As my challenge has gone unanswered (beyond mockery and lame excuses), I have taken back the gauntlet and instead have decided to take up the challenge laid down by my man Danny Trabue to review the "plan" of one Barry H. Obamanable. I've already visited his website (Barry's, not Dan's) and reviewed the section entitled "Fiscal". I figured it would be the funniest, so I started there.
Dan was right. There's a lot of words there. I didn't compare it to McCain's site since I don't give a rat's patooty about McCain, other than the fact that he is not Clinton or Obama. But there are lots of words. They're the same old words we hear and have heard from the left for, like, ever, and as far as I can tell so far, there's a curious lack of "how". That is, how is he going to make these things happen, how will they fix what he thinks they will fix, and how will he prevent the results that these ideas have been shown to bring about in the past. But hey, it's early and I just started.
One thing I noted: Dan said that there are links for more info about what he plans to do. I don't know yet about the rest of the site, but the one link I came upon in the Fiscal section took me to a page that simply repeated what was said on the page with the link. Well, that's one way to make the site bigger than McCain's. But it doesn't make it more informative. And as to that, McCain has been in politics for a couple of decades. I think we have a pretty good idea whence he comes.
As the title of this post says, this'll take some time trudge through. It'll be painful. In fact, I already feel it in my backside reading his fiscal policies. But I've a good set of waders and a closepin for my nose, so wish me luck. It's a dirty job...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
As to your unknown challenge...
I put up the challenge to Obama supporters to visit www.AmericanThinker.com to peruse a few of the many opinion pieces about Barak Obama and then pick one to defend him against the author of the chosen piece.
At least a couple of people have done so. Just because you don't like the pieces selected doesn't mean no one has "met" your "challenge."
The thing is, from the evidence I've seen there, their arguments are lame and whiney and perhaps using made up evidence, I really don't see why you sent us there. I thought perhaps it was some well-researched, deeply considered and well-written site for deep thinkers who happen to be more conservative. Instead, I found High School level writing.
So you can't blame us for the lack of their content. How long do you want me to read second-rate hack writing until I find a jewel worthy of consideration?
As to your grand willingness to actually read the views of the man you've been vilifying for months now, it would seem you're moving the goalposts.
I had made a note originally that you were simply wrong when you made your repeated and unfounded claim that Obama had "no plan." I looked at both Obama and McCain's websites and, lo and behold, Obama has a more detailed plan than McCain.
NOW, you're acting as if you want to say, "Well, I just don't LIKE his plan..." but that's a different charge than the lie that Obama doesn't have a plan. Feel free to make that case, but "man up" (that seems to be your favorite challenge approach) and admit you were wrong and apologize for the mischaracterization first, then go on to discuss his plans if you'd like (that would be interesting, to be sure).
But first, remove the log from your own eye. Apologize. Be a real man and admit your error before moving on.
Marshall, I tried and failed to meet your challenge, but not for the reasons you might thing. Check it out.
Marshall claimed:
They're the same old words we hear and have heard from the left for, like, ever, and as far as I can tell so far, there's a curious lack of "how".
The Fiscal page that Marshall started with says quite specifically:
"Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.
Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.
Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.
Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government's high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.
End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense."
And there's much more. How specific does his "HOW I'LL DO IT" need to be for you? And again, I'll note that it's more specific than McCain's.
I think your problem is that you disagree with his specifics and you're trying to write it off as if he HAS no specifics. Which, as we've seen, is not the case.
If you want to make the argument against his specific policies, by all means do. But first own up to your mischaracterization of Obama.
"As to your unknown challenge..."
Are you just stupid, Dan? I could not be more plain. What in the wide, wide world of sports are you talking about when you say this?
I see you are using the cowardly "hack" argument again. As I said to Vinny, I find it amusing that all things contrary to your opinion means the author is a hack, but yours are spot on honest, thoughtful, intelligent and all-knowing. Got any other good jokes? And just how can you tell if either my sources or yours are using "made up evidence"? You can't. It is YOU that falls back on your own biases to dismiss that with which you disagree.
As to the "no plan" comment, you must feel just so righteous that you've got me by nit-picking the crap out of my words, and that's fine if you'd like to be that small. But if you call rehashing the same old same old a plan, then that shows the depth of your position to be as vast as a small puddle. Where's the change when he seeks to do that which has already failed?
But let's take a quick look at what you've posted (I'm on lunch break, so I mean "quck")
Paygo- He will undoubtedly cut spending on the military and hike taxes to pay for whatever goofy programs he imagines.
Screwing the producers-This is what results from eliminating tax cuts from the wealthy. The old class envy ploy.
Pork Barrel Spending--Everybody says this every election cycle. Not impressed, there's nothing new here, I'll believe it when I see it, which I hope I won't since I don't want the jerk elected.
Gov accountability--Also spoken by everybody. One caveat: what of the lib pushed minority factor? The left has insisted that women and minorities should get an extra boost. Will he eliminate that and "level the playing field" with competitive bids?
Wasteful spending---again, the same as the last two. So what?
So, with all this being, as I said, been there/done that, what will HE do differently to see that any of this will work better than it has in the past, or even that it will happen at all? Nice try. I'll keep reading.
Geoffrey,
Welcome back, for at least this one time should it be so. I'll take a look and see what you've got.
I find it amusing that all things contrary to your opinion means the author is a hack, but yours are spot on honest, thoughtful, intelligent and all-knowing.
Hey, it takes a hack to know a hack. I am not an extremely skilled writer, especially in areas of research. Passable, on a low level, but not especially skilled.
And yet, I can write pieces better than these folk, or at least I can spot their obvious weaknesses (logical fallacies, unsupported facts, prejudiced/biased writing, loaded arguments, poor arguments, etc, etc, etc).
And, as to be expected, you've twisted truths and, when called on it, you defend yourself lamely and offer no apology.
I thought this was a serious blog where you were at least honest in your assertions and in your manner of discussion. I guess that is not the case.
And just how can you tell if either my sources or yours are using "made up evidence"?
??
And this is just nuts. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
I pointed out that I could not verify any of the "facts" that your author presented. My "sources" are just research that led to nothing.
It may well be that this is a real event in the real world, I just noted that I could not verify it.
I can't prove a negative ("show me the source that shows Obama never said that..." ???!), no one can.
It's just that I've read enough World Net Daily type of tripe to smell something fishy when it gets stuck in the garbage disposal. It could have happened in the real world, but if Obama made a gaffe (even a little goofy one like that), where's the coverage in the real news media? Fox didn't cover it: Do you suspect Fox is part of the vast conspiracy in favor of Obama?
Re: Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy
2007 vs. 1999
The top 1% pay 36.9% of the total tax. In contrast, the bottom 50% pay 3.3% of the total tax. And the New York Times says, "tax revenues are increasingly dependent on the fortunes of the very rich."
Re: Pork Barrel Spending
The Democratic Congress does not have a great record in that regard.
I'm not trying to twist anything, Dan, that doesn't fit neatly into a J<>B. You don't write as well as you think you do. At least not in the comments section. But it seems as if whatever doesn't please you means the author is a hack. Sorry. That just doesn't work for me. As I said, bias isn't a problem, but it doesn't indicated a hack.
Now if the "real event" to which you refer is the Obama and the 57 states thing, you can tune in to Laura Ingraham and you're likely to hear a replay of it as part of her opening montage. She's likely to play it until some other politician says something wild. Otherwise, what do you mean by that?
Let's both back up a bit and take a breath.
Cameron,
Nice links once again. But in fairness, regarding the pork barrel spending, Obama is talking about what he'll do as prez. Of course whether or not he is able to effect such change, or even whether he tries to should we be so unlucky to have him as prez, is the real point. Also in fairness, I think both sides of the aisle have been spending too much on crap. At least it was true before the last midterms.
Post a Comment