My take on Obama’s acceptance speech
Posted by Mike Sylvester - 8/31/08 @ 12:36 pm - Filed Under 2008 National Elections, National Politics, Uncategorized
I took the time to watch Barack Obama’s acceptance speech earlier this week. Barack Obama gives good prepared speeches. I am rarely impressed with acceptance speeches at conventions by either Republicans or Democrats because they are overly partisan and are designed to “rile the base” rather then illustrate specific policies.
The positive items included:
- He supported expanding nuclear power in a responsible way.
- He talked about a program that would allow people to perform community service in return for college tuition.
- He talked about going through the Federal budget “line by line” to remove wasteful spending.
The negative portions of his speech included:
- He started his speech by telling a blatant lie about McCains Tax Plan. McCain’s tax plan actually cuts taxes for EVERYONE and further subsidizes the poor.
- He is against taxing employee health care plans. This is actually one of President Bush’s best ideas to reign in health care costs.
- He stated that the last eight years have been based on a society that is “on your own” and this is another blatant lie. Federal spending is up across the board and the Federal and State governments are spending far more on programs to help the poor and needy then the Federal government has ever spent in the past.
- He misstated the effects of his tax plans. He said that he would cut taxes on 95% of Americans and increase taxes on the other 5%. This is a factually incorrect statement his campaign has been putting out for some time. Approximately 42% of those who file individual tax returns are either: subsidized by the Federal Government, in other words they are paid back more money then they paid in during the year or they pay zero in taxes. Barack Obama should understand that you CANNOT cut taxes on those people who pay no taxes or more likely are subsidized by the Federal government via the income tax. What Barack should say is that his plan: Ensures that the 42% of Americans who pay no Federal income tax or are more likely paid a subsidy directly from other tax payers will get even larger subsidies from the Federal government, cuts taxes on 53% of Americans, and increases taxes on 5% of American households.
- He said that America would no longer be dependent on Mideast oil within ten years; this is a “pipe dream” and no reasonable person should believe this claim.
- He wants to help the auto industry “retool.” In other words, he wants to bail out the auto industry at taxpayer expense.
- He wants to help Americans afford new cars. He was not specific on how he wanted to accomplish this; however, it is not the Federal Governments job to help Americans purchase new cars.
- He wants to pay teachers more money. Teachers already make a very good wage and tend to have great benefits. I think teachers should make a good wage; however, they are not underpaid and it is not the Federal governments job to pay teachers more money.
- He spoke in favor of Universal Healthcare which a majority of Americans (including me) oppose.
- He spoke in favor of better family leave and more paid sick pay. The FMLA already allows employees to take up to 12 weeks unpaid leave for a large variety of reasons. It is not the Federal Governments job to expand this program or heaven forbid force employers to pay for a specified number of sick days.
Items I am unsure about:
- He talked about changing the tax code and said some things that make sense and others that do not. I will have to analyze his plans for the tax code at a later date.
- He talked about changing the bankruptcy laws. I would need to know more about what he wants to change.
- He wants to protect social security, I need to know more. The system is in financial crisis since we only have enough money to pay out 75% of the projected benefits from 2041 on.
Mike Sylvester
Comments
13 Responses to “My take on Obama’s acceptance speech”
Leave a Reply
I notice how your post doesn’t include any of the candidate’s actual words, just Mike Sylvester’s pontifications.
Craig,
I figure most of the readers of this blog can listen to the speech itself.
If you think I am misinterpreting something please post an intelligent comment.
Mike
I don’t think you’re misinterpretating anything because I don’t know what you’re interpreting. Arguments tend to be backed by evidence, for example quotes.
Craig,
Give me a break. I took notes during the speech with the items that struck me that I liked and did not like. This is an opinion oriented blog post not a college term paper.
You should feel free to go listen to the speech and if for some reason you think I am misinterpreting something you should attempt to post an intelligent comment.
Most, if not all of your comments, are similar to these. You NEVER provide any facts and you just talk about WOWO or things you have read over on Daily Kos.
Mike Sylvester
I’ll admit that I’m a little biased, maybe it’s because you have accused Obama of a “blatant lie”. A rather harsh charge, wouldn’t you agree?
When you accuse someone of lying, it’s usually helpful to readers to provide the actual quote so they can decide for themselves. Wouldn’t you agree?
Here’s an example: Yesterday, you wrote this about VP candidate Sarah Palin…
“She is against earmarks and told Washington that Alaska did not need Washington DC to build the infamous “bridge to nowhere.”
Okay, so here’s a question and answer from an Achorage Daily News interview with then gubernatorial candidate Palin:
Q: Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
Palin: “Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”
source: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/29/did-palin-really-fight-the-bridge-to-nowhere.aspx
“…while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist”? - What do you think that means Mike? Do you think she wanted Ted Stevens to grab a hardhat and start digging? It seems to me that Sarah Palin was advocating the use of federal funds for these projects which would make you and her both “blatant liars”.
See how it works? I used evidence to back up my assertion that Sarah Palin and you are liars. Maybe it’s easier to regurgitate RNC talking points and hope they’re true.
Craig,
First of all it was not a “bridge to nowhere”, even though that is what it has been called. By the lower 48 state standard we would consider it such, but not by Alaska standards because of available roadways, population, and so forth.
I can read two things into her COMPLETE statement. Pick which side you want and you can bend the thought process to it.
As for Mike’s comments I follow along 100% with what he was saying. I may not agree with him on some points but I know from the speach what was pretty much said. I prefer his method over “cherry picking” words.
Mike missed the fact Obama is courting the UAW vote. A group of people who, when laid off still draw checks that total 95% of their pay for up to two years and insurance coverage. Maybe that is why American cars cost so damn much and are not the quality of others. That the automakers spent that money on wages that could have gone into quality. Maybe they could have provided cars that went further on a gallon of gas.
The UAW was the only union that can “Cherry Pick” which auto US auto manufacture they want to destroy with a strike. The UAW won the battles from the 1960’s to the early 1990’s and now face losing the war. One has to wonder if any of the former “Big 3″ will be around in ten more years?
Obama is courting the school teacher unions with higher wages and more of them. Check out many states have laid off teachers by several hundred because of lower taxes. Here in Allen County we have many degreed teachers who can not find jobs. So Obama is going to hire an “ARMY” of new teachers.
Like many plans that have come from Washington in that they will pick up the tab for a couple of years. Then tell locals that they will have to lay them off or find their own way to pay for them.
Sorry people for getting off subject…
Internet fist-fight! Kick some ass Mike and J.Q.!!
Craig,
You and I are both baised, lets be honest.
Obama did make a blatant lie in his speech and it is sad that the maintstream media has not been pointing it out ever since the speech. Heck, if you doubt it I will dedicatean entire post to his lie later this week. If there is something I understand it is tax policy.
As far as your comments about Palin and earmarks you should post them in the relevant post and as ALWAYS I will respnd to them.
Pennywise,
It is not much of a fight, it is just Craig…
Mike Sylvester
Mike, did you actually accuse a politican of telling a lie? How dare you sir. I hope his reputation can somehow recover. Hold on a minute, let me document this, August 31, 2008, politican accused of telling a lie. Remember where you were when this happened, folks. Give me a break.
Obama made an exceptance speach? I must have been Moose Hunting and missed it.
Mike articulates and shares the most bullets of common sense.
Thank you for a thoughtful, detailed analysis
about the political machine.
Mike,
While you’re analyzing their tax plans why don’t you tell us how much you, me and the rest of the readers would likely save under the Obama tax cuts vs the McCain tax cuts…
Jeff,
I am working on a post that does exactly that!
Both of their plans are completely irresponible and both add huge amounts to the National Debt.
Mike Sylvester