical about this combination is that this is pretty much the kind of corporate tax “loophole” he keeps talking about.

      (In favor of removing many of the *business* [not corporate] tax breaks as long as tax rates are lowered accordingly. The tax code needs a 1986-style simplification.)

  12. Tax cuts for working families and the middle class

    …because rich people don’t work…apparently.

    Reduce dependence on foreign oil in 10 years.

    Hopefully this includes both new sources of energy, and additional oil exploration in the meantime.

    Lower health insurance premiums for all.

    How? Universal healthcare, or something else? Partial gov’t subsidies of health care costs?

    More sick days and paid time off.

    What in the world? How does he plan to accomplish that? Mandating it?

  13. BuddhaLite says:

    Love to hear how he plans to lower health insurance premiums and get more sick/vacation days for everyone? Is the federal government going to start regulating this? Personally I get 32 days off a year and that doesn’t count sick time. I also have really good health insurance premiums but I also know what it’s like to get 14 days a year and pay through the nose for insurance. Quite frankly if companies are forced to give more time off or lower insurance premiums they’ll find another way to pass the cost off to employees. There goes your raise/bonus.

  14. heniadis says:

    I don’t think it’s as much a matter of him delivering as it is of us (us being the entire constituency of the country) delivering on some of these promises. The President, whether it be Obama or McCain can only set the tone and stage. It seems to me that we’re at one of those historic crossroads in our history and it’s going to be up to us to rise to the challenge. Kennedy challenged us to go to the moon by the end of the decade and with the vision and backing we did it. If Obama can set the stage in a similar fashion and back it up I believe we can make it.

  15. DH405 says:

    Wow. And Bladefist hasn’t come to threadshit yet.

    • TouchMyMonkey says:

      @SMSDHubbard: It’s only 8AM. I’m sure Bladefist is sleeping off the hangover following his bender after watching Obama bring the awesome last night.

      • Bladefist says:

        @HurtsSoGood: You guessed it. As usual, the man gave 0 details on how he plans to do anything. He engages in identity politics. It works well for him.

        A lot of the things he wants to do, I would prefer he didn’t. He is going to raise capital gains taxes, and taxes on the rich. I’m not rich, but it’ll trickle down.

  16. quizmasterchris says:

    Obama’s on the take from Exelon (the largest nuke waste creator in the country), hence the nuke power… which means massive subsides to the industry… which means more deficit.

    In fact Obama has raised more corporate money than McCain. Two pro-corporate parties.

    Obama voted with the mining industry on reforming (tepidly) the Mining Act of 1872. He’s taking money from the corn ethanol lobby, another loser. He opposes single payer healthcare, the only real solution to cutting medical costs and insuring the uninsured. “Blech!”

    One way to reduce the budget might be to cut the military budget and not commit to permanent war in the Middle East. Obama’s calling for a larger military and shifting some troops from Iraq to Pakistan.

    Me? I’m voting Nader. Again. How anyone claiming to be liberal or pro-consumer keeps supporting the Democrats is beyond me.

    • parad0x360 says:

      @quizmasterchris: So i take it you dont like Obama. Thats fine but since you want to vote for Nader I would assume you also dont like McCain?

      You do realize a vote for Nader is a vote or the Republican party right?

      I’m all for Obama but from your point of view the lesser of two evils should be the better choice and voting for Nader would just be voting for the greater evil to be elected. He will never win…never.

      • whydidnt says:

        You know that’s exactly what they said in MN right before Jesse Ventura was elected. A vote for Jesse was a wasted vote, he’ll never win. Except he did. I’m not a Ventura fan, but he proved it is possible for a third party candidate to win. As long as people like you keep preaching the “wasted vote” line we will continue to be locked into a 2 party system that offers little to a vast majority of American’s with both parties pandering to a small percentage and paying lip service to middle America.

  17. Drew5764 says:

    Insure the uninsured with the same (and amazing) level of health coverage Congress (yep, they’re employed at least!) gets?

    How is this NOT a tax break for corporations? They’ll slash benefits so fast, we won’t have time to enroll in the government plan before it too, is bankrupt.

    I’m going to petition the Socialist party to put Hussein on the ballot. Hopefully it will scare enough people to voting on the only intelligent choice. Change that isn’t radical and impractical.

  18. bohphoto says:

    OK, Consumerist, obviously I’m cool with you using my photo (I did add it to your Flickr pool, after all), but what I’m not cool with: You cropping my photo. My photo, my editing.

    I cropped it my way for a reason.

    Not cool.

    I’m pulling all my photos from your Flickr pool right now.

  19. iMike says:

    I’m ma big Obama fan and think his election would be the right direction for the country. That said, I’d put his chance of winning the election at something like 20%. Too many Americans are looking for an excuse not to vote for him. And the Republican base is highly organized. Low conversion of centrist voters + likely unprecedented Republican turnout = defeat for Obama. And I don’t even want to talk about those gashes in PUMA.

    Should he beat the odds, I expect him to carry out the promises just made.

    • Lo-fi says:

      @iMike: “Should he beat the odds, I expect him to carry out the promises just made.”

      …thereby becoming the first President in US history to carry out his campaign promises? It was just a speech.

  20. NW says:

    The bankruptcy comment didn’t appear to have anything to do with personal filings or the 2005 changes; he mentioned it in the context of putting those with pensions in line ahead of CEO bonuses. I understood that to mean a reform in corporate bankruptcy filings so that changes are made to the order or rank of creditors.

  21. dragonfire81 says:

    Well it all sounds good, but the real question can he cut through the bureaucracy,red tape AND get congress on his side to breathe life into these reforms?

  22. DeepFriar says:

    I’m trying to wrap my brain around this
    less tax breaks for corporation ~ less profits/revenue ~ lower stock prices ~ layoffs = more unemployment domestically
    I am being overly simplistic?

    • @GamblesAC2: Right… thus we have oppressive regimes like Denmark and Finland where the nanny state has led to massive human rights violations, vs. free market paradises like Haiti and Rwanda where the individual is livin’ large and swingin’ easy.

      Seriously… Obama has raised a large amount of corporate cash. This is because both parties are about socialism for the rich and the “free” market for the poor.

    • joel. says:

      @DeepFriar: Nope, that about sums it up.

    • Mistrez_Mish says:

      Thank you. That is just what I was trying to juggle around in my head.

      So, yeah… raising taxes on large corporations will somehow create more job opportunities in the U.S.?

      If I owned a large corporation and got hit with more taxes, I’d be very interested in moving my operations overseas.

      He also mentioned something about giving – yet to be disclosed – benefits to corporations that do not outsource operations to another country.

      Do these two points cancel each other out?

      I’m still voting for Hopey, but things like this make me wonder…

      • snoop-blog says:

        At least his bus isn’t named the “straight talk express”. If you have to advertise the word “free” with your product, it probably isn’t free, and if you use “reduced fat” in you slogan, it probable still isn’t healthy. Common sense tells me that is you have to be the one to call yourself a “straight talker” chances are you are full of shit…

  23. GamblesAC2 says:

    sorry but… NObama 08′

    • GamblesAC2 says:

      @GamblesAC2: I cant support obama beacuse hes a socialist and we all know where socialisim leads to Dicatatorship through the all powerfull nanny state

      • snoozyboi says:

        @GamblesAC2: The dictatorships you’re talking about are people who don’t care about their citizens. They are not ‘nanny’s’ in any way and never intended to be. Obama is not a socialist. He is building the fundamentals of a good economy in which a market can function best. And a market can only function best when corruption is limited. That is why some regulations are a must.

      • theantidote says:

        @GamblesAC2:Socialism isn’t a dirty word anymore, get over it. I know you think the “conservatives” can provide a smaller government or whatever but the truth is that they can’t and they won’t. Just look at Bush: he CENTRALIZED parts of the government and made even more stupid agencies such as the DHS and TSA. I don’t see neocons ever fulfilling that promise. Right now the best choice for the US is Obama, even though he believes in higher taxes, higher spending which is against your stupid “trickle-down” short term economic theories which screw us 20 years later.

        By the way: Obama will pay for this mainly by taxing the HECK out of the top 5% of the wealthiest people in the US and the corporations that are making a few billion in profit each quarter. McCain’s economic “plan” is to cut everyone’s taxes which makes no freaking sense. He will end up losing an estimated $500 billion due to his tax cuts ([www.ctj.org]) which will mainly benefit the richest and not the majority.

        Also I don’t believe nuclear energy is a solution to our energy problem because where do we put the waste? We can’t just bury it in a mountain forever, that’s stupid and dangerous. Eventually we would end up in a feverish search for uranium which will surely be hidden under a dictator’s country and we will end up in the same mess we’re in now. McCain thinks nuclear energy is the hallmark of his energy “plan” but frankly that’s just using another short term solution to patch the current one. Obama last night made a promise which is unheard of from a presidential candidate: ending our dependence in 10 years. Al Gore called for this a few months ago and everyone called him crazy, now Obama is echoing the call and if he gets elected I believe he can do it.

    • Burgandy says:

      @GamblesAC2: Don’t be sorry, I just hope you are right!

  24. karmaghost says:

    So McCain’s commercials about Obama raising taxes are false? Or is he going to raise taxes on the rich, ‘cuz that’s cool with me.

  25. jamesdenver says:

    quote: More sick days and paid time off.

    I just returned from the event. Perhaps I was distracted waving my miniature American flag but I did not hear him say those works.

    He did discuss folks who have been at their jobs for 20 + years and lost them to overseas, and also brought up people in credit card debt – but I’ve always preached being knowledgeable in your industry and learning new and transportable skills.

    Sheryl Crow did a pretty cool set. And as I said to the lady next to me, (a DEM organizer from North Carolina,) he better f-ing win.

  26. jamesdenver says:

    By the way Al Gore did a really excellent, or insulting – depending on your stance comparison Obama to Lincoln in regards to experience and character.

    Also like most sets it looked a lot larger on the video monitors. Pretty plasticy and plywoody up close.

    • @jamesdenver: By the way Al Gore did a really excellent, or insulting – depending on your stance comparison Obama to Lincoln in regards to experience and character.

      Obama is indeed pretty close to Lincoln in when it comes to experience. Close to Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman too. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, these presidents are all well-known to have been total failures because of their lack of experience.

  27. snoozyboi says:

    Barack Obama has his entire economic plan on his website. Asking people here for information is a bad idea.

  28. On this list I take issue with the roll back of the Bankruptcy rules. It should be very difficult to file bankruptcy. Part of the problem of the credit system is it was too easy to file for bankruptcy and then we would have to pay to pick up the slack. Not cool. Good by personal financial responsibility.

    The only time I think there should be a deal worked out is if its due to a medical hardship. Otherwise you should be out of luck and god forbid you pay your debts.

    • jamesdenver says:


      What if you buy a plasma TV on your credit card and THEN have a medical problem.

      I agree with your principal if implemented correctly.

      Bankruptcy due to losing your job, medical, and crummy life situations = ok. Bankruptcy from too much shopping and material goods = bad.

    • iMe2 says:

      @The_Red_Monkey: These fabled deadbeat-debtors are always cited in bankruptcy law arguments – the data doesn’t support it. More than half of bankruptcies are the result of medical emergencies. The rest are overwhelmingly the result either of job loss or of divorce.

      There already were high costs to bankruptcy before the more strict laws enacted in 2005. As for your suggestion: Ted Kennedy introduced an exemption for cases of medical bankruptcy. Russ Feingold introduced an amendment protecting the homes of the elderly. Dick Durbin asked for protection for armed services members and veterans. All were rejected.

      Why? A unilateral Republican effort and a split Democratic party. This is why nothing has changed since 2006, and nothing will unless Obama is elected and the Democrats win over 60% of the Senate, preventing Republican filibusters.

  29. Xerloq says:

    These things can’t be mandated. You can’t close the loopholes, because corporations will find other ways to get around the law.

    The only way for these things to happen is to 1) make it profitable to do so, or 2) convert the US to socialism.

    I’m for #1. Seems to me Obama want’s to mandate people’s behavior. We all know from reading this blog that hitting people in their wallets is the best motivator.

    I’m starting to lean toward flat tax on purchases rather than income tax. How many states have successful economies w/o income tax?

    Or to make it “fair” why not simply divide the budget by the number of Americans to get how much each family owes?

    Universal health care is a sham.

    • battra92 says:

      So much for change and something new. He just dragged out the same tired old failed policies of the past.

      @Xerloq: I’m starting to lean toward flat tax on purchases rather than income tax. How many states have successful economies w/o income tax

      It’s up for ballot initiative here in MA. Personally I would submit to say 7 or 8% on purchases (we’re at 5% now) vs 5.3% chopped right from my paycheck.

      What we really need which Barry O won’t do is to ease the burden of the federal government by privatizing a lot of poorly run government programs or shifting them to the states. The Feds should have no part in Education, healthcare, retirement etc. Leave it up to the states I say.

      His sick days and paid time off means more layoffs and outsourcing. Sure is working well for Europe with their double digit unemployment rates.

  30. Tijil says:

    For those voting Nader (or other than Obama) consider that means McCain, and I just cannot believe that will be good for the country.

    I feel a certain affinity for a fellow Vietnam vet, but I cannot buy his ideas. I do not agree with McCain more than I do not agree with Obama.

    (Old, white, and disgruntled.)

    • grapedog says:


      I’m sorry, but saying a vote for Nader is like voting for any other candidate is BS. How will a candidate of any party, other than Republicans or Democrats, know that they have a legitimate shot, if no one ever votes for them, for fear some other choice wins. I’m done with voting with the least objectionable. It’s friggin time people voted for who they really want to win, despite the likelyhood of success.

  31. Counterpoint says:

    “He said these will be paid for not by raising taxes, but by getting rid of corporate tax beaks and loopholes”

    Which shows he knows nothing about economics. I’m sure companies will just take the tax hikes in stride and not pass any of it along to the consumer. When will people like Obama learn that companies do not pay taxes – they are simply collecting another tax of the average Joe who buys their product. Joe’s getting income taxed, SS taxed, sales taxed, and the hidden tax in the cost of products since the gov’t taxes the producers.

  32. TheSpatulaOfLove says:

    Sadly, I don’t think Obama will get in to even try to turn the tide. My bet is the Repube Corruption Machine has Diebold squarely in their pocket still and we’ll have another sham election like the last two were…

    I still stumble around in disbelief that Bush got back in – But then I meet the one-issue whackjobs that proudly say they voted for that criminal regime both times, all while failing to see the bigger picture.

    Should Obama make it in, I’d be very pleased if he even achieved 10% of his campaign promises – It would be a hell of a lot better than what we’ve put up with for the past seven years.

  33. bbvk05 says:

    Fluff. Pure fluff.

  34. MomInTraining says:

    If Obama wins, he will do as much of what he promised as the Congress sends to him to sign. We need to elect the right members of Congress if we want to do the things Obama outlined tonight.

    Some key points:

    – 95% of us will see a tax decrease with Obama. If you make that much more money than I do, you can afford to pay some more taxes. McCain is using the example of someone making $42,000 a year who will be taxed more. Yeah, a single person with no dependents will face $15 more in taxes. Oh my…three less trips to Starbucks for them.

    – Small business owners pay capital gains taxes on the profits made by their business. There are different ways to calculate how much they pay based on the individuals tax bracket, how long the asset has been held, and how it compares to losses that year and in previous years. Small business owners don’t have the massive accounting departments to find the loopholes to avoid taxes. Obama will level that playing field by not taxing the little guys and making sure corporations pay their fair share.

    – Obama proposes a national health care system where those who are not insured through work or can not afford that coverage can buy in to the extent they can afford to buy in. My premiums will go down because I will get to stop subsidizing people who don’t have any health insurance.

    We have had Bush/McCain policies for the past 8 years and now things are a mess. I am willing to take a chance on change because McCain offers a certainty of more of the same. My family can’t take four more years of the same.

  35. MercuryPDX says:

    Cut taxes for working families and the middle class.
    Don’t we hear this every four years from both sides of the aisle?

    Some kind of rollback on the changes in bankruptcy law in ’05 that made it harder for people to declare personal bankruptcy.
    Because we don’t have enough people declaring it now, right?

    Lower health insurance premiums for all.

    Insure the uninsured with the same level of coverage Congress gives itself
    Somehow not seeing either of these happen within the (minimum) 4 years ahead.

    Reduce dependence on foreign oil in 10 years.
    Same deal. Let’s see what happens in the next 4 years.

    $150 billion for renewable energy solutions and next-generation biofuels
    Where’s this money going to come from?

    More sick days and paid time off.
    I don’t see this happening either.

    I wasn’t thrilled with the choice of Biden as VP, but he’s the lesser of the two evils, so he’ll get my vote. Folks, let’s not put him on too high a pedestal just yet.

  36. I don’t see how this speech was really any different from what both sides say they want to do for everyone. Don’t worry, McCain can’t deliver any of these things either America.

    I did find the idea that the guy who works the counter at 7-11 is going to get the same healthcare as members of congress (whilst a noble idea) is about as realistic as everyone getting a pony.

  37. jwissick says:

    I don’t buy anything Obama wants to sell. He is a pure 100% Marxist.

  38. Fredex says:

    You aren’t going to recognize America when Obama is done with it. You have two months to figure him out or turn the country over to his socialist thug friends. He is taking Chicago street politics national.

    • superberg says:


      Socialist Chicago Politics?

      Do you have any idea what Socialism actually is? As a native Chicagoan, I can assure you there is very little that is socialist about our politics.

      Our politics may be linked to the mob, they may be incestuous, but they are not socialist.

  39. gatewaytoheaven says:

    Even if he doesn’t do all the things he’s preaching, he’s still good looking.

  40. randombob says:

    I love all the people on here spouting reaganomics, as if it worked in the 80’s (S&L meltdown, high inflation, unemployment, stagnating economy) and in the last decade (Mortgage meltdown, inflation, unemployment… similarities? coincidence?).

    Trickle-down economics DOES NOT WORK. You give people with lots of money more money, they stockpile more money or buy more yachts. This isn’t helping the majority of Americans; that’s YOU, btw.

    Our economy under this administration is FAILING. Rich-people tax breaks serve the rich ONLY. You think the economy is merely stagnant? Consider that we’re fighting TWO wars. Historically, when we fight a war, our economic flags shoot way up.

    We’re fighting two wars (Iraq & Afghanistan), and we’re still stagnant? We must be bleedin’ quite a bit if that band-aid ain’t cutting it.

  41. crimsonfury says:

    Raising taxes for large corp’s and lowering them for “low and middle class” only hurts educated working Americans.

    It may benefit mcdonalds workers and roofers, but what about the many of us who lose our jobs to foreign countries because its cheaper for large corporations to outsource their operations than pay higher taxes.

    I speak as an IT worker who’s department is very close to the chopping block.

    Remember, Obama is rich, hes not going to give up his lifestyle. The rich will stay rich no matter what. If they have to pay higher taxes they will go somewhere else.

    Obama’s plans will make the hard working smart americans pay for the bad decisions that dumb citizens make.
    I dont want to have to pay for some skanks welfare checks because she decided to get knocked up at 14 and drop out of school. (story of south florida)

    im not republican, but its easy to see how much bs obama is slinging.

  42. Just wait till Johnny Mac give his speech. It will be the same set of hollow promises just slightly spun differently.

    The real source of problems or improvements starts with Congress. Term limits are starting to sound real good about right now, of course I want my member-for-life to remain up there in Washington DC feeding at the trough for the good of my community. Oops, there in lies a bigger problem. Everybody wants to sacrifice as long as they still get their’s, and I have yet to hear a single incumbant Congressman say that he/she will vote for the good of the nation rather than the good of the constituents and still get voted back into office.

    Long live Congress Members-for-Life.

  43. Craysh says:

    @Sam Glover
    Actually, the subprime meltdown is pretty much due to the Jimmy Carter administration’s Community Reinvestment Act (1977). It helped to prevent redlining, or denying mortgages to low to moderate income borrowers. Under the act banks were graded on ther attentive ness to credit needs of these low to moderate income borrowers. The higher the banks grade, the more likely the regulators would say yes when the bank sought to open a new branch or undertake a merger/aquisition.
    So in order for any business in this field to expand, they were forced into these high risk debts. This was only compounded in the Clinton administration when they added fines to the law for non-compliance.
    So they had two choices:
    1) Give out high risk loans and be ALLOWED to expand your business
    2) Give only solid loans, never be able to expand past your current business limitations, and be eligible for fines.
    What would you pick?

  44. And if anybody thinks a majority of one party in Congress is a solution… it ain’t. House or Senate. The Senate is the most restricted club in the country, where the membership actively work together for their mutual advancement and profiteering.

    Of course my two Senators are excellent, above reproach gentlemen who would never stoop to profiteer off the backs of others.

  45. forgottenpassword says:

    promises promises! Are we forgetting that he is a politician? He has promised the sun & the moon. Good luck getting it IF he gets elected.

  46. Parting says:

    I have no respect for Obama. He’s only slightly better than McCain. He is still a corporate shill/ignorant ass.

    I heard him talking about what’s going on in Georgia (country, not USA’s state). He’s a hypocrite, since he didn’t even mentioned that Georgia suddenly attacked one of its states, killing thousands, only because the state wanted independence. Whatever happend after is direct consequence of that bloodbath. And ignoring local fleeing population, to support Georgia’s government, just because Russia took position in favor of separatist state. AFTER Georgia attacked it.

    Let’s renew cold war, having another ”enemy” will keep USA’s population full of fear, and in obedience. Who should give a fuck about some innocent victims, they are poor anyway. Beurk.

  47. z4ce says:

    – Cut taxes for working families and the middle class.
    Get rid of capital gains tax for small-businesses and entrepreneurs.
    * Not likely. My guess is higher taxes across the board except for the lower %50 of income earners. Increased corporate income taxes will also result in higher prices.

    – Some kind of rollback on the changes in bankruptcy law in ’05 that made it harder for people to declare personal bankruptcy.
    * This is actually a brilliant idea. Companies know the rules and shouldn’t extend tons of credit to folks they know can’t repay it and then ruin their lives.

    – Get rid of unproductive tax loopholes that only benefit corporations.
    * Taxes, at the end of the day ALWAYS affect people. * Remember, corporations are made-up of people. Consumers will ALWAYS be the one to pay whether its through higher prices or lower wages.

    – Lower health insurance premiums for all.
    * Nice idea. I doubt he can deliver. Though I do think his idea of forcing all insurance pools to accept pre-existing conditions will be good for the market.

    – Insure the uninsured with the same level of coverage Congress gives itself
    * Devil is in the details here. If I remember correctly this actually forces companies to buy it (which would be higher unemployment). I hate the idea of universal healthcare, but if hospitals are going to be forced to treat the uninsured (and realistically, they have to), the government has to have some kind of plan in place to cover these costs. I’d prefer to see something more along of the lines high-deductible insurance along with health savings plans. You know, making it insurance again instead of health maintenance.

    – Reduce dependence on foreign oil in 10 years.
    * hahaha. Yeah. Right. The eco-lobby will never let the dems drill and build nuclear which is actually needed to achieve this.

    – $150 billion for renewable energy solutions and next-generation biofuels
    * Waste of money. Let the market handle it.

    – More sick days and paid time off.
    * Obvious drain on the economy. Notice a theme against corporations here? That’s bad for everybody.

  48. primechuck says:

    Most of this is recycled from Bill Clintons, John Kerry, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Micheal Ducacass promises. There are logical solutions to the issues he’s trying to address but in the end, normal people will notice the most. Besides, I thought everything was fixed by L.B.J’s Great Society.

    Cut Taxes for everyone. Gut the federal tax code. Don’t care how, remove nickle and dime charges for transactions and the reduction in cost reverberate through the entire economy.

    Increasing regulation and forcing subsidies on health care is never a good long term solution.

    Yes, a reduction in forgien oil would be great, we have lots of oil here, have at it. Anything on the energy front with that stated goal of, “Reducing dependence on forgein oil” that isn’t finding more oil is just very, very expensive vaporware.

  49. jwissick says:

    How much do you know about Obama?

    • @jwissick:

      Wow. Well, I’m not voting for Ayers. Boy, that would be stupid. Good thing he’s not running. Whew! How stupid do you think I and others are that we fall for that old diversion tactic?

      I’m so sick of people trying to destroy candidates for their personal lives. Sick, sick, sick. Do I hold it against McBush that he’s a hair-trigger volcano who calls his wive a f**#ing c@%t in front of reporters because she teased him about his hair or that she is the mistress he cheated on his wife with and left her for because she had the audacity to wait for him all the years he was a POW? Think McBush can stand up to a personality fight? Then let em rip.
      Or, hey, let’s go with the Republican strategy of calling the candidate a flip-flopper. Only McBush has flopped more than almost anyone. Torture, hey, I was tortured, but if it will get me votes, sure, I can dig it. Immigration, we need a path to citizenship, um, I mean enforcement and deportations. My centerpiece, campaign finance, except when I need money. Let’s go there.

      How about addressing the question instead of trying to divert attention from the very real problems that need to be addressed, by someone who does not believe the last 8 years were so great they deserve 4 more of the same.

  50. Trai_Dep says:

    Insure the uninsured with the same level of coverage Congress gives itself

    Whoa. I always (no, really, always) respond to the wingnut’s hostility towards rational health care by ending with, “just make Congress (and the White House) live with the same health insurance as we do, and I’ll shut up.” Or, “Gosh, if we had the same health care as Bush, McCain and Gramm have for life then I’d be pretty smug about how America’s got the best health care in the world, too.”
    Damn Hopey for stealing my retort. Just damn him. To HELL!

    But, for sheer shock value, McCain wins. His plan (every thin dime your employer contributes to your family’s health insurance will be taxed as your personal income) made even my jaded heart skip a beat.

  51. hallam says:

    @jwissick, yes, the ad is being illegally funded through a fake 501.c organization that is breaking the law. So you think folk should beleive a bunch of criminals? Fact is that the only link that these clowns could find to Ayers was that he happens to be a close neighbor and on one occasion held a brunch for Obama very early in his career.

    These are the same folk who invented all those swift boat lies about Kerry. The guy funding these ads stands to lose millions if health care is fixed.

    On the bankruptcy bill, the real question is under what circumstances banks will have recourse to the public courts to collect on loans they issued.

    The original assumption was that making it harder to declare bankruptcy would make people less likely to take on debt irresponsibly. Instead it encouraged certain banks to lend irresponsibly, and since they were making money in the short term the rest of the banks followed.

    Some people certainly abused the old bankruptcy system. The Enron swindlers kept their $10million houses. OJ is still living a millionaire lifestyle. But the banks have abused the new system worse.

    • jwissick says:

      @hallam: Not so. Obama’s campaign said they were friends. Ayres also launched Obama’s political career at HIS home. In addition Ayres recruited Obama to sit on the board of the Woods Foundation. Why does he spend so much time and accept support from an unrepentant terrorist???

      As to AIP being illegal or breaking the law, I have not seen any evidence of that. Obama is a liar. I caught him in several lies tonight. His mother raised him on food stamps in hawaii to make sure he went to the best schools he says. Well, there was no food stamp program in Hawaii back then. Obama’s lies are countless. He is an empty suit with no experience. Seriously, If you want a Marxist for a president, leave. It’s not going to happen here.

      • wcnghj says:

        @jwissick: Sources please. Obama was born in 1961. The foodstamp program started in 1964.

        Where are you seeing Hawaii did not have this program.

        • icy_one says:

          @wcnghj: jwissick is just here to earn McCain Points.

          • jwissick says:

            @icy_one: Wrong. I am not a McCain supporter. Nice try. argumentum ad hominem. Yer gonna have to do better than that.

            @snoop-blog: Obviously you have no sense of humor. He was telling a JOKE.

            @Ubik2501: Why do they call Obama a Marxist? Simple. First, read the Communist Manifesto. Then listen to Obama. You will see that his platform is right out of Carl Marx’s play book.

            • boandmichele says:

              @jwissick: how closed-minded and jaded can you get? go and read the communist manifesto again.

              • boandmichele says:

                @boandmichele: i am by NO MEANS a supporter of communism, but saying it is Obama’s playbook is just ignorant.

              • jwissick says:

                Fine. Let’s review the Pillars of Communism.

                #2 A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. ** Well this is Obama 100%. How do you think he will pay for all these program he proposes? Taxes.. And LOTS of them. You can’t do it any other way. Every time he turns around he is talking about taxing someone and starting a few program. Obama has NEVER voted to lower taxes for ANYONE. EVER. Lets look at two of his promises from last night. He first says he will lower insurance premiums for everyone. AND he will give Congressional insurance to the uninsured. Well what will happen? Simple. The businesses will cease to offer insurance to employees since the government will cover the uninsured. Makes no sense for businesses to continue to offer insurance anymore does it?

                #3 Abolition of all right of inheritance. ** Obama supports the death taxes. He voted to support them every time.

                #5 Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. ** Obama supports the take overs by the Gov of the failing banks. These banks made mistakes and now they will be bailed out and controlled by the .gov. He does support more regulation and government control in the industry.

                #6 Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. ** By controlling energy and not supporting lowering energy prices by drilling here and now he can control transportation. A more disturbing position taken by Obama, however, is his view – articulated on draftobama.org (removed now but it was there) – that “I hope Congress gets to work right away on reestablishing the Fairness Doctrine with the FCC. There needs to be balance on the airwaves again on radio as well as TV and cable.” There you go… controlling transportation and communication.

                #10 Free education for all children in public schools. ** Well he surely supports this… Interesting though he never went to public schools.

                That’s just a few of the planks. He is a Marxist. His mother and father were admitted Marxists.

            • snoop-blog says:

              the idea of communism the marx is talking about, is not the same evil communism we think of today. I’m in business 101 and I can tell you that all families are comunistic. Do you not provide for other in your household who cannot? If grandma is to sick, do you not take care of her? If your child was disabled, wouldn’t you support him? These are all communistic ideas, that actually work in a small family. Amish, are very very close to communism, and their actually thriving right now. The ideas are not bad, it’s the people who made it bad.

              @jwissick: was he telling a joke or dodging the real question. It would seem to me if he was joking, then he never gave an answer. Same old Bush tathtics were use to. Try to use humor to avoid a real question.

          • crashfrog says:

            @icy_one: OMG! People were talking about those on Pandagon, and other blogs, and I thought they were kidding.

            That shit’s real? Jesus, McCain’s running a joke campaign. Does anyone seriously think he’s gonna be the next President? That he could possibly be ready to be President after such a bush-league campaign?

      • Cupajo says:

        @jwissick: How old are you?

  52. Trai_Dep says:

    I love the fact that all these guys using the terms (unironically) “Marxist” and “Communist” are buying most of their stuff from Wal-Mart, whose store is filled almost exclusively with goods manufactured by – you guessed it – China. You know, the last one of three remaining Communist countries?
    You guys ever even try to walk the walk that your mouth talked the talk? No, really. I’m serious. Ever?!
    Guess it’s too much to ask: not when you can save $1.20 on a 24-pack of socks.

  53. Trai_Dep says:

    Finally, Obama has rejected accepting lobbyist money. Once he won the nomination, he made the DNC do the same. McCain welcomes it. Gleefully. The RNC wallows in it. Wantonly.
    Who’s more corrupt?

    • ivanthemute says:

      @Trai_Dep: Wait…what? Wasn’t that the other way around, with McCain accepting public funds (and thus cutting off private contributers) and Obama rejecting public funds?

      • Trai_Dep says:

        @ivanthemute: Accepting public funds is different than accepting lobbyist money.
        Obama, who’s raised the vast majority of his money in under-$100 amounts from a broad swath of the public, has raised a TON of it, more than he’d get from public funding. He opted to not go there. McCain, by contrast, gets most of his private funding from large donors maxing out and lobbyists.
        He never said he would, the closest he got was answering a questionnaire and replied,

        Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.”

        You see the wingnuts using the above quote, lopping off the bolded part (an important part, since these media buys are crazy-expensive) then saying he broke his “promise”. Poppycock – he only answered the question in that survey format and made a reasonable qualification in this mass media age.

        McCain, on the other hand, not only promised to use public funding – often, and from his own mouth – but used the value of these matching funds as collateral to take a private loan out, when he was losing in the primaries. So he leveraged public funds to get a loan. Then once his tide turned, he flipflopped and said he’d reject public financing. After using it to get a loan, which is equivalent to spending public money.

        So he talked the talk, even signed legal documents leveraging public funds he’d be obligated to follow the rules for, until it was convenient for him to change his mind. Then he ditched it. Hardly Straight Talk.

        Obama gave a qualified answer once, answering a poll, whose terms were unmet.
        McCain repeatedly said he would, based a life-saving loan on funds only available to him if he used public funding, then ditched it when convenient.

        And, again, McCain cheerfully accepts lobbyist money and orders the RNC to do the same. While Obama does the opposite, rejecting lobbyist money for his and the DNC’s efforts.

        It’s a pretty stark comparison between the same old broken Beltway model and something different.

  54. dantsea says:

    I, for one, look forward to the finger-waggling about fiscal responsibility from a member of the Keating Five that is sure to come in response, over the next several weeks.

  55. The question is not “can he deliver?”, but rather “how is this the responsibility of the POTUS?”. I’m not looking for the leader of the free, Western world to negotiate the number of sick days I’m entitled to at my job. I’m more interested in, say, the role he will play in preventing a resurgent Russia from extending its current borders or his ability to avert an Iranian nuclear hegemony in the Middle East. I appreciate the extent to which Mr. Obama intends to work to take care of me, but, in the end, I’m quite content to be held responsible for my own financial well-being and personal security. It’s the roads and the bombs that I’m thinking our president and our congress should be building and minding. The rest I can take care of myself, thank you.

    • @AtomicPlayboy: The question is not “can he deliver?”, but rather “how is this the responsibility of the POTUS?

      C’mon, presidential candidates always promise to be the light of the world and save our crumbling society from impending destruction. Remember that this is the president that won’t let Apple release the new and improved iPod the day after you bought the previous model. Now that’s a consumer issue I care about.

      (But seriously, these days you never really know what they’re going to do until they get elected.)

      I appreciate the extent to which Mr. Obama intends to work to take care of me, but, in the end, I’m quite content to be held responsible for my own financial well-being and personal security

      Great. I’m happy for you. Can I have your tax cuts?

      I’m not sure if you watched the speech, but obviously Ben focused on the consumer-related issues here. He talked about your favorite issues too.

      It’s … the bombs that I’m thinking our president and our congress should be building and minding.

      Oh, so you really are an Atomic Playboy?

    • whydidnt says:

      @AtomicPlayboy: You hit the nail on the head. It is not the Government’s job to provide for us, or negotiate time off work. It’s disappointing that so many at a “consumerist” site seem to think it’s up to the Government to provide them with the all sorts of benefits.

  56. sirellyn says:

    It would be nice if he could deliver all of that, but he won’t be able to. Even if the democrats spend a heck of a lot less than the Republicans have been the US is in deep deep trouble.

    I’m concerned that Obama will produce an FDR like “New Deal” when faced with financial crisis if elected. McCain is worse of course, but you’ve run out of time to vote “the lesser of two evils” this time. I would suggest seeing who else is on the ballot. Find the individual you agree with most and vote for them. Because if you don’t vote for some other (minor) candidate, the US is going to be looking a lot more like Argentina sometime soon.


    • @Xerloq: Or to make it “fair” why not simply divide the budget by the number of Americans to get how much each family owes?

      Let’s take this sentence literally and see what happens. Budget in 2008 was $2,900,000,000,000. There are 300,000,000 people in the US. Getting out a calculator…. that’s a little under $10,000 for every man, woman, and child. That’s fine with me. I didn’t really want to pay rent or eat this year, anyway. Or I’m sure Countrywide would be happy to give me a tax-payment loan.

      And what, you want to have a kid in 2009? That’ll be an additional $10,000/kid/year please. Should solve the problem of poor people in no time. They won’t be able to afford to have kids, and if they have one anyway, we’ll just put them all in prison for not paying their child-birth taxes. Kids should be an exclusive luxury of the rich.

      • Xerloq says:

        @Michael Belisle: It’s ridiculous right? But you misinterpreted me. Kids don’t earn money, so don’t charge them. Comes out to be more like $30,000 each.

        My point is why should anyone get a free ride?

        You did understand that I was using hyperbole as a method to make my point, right? Point is government spends to much and produces nothing. I understand that things like education, energy, defense, etc. aren’t meant to, but don’t you think it’s a little ridiculous?

  57. Justifan says:

    empty words. his lack of a record in the senate, and his reign in corrupt chicago politics make his promises ring hollow.

    chock up another hilary voter for mccain.

    as for obamas lies, he’s certainly being disingenuous on the whole not taking money from lobbyists. he’s using every loophole to get their money. never mind the number of people who do lobbyist type activities in washington but don’t fit the narrow definition of an official lobbyist is atleast 3x the registered number. so its a load of bull really. same old thing by a different name.

    and of course his character is paper thin. he spent a decade with a raging bigot minister wright when he thought no one was looking. now he pretends it didn’t matter. he knows how to manage his image, but what he’s hiding seems rather dubious.

  58. Justifan says:

    as for “lack of experience”. that was the selling point of GW BUSH! mr outsider! and oh my, he’s just a fun guy to be around!! how little things change. the shoes just on the other foot this time.

  59. drdom says:

    What does everyone not understand about this???
    First, for the record, I don’t care much for either candidate as a presidential prospect. They are both great people, who have given much to their country. If only that were enough to qualify one for the job.
    The President of The United States of America is possibly the most powerful person on earth (although I vote for the Pope on this one). But the president has very limited, if any ability to deliver on most of the promises Senator Obama made. Congress passes laws and enacts legislation. The Vice-President only votes to break ties in the senate, and the president has veto power, although it can be overridden by congress. Issuing executive orders cannot accomplish any of the things he promised.
    I think Senator Obama is a nice guy, well intentioned, with bold ideas. But his estimation of what he or any other president can do on issues like the giving people more sick time, reducing the cost of health insurance, rolling back bankruptcy law reform and all the great stuff he talks about are ideals.
    As president, neither he or any other person can deliver those promises. He has a better shot of making all of those wonderful things happen in the senate, by introducing legislation and getting enough of his fellow senators from both sides of the aisle to agree with him.
    With all due respect to Barack Obama, and I mean this sincerely, he is long on great ideas but short on specifics. And what little specifics he does give us are stated in broad generalities that he’s not empowered to deliver even if he is elected.
    And by no means am I implying that Senator McCain is any better, or any different. Both are good, honorable, well meaning men of principle. They differ on what the solutions to issues are. But neither will admit that in the position they’re seeking, their ability to deliver the goods is greatly diminished when compared with their current jobs.
    These are not my rantings or opinions. History and the laws are the reality. And although I applaud both of them for trying, and for serving, I would like someone who knows what the job is about and what they can and cannot do. It’s ok to dream about our ideals, until reality gets in the way. Then, you have to have a plan. A real plan, not the party platforms or position papers we are being fed by the campaign machines.

  60. mac-phisto says:

    i’m excited about the prospect of creating a line between our megacorps/small businesses & extending the majority of our public support to the small companies. small businesses have always been the lifeblood of this country & over the past 50 years, we’ve been gradually squeezing them out of business.

  61. PunditGuy says:

    OMG! If BO gets elected, people will get laid off! No raises! Poor, strugling companies will be forced to pass costs on to us!

    Got two words for you: status quo. Your worst case scenario is our reality. If you don’t like it, quit giving power to the people who advocate more of the same.


    BTW: Can’t let the “Jimmy Carter caused the current mortgage crisis” comment pass without giving a “WTF” shout-out. Banks have to use the same criteria for loans despite geography, which means that you can’t be denied a loan if you have the income and credit history for one but live in what the bank considers to be a “bad” (traditionally, minority-heavy) neighborhood. Yeah, taking away the right of banks to legally discriminate 30 years ago must be the cause of the mortgage meltdown. Brilliant.

  62. gqcarrick says:

    Typical political promises, and nothing more.

  63. Erwos says:

    Sounds like he’s trying to bribe me with my own money. Or someone else’s.

  64. Japheaux says:

    At least he knows how many houses he owns.. or what kind of car he drives. Or won’t die of old age while in his first term…

    Uh….I participate in this blog to look for ways to be smart with money so maybe someday I, too, can own 7 houses. This is called the American Dream. So why don’t you start looking into how Barry Hussein got into his house.

  65. mazda3jdm says:

    No matter who gets elected nothing will change its up to congress to approve everything he says and unless you pay them some political contributions they are not going to agree with you.

  66. bentcorner says:

    “More sick days and paid time off”

    How’s he going to do that? I currently get no sick days, so even getting one will be an improvement.

  67. bbbco says:

    Sounds like he’s going to make sure we’re a step closer to emulating France.

    • Ajh says:

      Not even touching the sick days. Lower taxes = a joke for the uninformed. We don’t need lower taxes we need the government to use the money more effectively for the people like it promises. That’s the whole point of taxes!

      Healthcare needs legislation. It doesn’t need to be socialized, but it definitely needs to be put under scrutiny. The question is are there enough lawyers in the world to make it hard for them to get out of the guidelines set.

      The real trick will be to see if he can get congress out of the major corporations grasp. If he’s elected and can do that he will be my hero.

  68. thrillwill says:

    Having just found out that my State is home to the first county in 40 years to lose school accreditation I am now officially more worried about who votes than who gets the votes.

    Seriously… those school board officials were duly elected.


    • TWinter says:

      @thrillwill: Sorry to hear about the mess in your schools. But it reminds me that something that never comes up in debates about school reform is the institution of the school board. If you look at school systems in the foreign countries that regularly beat our asses in standardized test comparisons you find out that schools are run by – shock and horror – trained administrators appointed because they have experience in the classroom and degrees relevant to teaching and educational administration. The community does need to have a role in running schools, but it’s ridiculous that the final word on important decisions is made by a group of people who have no experience in the classroom and no formal training. In most cases it’s about as smart as putting an expert on Arabian horses in charge of disaster management.

  69. seamustry says:

    How about we don’t believe these politicians?

  70. civicmon says:

    Is it appropriate to say that there are plenty of places to discuss politics on the Internet, should this topic even be discussed here? It’s not an actual change in the law or a proposed action by Congress, it’s just speculation by a Presidential candidate.

    I voted for Obama in the primary and plan to do so for the general election, I’m not anti-Obama at all but I’m not sure that the Consumerist should be a place where politics and speculation on such should be discussed.

    But that’s just me…

    • Aesteval says:

      @civicmon: I think it’s a good place to have
      a discussion of some sort. It’s good to have someone filter through all
      the data/speeches/etc. and present the more specific aspects to a more
      focused interest. Politics affects everyone, but it’s good to have some
      more focused discussion of what specifically applies to different
      interests, ie: this is what applies to consumers, this is what applies
      to tech junkies, this is what applies to foreign interests. Some people
      don’t want to jump too far into the general political interest places
      but still want to know what would be interesting to them.

  71. Cycledoc says:

    I predict he will achieve most of his agenda, if his party definitively controls congress.

    Obama is a decided contrast to the republican candidate this year and their president of the last 8 years. He’s thoughtful, analytic, and exceptionally intelligent.

  72. Obama is NOT going to deliver on these promises. Mark my words on this. I’m still going to vote for “O” because he is the lesser of two evils, and I have to do my part to make sure McCain doesn’t get to office. Through out history politicians have made speaches w/ promises that they never delivered on. Some of Obama’s claims are really out there.

    “More sick days and paid time off.”

    I’d love to see how he makes that happen. Even if he is able to get companies to give employes another sick day this doesn’t solve the problem with working for a large company. For example I have 8 sick days per year. However if I call out sick more then 5 times I get written up. I get written up three times, I get fired. So therefore if I ever use all my sick days I loose my job. My company does not pay me for sick days that aren’t used either. I can’t use sick time in advance as personal time either.I have it good, my wife gets sick/vacation/personal time all rolled into 3 weeks. Lastly, even if I could use all my sick time that is not how anyone gets ahead. Employers frown on sick time weather you have it or not.

    • MrEvil says:

      @PrestonBerryworth: Your employer is violating the Family and Medical leave act. Under the law you can have 12 work weeks (26 if you’re caring for a son/daughter/parent that’s in the military) of medical leave and your employer cannot fire you and must let you return to your previous posistion or a posistion with similar responsibilities at the same rate of pay. It also doesn’t have to be YOU that’s sick personally, it can be an immediate family member you’re caring for during treatment, or a sick child that’s been diagnosed with leukemia. As long as you’re not using the leave to also seek gainful employment elsewhere your employer can’t dismiss you because of it.

      However, giving your employer the benefit of the doubt, I beleive that policy most likely refers to more than 5 days in a year without a doctor’s note, or more than 3 consecutive days without a note. I beleive those numbers are in a seperate labor law altogether. However, if you can prove you were undergoing medical treatment your employer can’t fire you unless you took more than 12 work weeks off, that’s 60 working days.

    • SadSam says:


      California already has paid family leave [www.caregiver.org] employees pay on average an extra $27 a year for this benefit. San Fran and other cities already have paid sick leave.

      Cali often leads the country in these types of plans. Obama would work with congress to develop a program similar to Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or amend FMLA so that leave is paid.

  73. jasonkarns says:

    The question is not “can he deliver” but “SHOULD he deliver”. Do any of these things sound like socialism to anyone but me?

  74. boandmichele says:

    you people crying “socialist” and “marxist” should probably do some READING.

    ill vote for obama because he is better than mccain, and the sad state of affairs here in the US puts us with only 2 options.

    that said, obama is not even centrist, he is still on the right. maybe not in american terms, but worldwide, mccain looks like some extremist. we already have very right-leaning politics here in the US, and even that “left wing” obama is not a marxist, communist, or socialist in ANY way.

    i daresay if you did some research on democratic socialism, you might just like it.

    • SpdRacer says:

      @boandmichele: What are you talking about? If you look at his voting record he was the most liberal senator in 2007, guess who was number 2? Billary, and 3rd on that list was Sen. Credit Card (Joe Biden for the uninitiated). This is the most liberal ticket in the history of the democratic party. For the record Obama 95%, Hillary just under 95% and Biden 94% of the time they voted the liberal position.

      • boandmichele says:

        @SpdRacer: what are you talking about? i am talking about actual democratic socialism, not a liberal democrat.

        and fwiw, id rather them vote the liberal position than the W position.

  75. gafpromise says:

    Is the more sick days and paid time off a joke? Because he doesn’t really have any control over that, President or not…

    • theantidote says:

      @gafpromise: I think he probably is exaggerating the effects of his support for more and stronger unions.

    • Bladefist says:

      @gafpromise: He could I guess. He could make laws limiting the min number of sick days, and vacation days. Course then your employer would just reduce your pay that much. Oh you get 5 more days off? Well, I’ll take a week of pay from you. Course, politicians never think of that.

  76. Triborough says:

    Q: How can you tell a politician is lying?
    A: They are moving their lips.

  77. Isajeep says:

    Obama carrying out promises? That’s a good one!

    He broke a big one with his vote on FISA, which has convinced me his whole “change” game is a complete sham.

  78. Imakeholesinu says:

    Every politician can talk the talk…but I have yet to see one actually walk the walk.

    What Obama is promising does sound good and he is able to articulate exactly what he plans on doing where his opponent cannot seem to figure out his stance or votes along with Bush.

    But what Obama said last night almost sounds to good to be true.

    Also do not be fooled by a “Cut”. A “cut” in political terms means no growth. This does not mean he is going to “Lower” taxes, it just means that he will not “raise” them. This is a buzz word used by all politicians in order to win voters over because when we think of “cut” we think of taking something away from the whole. In politics, it just means it isn’t getting to the whole while the whole stays the same. This is something every voter needs to know.

    • Bladefist says:


      Also do not be fooled by a “Cut”. A “cut” in political terms means no growth. This does not mean he is going to “Lower” taxes, it just means that he will not “raise” them.

      Right. Also, they may not directly raise taxes, but they will repeal past legislation that decreased taxes, IE: you feel a tax increase.

  79. snoop-blog says:

    My vote is not based on any of the above promises, so…

    It really doesn’t matter what the president promises on either side because they don’t soley have the power to complete any of those on their own. But it’s the ideals and principles of the candidate that win my vote. The very fact that he has done a lot of the things he said he was going to do in Illinois (I’m Indiana res) has already proved he can be trusted and anyone who listens to him for 10 mins can tell he is genuine. A corrupt black man would never get as far as Obama, the whites would expose him quicker than shit. And I’m not racist but lets face it, the clintons already pulled that card multiple times so…

    And even if I did base my vote on the promises of the candidates, it wouldn’t be these promises. These issues aren’t even the ones I’m most interested in. Besides, to vote based on promises is stupid. Why not at least do some research on what the democratic and republican parties stand for, and then decide where you fall. And anyone who truely believes the US is more than just a 2 party system is just kidding themselves and living in a fantasy world. Name the last time someone other than a dem or rep won the house?

  80. psknapp says:

    As much as a lot of these sound good, I’ve not seen enough of how (how it’s done or how it’s paid for) to believe they’ll happen or be successful. Again, as much as I think we have better choices that we’ve had in a long time, I’m still voting for the lesser of two evils. For me, that means McCain. With a democratic congress, nothing radical will get through, but I think he’s pragmatic enough to still get some things done.

  81. Bladefist says:

    What has Obama said, that the democrats haven’t been saying for 20 years? That’s a real question. I want to know what this change is.

  82. Wormfather is Wormfather says:

    I do enjoy a good PolFlaWa but what we’re missing here is that there was no promise to execute John Mayer, why are the canadits ignoring this?

  83. Wormfather is Wormfather says:

    whoops, almost forgot…


  84. snoop-blog says:

    I have a conspiracy theory that the nets are FULL of republicans. Aol was the first site to make me start digging and yes, it turns out the majority of dems are still far too poor to have a home pc and the net, or are working far too many long hours to sign on and defend their candidate to trolls. However, we will ALL show up in November, you can take that to the bank.

  85. synergy says:

    No. Corporations are too powerful and we’re too far in debt.

    He means well, though.

  86. snoop-blog says:

    I love how even if I won the lottery for 4 million, I’d still wouldn’t be considered rich by McCains standards. But yeah I totally agree he’s not out of touch with everyday Americans, he’s just got Alzheimer’s setting in and that’s the real reason he didn’t even know how many homes he owns. It’s funny, I live in rural Indiana, and their are cattle ranchers that know EXACTLY how many cattle are on their farm. Well maybe if they had over the money McCain has, they wouldn’t give a shit either…

  87. lonebannana says:

    yeah… You bet, people. Looking at the speech yesterday, it made me very hopeful–not that i wasn’t already. I was hopeful that Bush would be out, but i realized the truth of the whole situation:

    The Leader may be gone, but the “Man”(“Men”?) in the back rooms and the close-minded, easily led people that elected Bush (2X, BTW) are still around and in full force.

    And all it takes is for the Republican Machine (TM) to start grinding its little gears to stir up the fear and greed (“They ain’t taking MY money to pay for Health Care! I need it to pay for my Dually Diesel Truck to tow my Boat that I can barely PAY for anyway!”).

    All they need to do is scare the ignorant to go to their local churches/wherever on election day, hop on their courtesy buses to the voting booths, and push the election to WHOMEVER they want.

    AND, there are ACTUALLY idiots out there that will vote for McCain because Hillary is not on the ticket (I actually know of one) and their feelings are hurt.


    The only problem with most of what Obama’s Promises of long lasting change is that it REALLY DEPENDS on Americans willingness to sacrifice and reduce extravagances. Do you NEED two cars? Do you NEED boats? If you do, do you NEED to take them out on credit?

    Hells Bells, as someone who only spends money on large items cash only (besides my one car-gotta have “Good Credit”) I don’t understand how someone can have 1-2-3 or more credit cards.

    BAH! I am ranting. Basically my point is that Americans will not stand for sacrificing their iPhone if it means a mother not having to pay for her Anti-Rejection medicine so she can keep her kidney implant from being rejected. And how do I know that? Experience.


  88. snoop-blog says:

  89. cmdrsass says:

    These are the same “changes” people like Obama have been promising for as along as I can remember. There is nothing new here. It’s the same empty drivel that appeals to non-critical thinkers.

    • snoop-blog says:

      @cmdrsass: Yeah I mean the nerve of someone talking about change… Hasn’t anyone told him it has been done already? I mean he can’t even be original, and last time I checked, nobody wanted change anyway…

      @nova3930: Way to add to the conversation A++++

  90. nova3930 says:

    It will happen with a fair helping of pixie dust and unicorn horn…

  91. HogwartsAlum says:

    I read his speech online last night and found myself with something that I haven’t felt in the last eight years.


    Not for sweeping change in four years; I don’t believe anyone could do that, no matter what they promise. And campaign promises are just that – promises. They aren’t binding contracts, and frankly, after the last two elections, I’m pretty much done with listening to anyone tell me what they WANT to do. No, my hope is for a wake-up call to EVERYONE about what we ALL need to do to improve things.

    I have no doubt that if he is elected, he will do what he can, as much as he can. And the best thing that he said was that we can disagree without attacking other people’s patriotism. I’m so sick of people using the damn flag as a verbal weapon. I’d vote for him just for that.

    Otherwise, it’s just getting someone in there that can nudge the speeding asteroid of disaster off course a bit with a CHANGE OF ATTITUDE.

  92. Nytmare says:

    I’m all for fixing corporate loopholes. But I’m concerned that increasing corporate taxes might cause inflation due to passing these costs onto consumers.

    • Bladefist says:

      @nytmare: ‘Corporate’ is an evil word by some people I wish he would list these ‘corporate loopholes’ Could he list like, just 1 ? Just to show me he actually knows what he is talking about

  93. JohnMc says:

    zigziggityzoo at 11:47 PM on 08/28/08

    @Michael Belisle: Nuclear power is great, but many nuclear plants currently fail to process their nuclear waste, and instead opt to dumping it in international waters.

    Backup that statement as it applies to US companies or retract it.

    • Bladefist says:

      @JohnMc: The French have built containment facilities, that re-use the waste several times, and the final waste produced is minimal.

      • @Bladefist: The French have built containment facilities, that re-use the waste several times, and the final waste produced is minimal.

        Is this a criticism? That makes it sound like we need to be more like the French. They support nuclear energy, which is great.

        He is going to raise capital gains taxes, and taxes on the rich. I’m not rich, but it’ll trickle down.

        Regardless of what you think about the income tax, isn’t the least bit odd that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than other kinds of income? It’s one of the reasons why Apple pays Steve Jobs a “$1” salary. Pay your executives in stock, they cash in those options and voilà: 15% tax rate. Bonus tax points are awarded for getting away with improper backdating.

        • Bladefist says:

          @Michael Belisle:

          Is this a criticism? That makes it sound like we need to be more like the French. They support nuclear energy, which is great.

          No, the French are doing well in this area, and their new prime minister/president is moving them to the right. France is finding its way.

          Capital gains – No it’s not odd. Everyone in America has investments. It’s our retirements as well. Why tax our retirements so harshly? Stocks, etc are far more riskier than an income. Stocks have high risk, and the potential for low/no gain. Who is going to risk so much, for less gains? Steve Jobs might just take his salary back. You raise capital gains, and the market crashes. Maybe it worked before, but it’s been reformed and there is no going back.

          • @Bladefist: Everyone in America has investments. It’s our retirements as well. Why tax our retirements so harshly?

            To reverse your question, why penalize people who invest their money in banks or get paid in money instead of stock?

            Not everyone puts their retirement in stock, if they even have significant retirement savings beyond Social Security. Nor does everyone have investments. The proportion of income that’s made up of investments increases as you ascend the income ladder.

            Stocks, etc are far more riskier than an income. Stocks have high risk, and the potential for low/no gain.

            Stocks are not “high risk” in general. Speculating is high risk. But investing can be as risky or as safe as you want it to be. Since we only pay taxes on realized gains, they already have a tax advantage. Lowering the tax rate on realized gains doesn’t make it that much less risky (but it does discourage selling).

            You raise capital gains, and the market crashes. Maybe it worked before, but it’s been reformed and there is no going back.

            If Congress and the president do nothing, the 15% rate goes back to pre-Bush levels in 2010 (20%), like most of the other 2003 tax cuts. I’d blame Bush for making it temporary. He made work that much easier for anyone opposed to the cuts. (I’m most interested in what will happen with the estate tax in 2010, when it’s 0% for a year. Grandpa, please consider dying in 2010. Sincerely, your heirs.)

            If we put the tax in once (or two or three times), we can do it again. The market will not crash if that happens, but maybe it’ll hiccup before the hike, just as it would after a cut.

            • @Michael Belisle: Whoops. Where I said “Lowering the tax rate on realized gains doesn’t make it that much less risky (but it does discourage selling)”, please read “does encourage selling”.

              • Bladefist says:

                @Michael Belisle: For the record, I disagree. But lets step back. What are taxes? An ends to a means. The Government needs money to operate.

                Taxes as of late, are being used to levy fairness. Capital gains tax is fair. Doesn’t matter how much or how little you make, everyone pays the same _LOW_ tax rate. The _LOW_ rate means more of the money you make, is yours. The Government gets it share. Like everyone in the world, you have a budget, and you have to stay under it.

                1) Don’t use taxes to levy fairness.
                2) Don’t spend more then you make.

                If the Government needs more money, they need to make a proposition, and have us vote on it. IF you want __________ then we will increase taxes to ______.

                Maybe I’m way off topic here. But that’s my fundamental belief behind government and taxes, and why I’ll never be able to vote for a democrat.

                You could argue Bush failed until my ideologies, and I would quickly concede.

                • Aesteval says:

                  @Bladefist: “If the Government needs more
                  money, they need to make a proposition, and have us vote on it. IF you
                  want __________ then we will increase taxes to ______.”

                  Wow…but then people would actually have a say wouldn’t they? I
                  mean, we fought that war with England just so some other wankers could
                  sit behind closed doors and tax us without our input because when we
                  vote, we’re really not getting that much in the way of actual choices.

                  Actually, I think that’s a wonderful idea. But unfortunately I doubt we’ll ever see it implemented.

              • Bladefist says:

                @Michael Belisle: Bush Tax Cuts Myths/Facts/Etc


      • 5thAveCocaine says:

        @Bladefist: I don’t own my own business, so I don’t know if this is a “loophole”, but my boss has, for years, bought laptops, desktops, televisions, recording gear, etc. for his 2 kids, had it delivered to our office, and wrote it off as a business expense (we’re a recording studio/media production group). I’ll tell you what was never done with that equipment: ANY KIND OF BUSINESS.

        He writes off his son’s cell-phone bill, car, and allowable gas by putting it on the corporate card.

        Also, he said that if Obama’s elected, we (the other employees and I) are screwed. We have 12 people working on mostly government educational recording contracts.

        I’d still rather have Obama in the chair than McCain, and I’ll vote that way. For no other reason but this: I see the anger and hate in John McCain. I see the fire and yearning for power burning in his eyes. He will be the great destroyer, and what we think of America right now will seem like the fondest memory if he is allowed control of our military.

        I’d much rather give my vote to someone who wants to be loved than someone who wants to be feared.

  94. And the award for “Doesn’t Belong on The Consumerist” goes to…

  95. mefinney says:

    I listened to Obama’s entire acceptance speech. I listened to no commentary before or after.

    He is good. He is very smooth and polished. He even, at times, sounds like a conservative. He pushed for more personal responsibility from fathers. He asked for more accountability from schools and teachers. He promised lower taxes to the working class. He wants a balanced budget. These things are awesome.

    I firmly believe that Barack Obama believes what he says. I believe that he does love this country.

    But if you listened closely, what did you really hear? Barack thinks that every American deserves a top-notch education. He believes that every person deserves top-quality health care. He believes that it will be his job to make sure that companies provide more time off to workers and that they are penalized for shipping jobs overseas.

    Oh, and he’ll pay for it all by taxing the best and brightest in America.

    Doesn’t that sound more like Robin Hood? Tax the rich and disperse the money through government programs to everyone. That’s standard liberal thinking. It penalizes those that succeed. If we tax the high performers in this country, we severely limit the growth of the very people Obama wants to help. Companies should never be penalized for having huge profits-as that is what drives growth in our economy.

    Many religious folks are even starting to support Obama, as they see the Democratic party as the one that will actually help hurting people. But we have to change the way we define help in this country. Help does not mean money or insurance or programs. And help certainly doesn’t mean that you deserve anything. The conservatives-and not necessarily John McCain-understand this.

    If we remove the restraints of taxes and government, the American people will have more money and time to help those that are hurting. You see, it’s not the government’s job to help people, it’s ours. And it’s the government’s job to make that as easy as possible for us to do.

  96. tastydb says:

    The full text of Obama’s speech:


  97. OnceWasCool says:

    I see all campaign promises as hot air and they never come true. With all the money (200,000 from MBNA) Biden has taken from credit card companies, I’m sure he will turn on them..NOT!

    Sorry if I am not one of the glazed over “deer in the headlights” in love with Obama. I don’t trust none of the politicians that claim they are for change and then team up with a 35 year crook. You all can bow down to him and kiss his ring if you want, but he don’t have my vote.

    McCain doesn’t impress me either and wish they had a NONE OF THE ABOVE button in November!

    • SpdRacer says:

      @OnceWasCool: They do it is called Nader or the Libertarian candidate, which I think is Bob Barr. I would have to agree with you that all campaign promises are rhetoric to get themselves elected. This cycle is no exception, Obama talks in circles and can’t answer questions without a teleprompter (he also can’t remeber what city he is in) and McCain gives the same speech every time he is on a stage.

  98. HooFoot says:

    If you believe Obama will deliver on these promises, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

    Not that I expect McCain to deliver on his promises, either.

  99. JohnMc says:


    The top 5% already pay 88% of the taxes. What you really miss is that being rich is a voluntary affair. Bill Gates does not have to be rich anymore. He could turn around and be a $1 a year man and still live high on the hog. Our taxation is based on INCOME not WEALTH. The two terms are not the same nor are they treated that way in tax court. The problem for the government is that its income base has become totally invested in a few. If they all chose to be $1 a year people then the government collapses.

    An energy person you are not. Burying the waste is exactly the right thing to do. That is how nature did it. The Yucca facility could accept for 200 years at double the number of reactors of resent. As to sourcing uranium is not the only source of fissile material. There are thousands of tons of uranium in ordinary seawater that can be extracted. The late Dr. Bussard was following a line of research that uses a boron – hydrogen matrix to work. His research is being continued by his team. Its maybe 5 years out to a positive power production cycle.

    You need to put down the Greens literature and smell the coffee.

    • battra92 says:

      @JohnMc: Our taxation is based on INCOME not WEALTH. The two terms are not the same nor are they treated that way in tax court.

      So very true and it’s amazing how people don’t understand that. That’s also a reason I am for switching it to a consumption based taxation. Now if you want your Diet Coke flown in by private jet be expected to pay the government through the teeth.

      • Ubik2501 says:

        @battra92: You realize, of course, that since lower-income families and individuals generally spend the vast majority of their income on the necessities of life, that a consumption-based tax would amount to a giant tax increase for them? And having sustained myself on a very low income (not all of us start out on the top of the heap!), I can’t imagine how much it’d hurt some people.

        @superberg: Thank you. I have no idea why some of these people describe any economic or political concept they don’t like as “SOCIALIST/MARXIST” other than it’s a dirty word to them. Personally, I won’t start worrying about it until I see giant portraits of Daley, holding a hammer and sickle, adorning the skyscrapers in the Loop.

        • dragonvpm says:

          @Ubik2501: Hell, I’ll go even further and say I’m not worried about someone being called a Socialist or Marxist until I see it working worse than our capitalist democracry with secret prisons, torturing our enemis, warrantless wiretapping, and a President and VP who seem to firmly believe they’re above the law.

          I also find it amusing how people throw around Socialism and Marxism and conveniently sidestep Fascism (A social and political ideology with the primary guiding principle that the state or nation is the highest priority, rather than personal or individual freedoms)…

          • boandmichele says:

            @dragonvpm: that is because we have come dangerously close to fascism in the past few years. but of course the idiots who cry ‘socialist’ as a bad thing wouldn’t see that.

          • Ubik2501 says:

            @dragonvpm: Don’t get me wrong, I hate to see people misusing the term Fascism (especially concerning the current administration) like it’s going out of style too. But there are so many “armchair economists” decrying anybody who might make their tax burden go up a penny or two as Marxists/Socialists/”nanny-state puppets” that my eyes want to roll out of their sockets.

            Although, to be frank, I’m scratching my head at how Obama plans to accomplish some of the things laid out here. Guess even he’s not immune to promising unicorns and bicycles to everybody.

        • battra92 says:

          @Ubik2501: (not all of us start out on the top of the heap!)

          Are you implying I did? Because, dang it I started from the bottom. Zero financial aid in college. Working two jobs where I got taxed for making too much for a student.

          I got myself where I am. Government just stood in the way.

  100. JohnMc says:


    Understand your point. But zigziggityzoo implication was that US companies are dumping waste which they are not. The reason US companies are not currently processing is that the designated processor is full up and cannot move the currently processed waste to Yucca. So the gen sites are having to store the spent rods in onsite holding ponds.

  101. yorick328 says:

    His capital gains tax comment for small businesses confused me also. Businesses may pay income taxes on their profits but would usually only pay capital gains taxes, which are usually at a lower rate of 15%, on the sale of investments or the equipment used in the business. The capital gains tax rate is at the lowest it’s been, so getting rid of it without lowering the regular tax rates would increase taxes, not lower them. I hope he clarifies this remark.

  102. RobinB says:


    Sam Glover got that right. The FDIC has been strongly encouraging our little bank to make more risky loans for years–to give back to the community. We didn’t do it, and now we give back to the community by not being in trouble and not having any subprime loans on the books.

  103. dragonvpm says:

    Well, let me put it this way. I can’t think of a single positive thing McCain has said during this entire election. I was talking to my folks about this last night and what I hear from Obama is

    “All of us need to be involved in fixing this mess we’re in, here is what I want to try and do”

    and all I hear from McCain is

    “Obama is too inexperienced, he can’t do it. Vote for me and I’ll do thi… umm… I was a POW”

    So many people seem to be hell bent on attacking Obama and yet I don’t hear anything about what McCain genuinely expects to do to make things better. All that comes out is BS about how terrible Obama’s ideas are and crap designed to scare us. Morons who play the “OMG, Hussein, is he related to Saddam? Oh Noes!” card, idiots who parrot the “hollow suit” line, folks who talk about how he doesn’t have experience but then give McCain a pass on all the things he’s done while acquiring his “experience.” Come on, he gets credit for being in congress for so many years but it’s ok that he cheated on his wife and left her when he traded up to Cindy because that was so long ago? He was involved in some shady financial shenanigans years ago, but it’s been so long ago that it’s ok? Oh and he was a POW. Experience goes both ways. Obama hasn’t even been alive long enough to do some of the crap McCain did, and yet that experience makes McCain better?

    End of the day, I want to know why I should vote for the adulterous bitter old man instead of the guy who’s at least appealing to our collective better natures. Why do I want to vote for the guy who trades in fear and doubt about what the other guy CAN’T do instead of the guy who’s trying to win by talking about what we CAN do.

  104. lingum says:

    Still waiting for proof of the outrageous lie that America dumps nuclear waste in oceans.

    And I thought digg was full of the commie-libs.

  105. NikonGal says:

    Regarding the bankruptcy “promise”, that is NOT what he said. And I think it needs to be clarified and corrected. I heard the speech and I specifically remember his reference to bankruptcy was not for “personal bankruptcy”. So I looked up the text of his speech and here’s what he said (and I quote)

    “Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.”

    I don’t believe this has anything to do with making personal bankruptcy easier as has been argued here. Regardless of what you feel about Barack Obama, you should change the change the original text of this article to reflect what he really said.

    Here’s the text to his speech:

  106. Bladefist says:

    In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent and 10 percent (depending on income) to 15 percent and 5 percent. Rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.[10] (See Chart 2.) Past cap­ital gains tax cuts have shown similar results.

    • @Bladefist: But lets step back. What are taxes?

      You can do that, but I’m only arguing capital gains taxes here, ceteris paribus.

      Doesn’t matter how much or how little you make, everyone pays the same _LOW_ tax rate.

      Everyone (except for the lowest two brackets) may pay the same 15% rate, but only one in seven of taxpayers reported capital gains taxes in 2006. Tax equity says it should be the same as other tax rates. That’s fine if you want a flat tax ande we can debate that another day, but it’s a government handout to implement a disproportionately low (but flat) rate on a lone tax paid by a small segment of the population.

      Bush Tax Cuts Myths/Facts/Etc

      I read that the last time you linked to it. I checked the numbers and they’re right, but the conclusions have conservative spin. Some of them do not follow from the data, like this one. The market experienced a steep rise from early 2003 to late 2007, which of course couldn’t be predicted in advance. (Personally, I attribute this bull market to the rise of the iPod.) The fact that revenues increased does not mean they were caused by tax cuts, nor does implementing a tax cut explain the market behavior. The impact of tax changes on investors is debatable (see “Behavioral responses and revenues” at the previously linked [www.urban.org] for a more scholarly treatment).

      More generally, tax revenues rise over time if you do nothing and they rise if you cut taxes too (just not if you cut them too much). That doesn’t mean that the tax cuts are profitable for the government. It was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that the 2003 capital gains tax cuts would cost the government $100 billion in lost revenue, but without a parallel universe it’s impossible to know what the real cost (or benefit) is.

      @Aesteval: Actually, I think that’s a wonderful idea. But unfortunately I doubt we’ll ever see it implemented.

      Happens all the time at the state and local level, at least where I live. National referenda would be more complicated. In the mean time, talk to your senators and representatives, especially if you have an opinion on a particular bill. If you go to their office, you can even talk to them in person, where it’s easier to put them on the spot. (And yes, I have talked to my representative. I didn’t tell him that I was voting for the other guy in the fall, though.)

      But I know, that’s a lot of work.

      • Bladefist says:

        @Trai_Dep: Please save your McCain hate for the McCain article that will surely post after his big speech. This debate is about Obama, and his promises.

        @Michael Belisle: I backed away to a more general debate because everyone spins their numbers to prove their point. Regardless of what is, or isn’t, I still know what I believe it should be. Government doesn’t need a surplus, and doesn’t need more tax dollars (ie: doesn’t need to raise the capital gains tax). They are making more tax dollars then they ever have, with the cut, and they need to make due.

  107. SpdRacer says:

    How about along with the health care congress gets, we all get to vote on our own pay raises as well.

  108. coolkiwilivin says:

    If you believe point one then you’ll believe the rest. However, the fact is he has no intentions of lowering anyone’s taxes. He’s a classic big government democrat. He said he would consider cutting off programs that don’t work but can’t even list 1 program that he would stop. His speech while “pretty” lacked the substance that a real presidential speech should about what exactly he’ll do. Even NPR said, Al Gore got his huge bounce in 2000 after he delivered that snoozer speech that listed exactly what he would do. His cult of personality temple worship service last night was an affront the average person but those caught in the hysteria can’t see beyond the hype.

  109. Tiber says:

    While I did like some parts of his speech, a lot of this just seems like empty rhetoric.

    cutting taxes
    I know people are feeling broke right now, but the government seems kind of broke too. I don’t see many tax breaks on the way.

    tax loopholes
    I doubt that would amount to anything, even if Obama gave numbers. Fun fact: both candidates are making ridiculous claims with regards to balancing the budget. The pork barrel spending McCain is after should be gotten rid of, but it’s a drop in the bucket fiscally. The war is costing us a lot of money, but we’re adding on to the national debt, not taking that out of the budget. Ending the war won’t free up that much money from the budget. I encourage Obama to fight tax loopholes (and swiss bank account tax evasion while he’s at it), but it won’t bring in that much money.

    Honestly, the whole medical system needs to be revised. Short of that, I’m not sure what Obama (or McCain for that matter) thinks he can do except throw a ton of money we don’t have at it.

    Once again, this is a product of a poor infrastructure. In this case, over-reliance on cars. Until we fix that, all the gov can do is throw money around recklessly.

    sick days
    This just seems pointless.

    Overall, I’d say there’s a lot of BS, but maybe a grain of truth. In other words, the same as every other politicians campaign promises.

  110. Trai_Dep says:

    “Oh, and [Obama will] pay for it all by taxing the best and brightest in America.”

    Err, Paris Hilton, the Trump kids and the Bush twins are our best and brightest? (shudder)

    • boandmichele says:

      @Trai_Dep: oh hai, welcome to america :p

    • whydidnt says:


      “Oh, and [Obama will] pay for it all by taxing the best and brightest in America.”

      “Err, Paris Hilton, the Trump kids and the Bush twins are our best and brightest? (shudder) “

      You are showing your ignorance on the current tax code. Those you mention aren’t impacted by raising taxes. Our tax code taxes INCOME not wealth. The group you mention earned their money the old fashioned way, they inherited it. They aren’t taxed on spending grandpa Hilton’s fortune, so could give a shit about taxes going up. For the same reasons Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry could care a less, they don’t earn salaries, they have wealth.

      The problem with raising taxes is that typically they do penalize the best and brightest – those trying to move up the social latter from Middle Class to Upper Middle Class.

      The issue is how you define “Rich”. One who makes $200,000 a year may be considered rich in your book, but if they are paying 35-40% of that in taxes to pay for other groups benefit programs things change quickly.

      This is precisely how the two parties have lead us into this class warfare system. Why is it we never see any “poor, middle-class” politicians? Because all the leaders of the democratic party are wealthy, it’s far to easy for them to raise income taxes on the middle with no impact on their financial standing – causing the upper-middle class and poor, working class to fight over too small a piece of the pie.

      A fair solution would be a consumption tax. When Paris Hilton flies to the Bahamas to make another amateur film, let her pay an extra 30% of grandpa’s money on that extravagance. If you concerned about it being regressive to the poor, simply exempt food, medicine, non-luxury clothing (not $100 tennis shoes) and gasoline from the sales tax and raise the rate to 35% on everything else. Poor people aren’t buying anything else anyway, right?

      • Trai_Dep says:

        hu·mor (hyu•mër)
        1. The quality that makes something laughable or amusing; funniness: could not see the humor of the situation.
        2. That which is intended to induce laughter or amusement: a writer skilled at crafting humor.
        3. The ability to perceive, enjoy, or express what is amusing, comical, incongruous, or absurd. See Synonyms: wit.

        tr.v. hu·mored, hu·mor·ing, hu·mors

  111. pickscrape says:

    I simply can’t get my head around why anyone, other than the very rich or directors of major corporations (who are really just a subset of the former) would vote Republican.

    Really, what is the appeal? Please tell me, because it’s a mystery to me.

    They take us into wars we shouldn’t be in, give all the breaks they can to corporations who go out of their way to bleed the American people dry and treat their employees appallingly, and go out of their way to deny everyone the health care they have a basic right to as human beings.

    Seriously, what is the draw? Is it the abortion thing? Because even that’s a moot point: they’ve been in power for so much of the last few decades and it’s still legal. Face it: it’s never going to change, because if it did that’s one less promise they’d be able to make to get you to vote for them.

    Is it the gun thing? ‘Cos if you I have to ask, is that *really* more important than people getting the health care they *deserve*? Is is really more important than people being treated properly by the companies they work for? Is it really more important than living in a country that doesn’t torture people? The list goes on: I really can’t see why the gun thing can be more important than the combined importance that the issues on that extensive list.

    Is it because you think Republicans are better at managing the economy? If so, please wake up. Look at what has happened in the last eight years. The argument is dead in the water; unless you’re rich of course, in which case the economy is doing GREAT!

    Seriously. I’m willing to bet that most of the people reading this site are NOT rich. Most of you will be suffering in some way because the current Republican government simple does not care about YOU because YOU are NOT rich. And yet you insist on coming up with weak arguments as to why Democratic policies are bad while standing as you are in a Republican-led country that is in a *terrible* state. You insist on voting for the party that really couldn’t care less about you.


    Please explain: I want to know!

    • HIV 2 Elway says:

      @pickscrape: I work for a corporation and they treat me great. Flexible hours, freedom in the work place, the opportunity to travel around our great country. I take pride in providing my true bosses, our share holders, increased value. When our stock goes up (yes, I realize I personally have little impact) I feel good about myself, about what I do and am proud to work with such outstanding people. The corporation I work for provides me with outstanding benefits, good pay, and pays for 100% of my MBA pursuits. Not too evil in my eyes.

      I don’t own guns, my girlfriend had an abortion, I’m down with gays. I don’t think about that stuff when I go in to vote. I think about all the taxes I already pay, I think about how my property taxes have gone up every year, and I vote for the people who I think will help me keep most of what I’ve earned. Is that asking too much? Too keep what I’ve earned.

      Why do I vote Republican? I like my life just the way it is and like how I got here, through hard work and responsibility. I don’t think the sky is falling. I believe in myself and my counterparts. My life is better now than it was four years ago. In fact my life is much better. I like that.

      • Bladefist says:

        @HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: Great post. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Get past all the bull shit, and get down to it- you just want to be left alone and be allowed to make a living.

        • boandmichele says:

          @Bladefist: so…….. libertarian you mean?

          cause your perpetual elephant there is trying to prevent a lot of people from being “left alone” and make a living.

          • boandmichele says:

            @boandmichele: usually based on religious grounds, it should be noted.

          • Bladefist says:

            @boandmichele: Valid points. Just because the elected person of my party strays from party beliefs, doesn’t mean I jump ship. Which ship would I jump into? What other ship has a chance to make a difference? The democrat ship? No thank you.

            The elephant icon started as an icon for fun, then I realized it pissed a lot of people off, how could I change it? I’m a conservative at heart. I vote republican. If you give me another viable party that is more conservative then republicans, I’ll jump ship. My loyalty is to my beliefs, not the celebrities in my party.

        • @HIV 2 Elway Resurrected:

          I agree with your post in principal: I don’t have any problem with Republicans, per se. I very few, if any, people of any party toe the platform line. But I do have a problem with the Republican party today and the direction they steered the country during their time in power. Ultimately I could probably say I’m better off now than I was 4 years ago, but that has nothing to do with the government. It has more to do with the events that happened in my life in the span of 4 years and the choices I made. But I might say that I (i.e., my family) was better off 10 years ago.

          @Bladefist: Get past all the bull shit, and get down to it- you just want to be left alone and be allowed to make a living.

          That’s not the defining difference between Democrats and Republicans. I want to be left alone too, but I want to be left alone in the stuff that liberals champion.

          <rant hyperbole=”occaisionally”>I don’t want to surrender my rights at the airport, surrender my rights if I leave and reenter the country, surrender my rights if I make an international phone call, wear a turban, become a muslim, or get out of bed in the morning. I don’t want the government to track me, to know what I’m doing any time I’m in public, and offer to sell me missiles because they think I’m a potential terrorist who just can’t succeed in finding missiles on my own. I don’t want to have to prove my citizenship on demand, lock the borders, build a fence, get fired from my job because the Social Security database has an error, change and endanger my health insurance if I change jobs or get sick, trust the courts to decide if a person should live or die, have the government define the meaning of the word marriage, question science, lock up wayward children for the useful part of their life, or turn a blind eye as the poor into are converted into a class of debt-ridden indentured servants.</rant>

          I’ll vote Republican in the future because the Democratic party doesn’t believe in everything I want. (I’d like to get some libertarians in there too.) But today, the prospects of what Obama will do are far closer to want I want than McCain.

      • pickscrape says:

        @HIV 2 Elway Resurrected:

        Firstly, I’m certainly not saying that all companies are bad to work for.


        Your life is great? That’s grand. I’m pleased for you, I really am.

        So what happens if you get really sick? I mean *really* sick. And your girlfriend (heaven forbid) has an accident?

        Nothing fatal mind, just things that would require quite a bit of surgery and medical care to get you well again. (I’m not being weird here: I really hope this doesn’t happen. It’s just an example).

        Chances are, you’d be screwed. It’s entirely possible that your medical bills would far exceed your income (unless you’re rich of course, in which case see above). Your insurance company would fight tooth and nail to cover as little as possible.

        You might end up losing your home. You might have to file for bankruptcy. Oh wait, maybe not. They’ve made that more difficult now. But that’s right, because you wouldn’t be needing to file for bankruptcy if you had been responsible with your money in the first place, right? Maybe you’ll just have to live on the street: it’s all you deserve.

        Erm, no, it’s not what you deserve. Nobody deserves any of that, but this scenario is *reality* for many of your fellow citizens.

        It’s very easy to say “I’m alright, Jack”, but I can’t do that.

        It’s not enough for it to be good for *me*.

        • HIV 2 Elway says:

          @pickscrape: In the event of a medical travesity I certainly wouldn’t want anyone else to take care of me. That’s just not my style. If that’s how you’d like it, thats cool too. Hell, thats why we all get a vote.

        • whydidnt says:

          @pickscrape: In the situation you describe, I think most people working for large corporations would be far better off than those that aren’t. Large Corporations typically have better benefits packages to deal with these sorts of things.

          True Story – I work for a Fortune 500 company. Last February I was diagnosed with cancer, and ended up missing 6 months of work for treatment (off and on, I worked when I felt well enough to). My insurance company paid for all treatments, for which I had to check into the hospital to recieve(every 3 weeks, for 2-3 days each time), except for my deductible, and never gave me any hassle about it at all. Horror of horrors it was even WCIA nominee BCBS – I guess not all policies are equal or something.

          My employer is self-insured for short term disability coverage, so I received full salary for the enitre time I was out. The President of my business unit actually called my wife when he heard the news to see if there was anything else they could do to help.

          I certainly don’t feel like I work for an “evil corporation”. They did right by me in this circumstance. I don’t agree with all of the business decisions they make, but also think it’s far too easy for people to assume corporations are nameless and faceless and try to blame all of the evils of the world on them.

      • Ubik2501 says:

        @jwissick: You are just hideously misinformed. I’ve read Marx (gasp! How un-American!), and Obama’s policies don’t nearly match up to his concept of utopian Communism. Hell, none of the 20th-century Communist regimes have truly been Marxist, especially given that Marx wrote government would become irrelevant if true Communism came into being. Stop reading the McCarthy playbook and come join us in the 21st century, if you please.

        @HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: I’m pretty happy where I am right now, but I acknowledge the fact that the society in which I grew up and the family that raised me gave me the tools to live the way I do now. Nobody does anything 100% by himself, and it’s important to realize that’s true economically as well. I agree with pickscrape’s point: All it takes is a little bad luck, and you could be subject to debilitating economic desperation. The current economic and political environment wouldn’t do a lot to help you, and many conservatives would tell you to “man up” and talk a bunch of nonsense about bootstraps and such.

        Nobody except some smelly professional students wants to truly “redistribute wealth” in the way so many people scream about. The idea at hand, as I see it, is to give people “bootstraps” so they are able to pull themselves up by them. Otherwise, the overall economic state of the country decays, and all of us except the most wealthy are left poorer – whether in health, education, wealth or otherwise.

        I’m not saying that we need some grand socialist revolution or something – far from it. Marx was an ignorant git when it comes to the nature of human motivation. But the policies of the current administration have not, in anything I’ve seen, truly helped the overall state of the nation, and some of those policies need revision.

        • boandmichele says:

          @Ubik2501: “I’m not saying that we need some grand socialist revolution or something”

          i am. :) the far more left-center countries of Europe (Scandinavia more specifically) are doing something right, for certain.

  112. bloodsprite says:

    wow this article attracted the trolls, here are two counter arguments to stuff people have been saying:

    His health-care isn’t Marxist it is enforced competition, he gets a company to bid on a plan that is acceptable to congress people … and turns around an re-sells it (subsidized if your poor and increasing the price of it slightly if your doing well). thus breaking the monopoly of only one plan being offered in your company as now you can pick the government one instead. And if your company one is better you can choose that instead.

    Its those anti-bankruptcy laws that where one of the things that made banks all to loan happy (combined with nasty deregulation stupidity) they should be repealed.

    • Ubik2501 says:

      @bloodsprite: It’s sad that some people will blindly shout “FREE MARKET” until our ears bleed when they don’t realize how many de facto monopolies and consumer-antagonistic market structures have come out of the current way of doing things. I’m pretty sure that no reasonable person is saying the government should control everything – the argument is that government should enforce regulations to keep the market as free as possible.

      I realize that’s another can of worms unto itself, but I freely admit that I don’t have the economic or political expertise to tackle it.

      • @Ubik2501: I’m pretty sure that no reasonable person is saying the government should control everything – the argument is that government should enforce regulations to keep the market as free as possible.

        There’s some value in that. The laissez-faire free market is only free until someone collects 90% of the marbles. While not impossible, it’s pretty hard for anyone else to play at that point. Sometimes it’s nice to have the government redistribute some of the marbles, in the interest of competition.

  113. Dyscord says:

    Anything’s better than what we have now, that’s for sure.

    • whydidnt says:

      @Dyscord: Anything’s better than what we have now, that’s for sure.

      Really, you’d rather live in China, where posting what you just did may land you in jail for re-education? Or perhaps Iran, where if your female and are caught speaking to a man you are beaten in public. Perhaps on of a 1/2 dozen African countries with fascist dictators practicing genocide?

      You sum up one of the biggest issues we have in this country in a simple sentence. Too many don’t realize how good they have it, with there internet access, color TV, cell phone, food on the table, etc. It’s so awful, anything would be better?? How naive is that? Time for a reality check. We still live in a great country, with a great standard of living and the freedom to post comments such as yours.

  114. roadapples says:

    I love how people telling me that i can afford to pay more taxes….
    To them i have a message of hope…..Eat Poop

  115. EightIsEnough says:

    It’s hard to believe that after eight years of “FEAR” that there is anybody not wanting “CHANGE”.

    Who else beside’s Obama is offering that change?

    (Excuse me if your opinion differs, but I’m a Republican, southern, rural, baby boomer, white, retired, vietnam vet and fed up with Bush and his cronies.)

    McCain and his highly experienced VP isn’t a choice.

  116. kd5jos says:

    The national debt is 35 trillion dollars. He’s going to add to it with more programs that we can spend money on. And his answer to pay for them and put us back in the black is:

    Get rid of unproductive tax loopholes that only benefit corporations.

    Those must be some amazing damned loopholes that corporations are getting to take advantage of. The fiscal irresponsibility of this country boggles the mind.

    McCain doesn’t seem to have any better of an idea about fiscal responsibility either.

  117. kd5jos says:

    P.S. Voting for the lesser of two evils, still has you choosing evil.

  118. evilhapposai says:

    Just love how Obama keeps promising change and lower taxes but does not have any idea or plans layed out on how he is going to actually accomplish any of them. I sat in my chair laughing away at all the plans and policies that were being promised at the convention with no way of paying for them and if he lowers to taxes as much as claimed he can’t even support what we already have!

    The mandatory sick days? Say good bye to all small business if it goes through, they cannot afford to pay for those who would abuse the system and use every possible day or use for personal days at worst time for their company. Think if a large amount of employees called in their mandatory sick days on Black Friday at a retail store. Oh, and don’t give me that “require a doctor” or “conformation of illness”, ANYONE can make themselves sick for a day, just try to down a gallon of milk… *blargh* well I am puking, can’t come to work now.

    Universal health care? So you are dying of a heart attack and need immediate attention, oh, but what about the hordes of unemployed, illegal immigrants, hypochondriacs, and other drains on society in front of you? Sorry Mr. Joe Q. Taxpayer you’ll just have to wait your turn while we treat this toothache first or die.

    I am convinced this “change” idea Obama’s campaign is running on is just to change his promises as the wind blows to say whatever gets him elected.

    Also go take a few basic psychology classes and learn that a person learns from, believes, and behaves based on the persons he/she surrounds themselves with. Then remember Michelle Obama’s “for the first time in my life” quote and who could forget Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I would not trust Barack with a job as a Wal-Mart greeter let alone with the most important job in the country.

  119. snoop-blog says:

    The real question is: which one of them is going to legalize “it”. I have a feeling McSame would have to die (which may not take that long) before weed would ever be legalized. Old rich white people just aren’t cool, or they are only cool to other rich white people. I want a president to at least de-criminalize amounts of weed under an oz.

  120. HollerJoller says:

    I hate politics, Obama picks a VP with experience so people can’t harp on his age and qualifications – McCain picks a VP that’s young and a woman to pickup their votes. I’ve always liked McCain because he was the Repub. rebel, Co-sponsering some great bills (even with Demo’s)- just doing things because he thought it was right. I liked McCain better 8 years ago when he wasn’t such a puppet, when he actually used “straight talk.” So I’m on the fence now, we will see what McCain has to say later this week.

  121. Rode2008 says:

    I’ve got my bumper sticker on my car and have been getting lots of “thumbs ups” and other signs of agreement from it. It reads:

    “No to the Obama bin Biden ticket”

  122. vladthepaler says:

    Brilliant. Raise taxes on the corporations, and the corporations won’t raise their prices, consumers won’t have to pay more money for the things they already buy, and there won’t be even more inflation than there already is.

    Will America ever elect a president who wasn’t absent the day his third grade teacher spent an hour talking about how money works?

  123. maruawe42 says:

    Sorry to say that the president can not make the changes that this nominee is purporting to make
    These changes are made in congress and if anyone
    remembers the democratic congress of last session was the most do nothing congress in 20 years.. So the answer to this is NO This will not happen even if he manages to spoof his way into being the the president, Which now is in doubt as he paints himself into
    corner after corner..