Friday, October 31, 2008

Obama to lower expectations if he wins

"Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week’s election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve."

Hmmm. I wonder why?

"One senior adviser told The Times that the first few weeks of the transition, immediately after the election, were critical, “so there’s not a vast mood swing from exhilaration and euphoria to despair”.

So lets see if I have this right. Your saying your not going to be able to do what you told people you could do during the campaign. So basically your admitting your lying to the American people now in order to get elected. Way to be a new kind of politician there Obama.

"Not only will the next president take office with the country sliding into a potentially long recession — and mired in debt — but the challenges abroad are immense. There is an unfinished war in Iraq, a worsening situation in Afghanistan and an unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan to contend with. Iran appears intent on acquiring the bomb and there remains the ever-present threat from al-Qaeda and Islamic extremists."

So your saying it won't be Obama's fault if his tax policy forces us into another depression. Or if his foreign policy is a disaster. Wow it must be nice to know that whatever happens the media won't blame you. Somehow I don't think McCain will get the same treatment.

"Mr Obama’s first legislative goals will be to follow through on his pledge to cut taxes for the middle class and raise them for the wealthiest Americans, and to push through a hugely expensive Bill to provide near-universal health insurance."

So your saying the first thing he is going to do is redistribute wealth and ruin the American health care system while increasing the debt. Brilliant! My only question is, can Obama really bankrupt and ruin the greatest country on earth in four years? I don't know but I'm not willing to take that chance, are you?

If you liked this article go vote for it.


  1. For a substantial number of us, say about half the voters, he is lowered expectations.

    And, no, that is not a racist statement.

    It's a statement of the obvious about an inexperienced, ignorant of economics and international affairs, Marxist, blame-America=first whiner with NO record of accomplishment who believes that he's got one smidgen of what it takes to be CinC as well as POTUS.

    He's already set the bar so low that it might not be able to be lowered farther.

  2. What is with all this Marxist nonsense? You people are losing your minds. Returning to Bill Clinton era tax levels -- except for the middle class who will see tax cuts -- is not Marxism. It's not even vaguely Marxism. It in fact has nothing to do with Marxism. McCain's own tax plan is also progressive, as has been every nominated candidate's tax plan since we've had the income tax. It's a philosophy supported by every one from uber-billionaire Warren Buffet to the founder of capitalist economic thought Adam Smith. Yes, even Adam Smith advocated for progressive taxation. It is not even a slightly radical notion that the rich should pay more in order to lessen the burden on those making less.

    The rest of this nonsense doesn't even deserve comment except to note you're taking a story which basically says, "The Obama campaign thinks the next few years will be very difficult and is trying to let their supporters know that everything will not be solved overnight," and turn it into a total abdication of their campaign promises even though no such abdication is mentioned in the article you cite. It's the same kind of hysterics the McCain campaign has been encouraging for months now.

  3. The Marxist nonsense comes right from obama, who was mentored by one, who sought Marxist friends in college, who associated with Marxists, who spouts socialist-Marxist tenets.

    And returning to the Bill Clinton-era tax levels is exactly not what America needs now.

    You do not stifle any potential investment in times such as these.

    Should Obama be elected, God forbid, and he institutes these tax hikes, besides them reaching farther down into the annual-income level that he's willing to state, their consequences will trickle down very quickly.

    And it won't be one of everyone having more money to spend.

    As for McCain's tax plan, it will double the growth of Obama's, and it will keep about $1,500 annually per "average" wage-earning family in their pockets.

    Obama and the Democrats, liberals and leftists continue to show that they haven't the slightest idea about how to bolster this economy.

    And, BTW, Obama won't be a reprise of Bill Clinton.

    Obama will be Jimmy Carter II.

    The only positive thing that came out of Jimmy Carter I was Ronald Reagan coming to the national stage.

    And the only positive thing from Clinton was the Republican surge in 1994.

  4. If Democrats don't know how to manage the economy, it seems odd that both the stock market and employment levels have fared better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones.

    If Bush had managed to strengthen the economy over the last eight years, then at least there would be some basis to argue that we should continue his tax policies, but given that he may very well leave office with the Dow Jones lower than it was when he came in seems to invalidate the theory that Republican economics are good for the country.

    Also, your rebuttal didn't bother to argue that Obama's policies are Marxist, you merely argued that he knew Marxists and then didn't even bother to name who they were or how you know he "sought them out." You may have a valid argument, but I wouldn't know given that you kept it largely to yourself.