*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (1 Viewer)

[BuddyKnuckles]

The Death of an ObasmBy czs

From the "just when you thought you couldnt fall off the floor" department...i liked you better when you started countless, pointless threads

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I added this to the main page:

UPDATE: Since we have a pretty good group of FBG's who are Obama supporters, I got a suggestion that we start an FBG campaign donation group that is hosted on Obama's website. Here is the link to donate as an FBG, which will be counted as part of our group of supporters. No benefits go to me for setting it up, or to anyone, but it might be cool to see how we as a group can contribute financially to him getting the nomination and eventually the presidency. We're starting out with a goal of raising $1,000 which isn't that much if we each just chip in a little bit. I know I've donated individually, as well as many of you, but in the future, if we all click through this link above, we can track our impact, so donate today!

If you're so inclined, it'd be cool to have everyone here contribute through that link. Again, I get nothing from this, financially or otherwise.

I was due for another donation anyway. Did you set up an actual group? I was thinking about doing this.

 

[Clayton Gray]

The Death of an ObasmBy czs

One of my favorite writers.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The Death of an Obasm

By czs

I am having trouble fully appreciating the phenomenon that is Senator Obama. Certainly, Obama’s overpowering charisma has an amazing effect on any listener, such as spontaneous tears or quasi-erotic tingling in one’s leg. (The latter phenomenon is dubbed the "Matthews syndrome” after a man whose capacity for rational thought has been completely destroyed by the syndrome’s effects.) For me, however, any such tingling is immediately recognized and countered by my brain, which forces the nascent Obasm to a premature and unsatisfying conclusion.

Usually, my brain counters the Obasm by asking difficult and disturbing questions. For example, I will begin trembling with excitement when the senator’s magnetic voice rings out with an inspiring, “Yes, we can.” However, as soon as the leg starts tingling, my brain quashes the excitement with nagging questions: “What, exactly, is it that you think we can do? Do you really think we can afford to do that right now? Shouldn’t we take care of our other responsibilities before we start doing it? How are we going to do it, anyway? Are we going to do it your way, like always, or can we do it my way for once?” (Interestingly, my wife uses a similar tactic to quell tingling sensations. She even uses some of the same questions.)

After hearing Obama’s speech this Wednesday at a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, however, I hoped my brain would finally have some satisfactory answers for its persistent questions (and thus permit me to experience more of that leg-tingling goodness). Obama decided to make a tentative foray into substance, laying out some details on where he wants to take the country economically. We learned that Obama’s grand vision of the economic future is… the past. Yes, “the next great chapter in America's story” is, apparently, a manufacturing economy reminiscent of the early twentieth century.

Obama’s foray into substance begins with a description of the utopian manufacturing economy we had once upon a time, in the long, long ago:

It was nearly a century ago that the first tractor rolled off the assembly line at this plant. The achievement didn't just create a product to sell or profits for General Motors. It led to a shared prosperity enjoyed by all of Janesville. Homes and businesses began to sprout up along Milwaukee and Main Streets. Jobs were plentiful, with wages that could raise a family and benefits you could count on.

Later in the speech, Sen. Obama (with trademark optimism) shows us how this utopia has fallen apart over “the last decades”:

[One of the] major economic challenge we have to address is the cost crisis facing the middle-class and the working poor. … It's the result of skyrocketing costs, stagnant wages, and disappearing benefits that are pushing more and more Americans towards a debt spiral from which they can't escape.

The contrast is beautifully rendered, as always – the old, unionized manufacturing economy offered “plentiful” jobs, wages to “raise a family” and benefits “you could count on,” but the modern, post-union service economy offers nothing but “stagnant wages,” “skyrocketing costs,” and “disappearing benefits.” Obama punctuates the message with some of his trademark inspiration, assuring the audience that the change in our economy is “pushing more and more Americans into a debt spiral from which they can’t escape”

(I am excited to see that Obama not only lent substance to his economic vision, but also rhetorically surpassed President Reagan himself. After all, Reagan only had the courage to ask us, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Obama has the nerve to go well beyond such short-sighted thinking. “Not only are you worse off than you were four years ago,” says Obama, “you are worse off then you were nearly a century ago.” It don’t know if this rhetoric is hopeful, but it is definitely audacious.)

Obama’s inspirational rhetoric of America’s decline put the tingle back in my leg – and oh, was it good. Unfortunately, my brain was not satisfied, and started picking away with typical Washington-style cynicism (also called “research”). In 1919, the year in which “the first tractor rolled off the assembly line” at the Janesville plant and ushered in the apex of the American economy, the average wage for automobile workers was $0.67 per hour. This equates to an annual salary of approximately $14,000 in today's dollars.

When my brain discovered this, there was hell to pay. “So,” asks my brain, “Is Sen. Obama stating that we were better off in the economy of the early 1900’s? Is $14,000 a year is a wage ‘that could raise a family’? Did 1919 auto workers have ‘benefits you can count on?’”

“No,” I argue to my brain, “Sen. Obama could not be that dense and disingenous. He went to Harvard Law!”

So my brain gives Sen. Obama the benefit of the doubt (as so many do, these days) and assumes that he was actually referring to a later, more prosperous era of the American auto worker. After all, the brain notes, by 1959 the UAW had raised the wage of the auto worker to $2.66 an hour – a salary of $39,000 in today's dollars. That is a wage that could arguably “raise a family” and a job with “benefits you could count on.”

“See,” I say, “Sen. Obama wants to bring the auto workers back to this golden era, before the stagnant wages and skyrocketing costs caused by the Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest and Cheney’s subsidization of corporate greed!”

My brain responds quietly, pointing out that today the average line worker at GM makes $60,000 a year and is granted a staggering array of benefits. “In fact,” states the brain, “we haven’t moved away from some golden era of ‘shared prosperity.’ Auto workers are paid far better now than they ever were.”

“But”, I stammer, “maybe the workers are doing better, but the fat cats that own GM are taking more than their share. Obama said so in the speech: the new economy is one where ‘only a few prosper’ and we need to return to a ‘shared prosperity’ by restoring ‘balance and fairness.’”

My brain responds that that GM lost $2 billion dollars in 2006 and $39 billion in 2007, and asks what profits, exactly, the fat cats should be sharing. “Maybe,” my brain asks, “Obama thinks workers should take pay cuts to help offset the losses. After all, he does talk about ‘shared sacrifice.’”

At this point, my leg stops tingling.

Sensing an opening, my brain goes in for the kill: “The truth is,” sneers my brain, “this is nothing new. Democratic candidates from Teddy Kennedy to Gary Hart to Mike Dukakis have tried to prop up the old manufacturing economy, with its promise of lifelong employment at comfortable middle-class wages. They largely succeeded in their short-term goals, bolstering the unions, increasing wages regardless of corporate performance, and ensuring job security regardless of the quality of the work.”

“But you can’t create a quality product with a government mandate, you can’t unionize workers into productivity, and you can’t regulate an industry into competitiveness. So, the quality of the American auto product declined and the industry lost whatever competitive edge it had. Declining revenue, exacerbated by the burden of oppresive union contracts, eliminated industry profits, and when the profits left, the jobs left with them. The truth is, we simply can’t sustain or create jobs in this country unless we sustain and encourage the profits needed to fund those jobs.”

I know there is a comeback to this. I heard it in Obama's speech. Suddenly, I remember the counter-argument. “Yes, we can,” I proclaim proudly.

“No, you can’t,” my brain sighs.

I had nothing more, and my Obasm died right on the vine - foiled by the pesky logic my brain insists on applying. Obama rightly attacks such logic in his stump speech, referring to it with derision and disgust as “the politics of fear.” However, until my brain can see fit to join Obama's movement and abandon the failed philosophies of the past (i.e. logic and evidence-based argument), I guess I’ll just have to keep taking cold showers and thinking about John McCain.

That will take the tingle out of anybody.

Interesting. If the .67 per hour in 1919 is indeed accurate, it translates into a little over $16K using a CPI adjustment into 2006 dollars. The problem with doing that comparison though is that it doesn't take into account changes in society and growth of the economy over that period. If you look at GDP per capita, a measure of economic status, .67 per hour (roughly 1,400 per year) would be on par with an income of about 82K in 2006. Also, in terms of share of GDP it would have the same economic influence as someone making over 200K. The 1959 GDP per capita and Share of GDP work out to 85K and 144K, respectively. Both of those also assume that employees were only working a 40 hour work week, when in fact it could have been much more.

Good job by the author though of using a simplistic analysis to make the data work out the way he wanted.

Also, the CEO of GM made a over 8.5 million dollars in 2005, although he really took one for the team and cut his salary to 4 million in 2006 while his company was losing 2 billion dollars.

 

[timschochet]

The Death of an Obasm

By czs

I am having trouble fully appreciating the phenomenon that is Senator Obama. Certainly, Obama’s overpowering charisma has an amazing effect on any listener, such as spontaneous tears or quasi-erotic tingling in one’s leg. (The latter phenomenon is dubbed the "Matthews syndrome” after a man whose capacity for rational thought has been completely destroyed by the syndrome’s effects.) For me, however, any such tingling is immediately recognized and countered by my brain, which forces the nascent Obasm to a premature and unsatisfying conclusion.

Usually, my brain counters the Obasm by asking difficult and disturbing questions. For example, I will begin trembling with excitement when the senator’s magnetic voice rings out with an inspiring, “Yes, we can.” However, as soon as the leg starts tingling, my brain quashes the excitement with nagging questions: “What, exactly, is it that you think we can do? Do you really think we can afford to do that right now? Shouldn’t we take care of our other responsibilities before we start doing it? How are we going to do it, anyway? Are we going to do it your way, like always, or can we do it my way for once?” (Interestingly, my wife uses a similar tactic to quell tingling sensations. She even uses some of the same questions.)

After hearing Obama’s speech this Wednesday at a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, however, I hoped my brain would finally have some satisfactory answers for its persistent questions (and thus permit me to experience more of that leg-tingling goodness). Obama decided to make a tentative foray into substance, laying out some details on where he wants to take the country economically. We learned that Obama’s grand vision of the economic future is… the past. Yes, “the next great chapter in America's story” is, apparently, a manufacturing economy reminiscent of the early twentieth century.

Obama’s foray into substance begins with a description of the utopian manufacturing economy we had once upon a time, in the long, long ago:

It was nearly a century ago that the first tractor rolled off the assembly line at this plant. The achievement didn't just create a product to sell or profits for General Motors. It led to a shared prosperity enjoyed by all of Janesville. Homes and businesses began to sprout up along Milwaukee and Main Streets. Jobs were plentiful, with wages that could raise a family and benefits you could count on.

Later in the speech, Sen. Obama (with trademark optimism) shows us how this utopia has fallen apart over “the last decades”:

[One of the] major economic challenge we have to address is the cost crisis facing the middle-class and the working poor. … It's the result of skyrocketing costs, stagnant wages, and disappearing benefits that are pushing more and more Americans towards a debt spiral from which they can't escape.

The contrast is beautifully rendered, as always – the old, unionized manufacturing economy offered “plentiful” jobs, wages to “raise a family” and benefits “you could count on,” but the modern, post-union service economy offers nothing but “stagnant wages,” “skyrocketing costs,” and “disappearing benefits.” Obama punctuates the message with some of his trademark inspiration, assuring the audience that the change in our economy is “pushing more and more Americans into a debt spiral from which they can’t escape”

(I am excited to see that Obama not only lent substance to his economic vision, but also rhetorically surpassed President Reagan himself. After all, Reagan only had the courage to ask us, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Obama has the nerve to go well beyond such short-sighted thinking. “Not only are you worse off than you were four years ago,” says Obama, “you are worse off then you were nearly a century ago.” It don’t know if this rhetoric is hopeful, but it is definitely audacious.)

Obama’s inspirational rhetoric of America’s decline put the tingle back in my leg – and oh, was it good. Unfortunately, my brain was not satisfied, and started picking away with typical Washington-style cynicism (also called “research”). In 1919, the year in which “the first tractor rolled off the assembly line” at the Janesville plant and ushered in the apex of the American economy, the average wage for automobile workers was $0.67 per hour. This equates to an annual salary of approximately $14,000 in today's dollars.

When my brain discovered this, there was hell to pay. “So,” asks my brain, “Is Sen. Obama stating that we were better off in the economy of the early 1900’s? Is $14,000 a year is a wage ‘that could raise a family’? Did 1919 auto workers have ‘benefits you can count on?’”

“No,” I argue to my brain, “Sen. Obama could not be that dense and disingenous. He went to Harvard Law!”

So my brain gives Sen. Obama the benefit of the doubt (as so many do, these days) and assumes that he was actually referring to a later, more prosperous era of the American auto worker. After all, the brain notes, by 1959 the UAW had raised the wage of the auto worker to $2.66 an hour – a salary of $39,000 in today's dollars. That is a wage that could arguably “raise a family” and a job with “benefits you could count on.”

“See,” I say, “Sen. Obama wants to bring the auto workers back to this golden era, before the stagnant wages and skyrocketing costs caused by the Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest and Cheney’s subsidization of corporate greed!”

My brain responds quietly, pointing out that today the average line worker at GM makes $60,000 a year and is granted a staggering array of benefits. “In fact,” states the brain, “we haven’t moved away from some golden era of ‘shared prosperity.’ Auto workers are paid far better now than they ever were.”

“But”, I stammer, “maybe the workers are doing better, but the fat cats that own GM are taking more than their share. Obama said so in the speech: the new economy is one where ‘only a few prosper’ and we need to return to a ‘shared prosperity’ by restoring ‘balance and fairness.’”

My brain responds that that GM lost $2 billion dollars in 2006 and $39 billion in 2007, and asks what profits, exactly, the fat cats should be sharing. “Maybe,” my brain asks, “Obama thinks workers should take pay cuts to help offset the losses. After all, he does talk about ‘shared sacrifice.’”

At this point, my leg stops tingling.

Sensing an opening, my brain goes in for the kill: “The truth is,” sneers my brain, “this is nothing new. Democratic candidates from Teddy Kennedy to Gary Hart to Mike Dukakis have tried to prop up the old manufacturing economy, with its promise of lifelong employment at comfortable middle-class wages. They largely succeeded in their short-term goals, bolstering the unions, increasing wages regardless of corporate performance, and ensuring job security regardless of the quality of the work.”

“But you can’t create a quality product with a government mandate, you can’t unionize workers into productivity, and you can’t regulate an industry into competitiveness. So, the quality of the American auto product declined and the industry lost whatever competitive edge it had. Declining revenue, exacerbated by the burden of oppresive union contracts, eliminated industry profits, and when the profits left, the jobs left with them. The truth is, we simply can’t sustain or create jobs in this country unless we sustain and encourage the profits needed to fund those jobs.”

I know there is a comeback to this. I heard it in Obama's speech. Suddenly, I remember the counter-argument. “Yes, we can,” I proclaim proudly.

“No, you can’t,” my brain sighs.

I had nothing more, and my Obasm died right on the vine - foiled by the pesky logic my brain insists on applying. Obama rightly attacks such logic in his stump speech, referring to it with derision and disgust as “the politics of fear.” However, until my brain can see fit to join Obama's movement and abandon the failed philosophies of the past (i.e. logic and evidence-based argument), I guess I’ll just have to keep taking cold showers and thinking about John McCain.

That will take the tingle out of anybody.

Interesting. If the .67 per hour in 1919 is indeed accurate, it translates into a little over $16K using a CPI adjustment into 2006 dollars. The problem with doing that comparison though is that it doesn't take into account changes in society and growth of the economy over that period. If you look at GDP per capita, a measure of economic status, .67 per hour (roughly 1,400 per year) would be on par with an income of about 82K in 2006. Also, in terms of share of GDP it would have the same economic influence as someone making over 200K. The 1959 GDP per capita and Share of GDP work out to 85K and 144K, respectively. Both of those also assume that employees were only working a 40 hour work week, when in fact it could have been much more.

Good job by the author though of using a simplistic analysis to make the data work out the way he wanted.

Also, the CEO of GM made a over 8.5 million dollars in 2005, although he really took one for the team and cut his salary to 4 million in 2006 while his company was losing 2 billion dollars.

4 million? Wow, sounds awfully greedy doesn't it? This is the sort of class warfare rhetoric that makes Obama (and apparently certain of his followers) so anti-capitalist.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Interesting. If the .67 per hour in 1919 is indeed accurate, it translates into a little over $16K using a CPI adjustment into 2006 dollars. The problem with doing that comparison though is that it doesn't take into account changes in society and growth of the economy over that period. If you look at GDP per capita, a measure of economic status, .67 per hour (roughly 1,400 per year) would be on par with an income of about 82K in 2006. Also, in terms of share of GDP it would have the same economic influence as someone making over 200K. The 1959 GDP per capita and Share of GDP work out to 85K and 144K, respectively. Both of those also assume that employees were only working a 40 hour work week, when in fact it could have been much more. Good job by the author though of using a simplistic analysis to make the data work out the way he wanted. Also, the CEO of GM made a over 8.5 million dollars in 2005, although he really took one for the team and cut his salary to 4 million in 2006 while his company was losing 2 billion dollars.

4 million? Wow, sounds awfully greedy doesn't it? This is the sort of class warfare rhetoric that makes Obama (and apparently certain of his followers) so anti-capitalist.

There are a lot more people pissed about CEO salaries than just the class-warfare uber-Lefties. The fact that $4 mill a year is an absolute pittance in comparison to most CEO salaries is quite telling.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The Death of an Obasm

By czs

I am having trouble fully appreciating the phenomenon that is Senator Obama. Certainly, Obama’s overpowering charisma has an amazing effect on any listener, such as spontaneous tears or quasi-erotic tingling in one’s leg. (The latter phenomenon is dubbed the "Matthews syndrome” after a man whose capacity for rational thought has been completely destroyed by the syndrome’s effects.) For me, however, any such tingling is immediately recognized and countered by my brain, which forces the nascent Obasm to a premature and unsatisfying conclusion.

Usually, my brain counters the Obasm by asking difficult and disturbing questions. For example, I will begin trembling with excitement when the senator’s magnetic voice rings out with an inspiring, “Yes, we can.” However, as soon as the leg starts tingling, my brain quashes the excitement with nagging questions: “What, exactly, is it that you think we can do? Do you really think we can afford to do that right now? Shouldn’t we take care of our other responsibilities before we start doing it? How are we going to do it, anyway? Are we going to do it your way, like always, or can we do it my way for once?” (Interestingly, my wife uses a similar tactic to quell tingling sensations. She even uses some of the same questions.)

After hearing Obama’s speech this Wednesday at a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, however, I hoped my brain would finally have some satisfactory answers for its persistent questions (and thus permit me to experience more of that leg-tingling goodness). Obama decided to make a tentative foray into substance, laying out some details on where he wants to take the country economically. We learned that Obama’s grand vision of the economic future is… the past. Yes, “the next great chapter in America's story” is, apparently, a manufacturing economy reminiscent of the early twentieth century.

Obama’s foray into substance begins with a description of the utopian manufacturing economy we had once upon a time, in the long, long ago:

It was nearly a century ago that the first tractor rolled off the assembly line at this plant. The achievement didn't just create a product to sell or profits for General Motors. It led to a shared prosperity enjoyed by all of Janesville. Homes and businesses began to sprout up along Milwaukee and Main Streets. Jobs were plentiful, with wages that could raise a family and benefits you could count on.

Later in the speech, Sen. Obama (with trademark optimism) shows us how this utopia has fallen apart over “the last decades”:

[One of the] major economic challenge we have to address is the cost crisis facing the middle-class and the working poor. … It's the result of skyrocketing costs, stagnant wages, and disappearing benefits that are pushing more and more Americans towards a debt spiral from which they can't escape.

The contrast is beautifully rendered, as always – the old, unionized manufacturing economy offered “plentiful” jobs, wages to “raise a family” and benefits “you could count on,” but the modern, post-union service economy offers nothing but “stagnant wages,” “skyrocketing costs,” and “disappearing benefits.” Obama punctuates the message with some of his trademark inspiration, assuring the audience that the change in our economy is “pushing more and more Americans into a debt spiral from which they can’t escape”

(I am excited to see that Obama not only lent substance to his economic vision, but also rhetorically surpassed President Reagan himself. After all, Reagan only had the courage to ask us, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Obama has the nerve to go well beyond such short-sighted thinking. “Not only are you worse off than you were four years ago,” says Obama, “you are worse off then you were nearly a century ago.” It don’t know if this rhetoric is hopeful, but it is definitely audacious.)

Obama’s inspirational rhetoric of America’s decline put the tingle back in my leg – and oh, was it good. Unfortunately, my brain was not satisfied, and started picking away with typical Washington-style cynicism (also called “research”). In 1919, the year in which “the first tractor rolled off the assembly line” at the Janesville plant and ushered in the apex of the American economy, the average wage for automobile workers was $0.67 per hour. This equates to an annual salary of approximately $14,000 in today's dollars.

When my brain discovered this, there was hell to pay. “So,” asks my brain, “Is Sen. Obama stating that we were better off in the economy of the early 1900’s? Is $14,000 a year is a wage ‘that could raise a family’? Did 1919 auto workers have ‘benefits you can count on?’”

“No,” I argue to my brain, “Sen. Obama could not be that dense and disingenous. He went to Harvard Law!”

So my brain gives Sen. Obama the benefit of the doubt (as so many do, these days) and assumes that he was actually referring to a later, more prosperous era of the American auto worker. After all, the brain notes, by 1959 the UAW had raised the wage of the auto worker to $2.66 an hour – a salary of $39,000 in today's dollars. That is a wage that could arguably “raise a family” and a job with “benefits you could count on.”

“See,” I say, “Sen. Obama wants to bring the auto workers back to this golden era, before the stagnant wages and skyrocketing costs caused by the Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest and Cheney’s subsidization of corporate greed!”

My brain responds quietly, pointing out that today the average line worker at GM makes $60,000 a year and is granted a staggering array of benefits. “In fact,” states the brain, “we haven’t moved away from some golden era of ‘shared prosperity.’ Auto workers are paid far better now than they ever were.”

“But”, I stammer, “maybe the workers are doing better, but the fat cats that own GM are taking more than their share. Obama said so in the speech: the new economy is one where ‘only a few prosper’ and we need to return to a ‘shared prosperity’ by restoring ‘balance and fairness.’”

My brain responds that that GM lost $2 billion dollars in 2006 and $39 billion in 2007, and asks what profits, exactly, the fat cats should be sharing. “Maybe,” my brain asks, “Obama thinks workers should take pay cuts to help offset the losses. After all, he does talk about ‘shared sacrifice.’”

At this point, my leg stops tingling.

Sensing an opening, my brain goes in for the kill: “The truth is,” sneers my brain, “this is nothing new. Democratic candidates from Teddy Kennedy to Gary Hart to Mike Dukakis have tried to prop up the old manufacturing economy, with its promise of lifelong employment at comfortable middle-class wages. They largely succeeded in their short-term goals, bolstering the unions, increasing wages regardless of corporate performance, and ensuring job security regardless of the quality of the work.”

“But you can’t create a quality product with a government mandate, you can’t unionize workers into productivity, and you can’t regulate an industry into competitiveness. So, the quality of the American auto product declined and the industry lost whatever competitive edge it had. Declining revenue, exacerbated by the burden of oppresive union contracts, eliminated industry profits, and when the profits left, the jobs left with them. The truth is, we simply can’t sustain or create jobs in this country unless we sustain and encourage the profits needed to fund those jobs.”

I know there is a comeback to this. I heard it in Obama's speech. Suddenly, I remember the counter-argument. “Yes, we can,” I proclaim proudly.

“No, you can’t,” my brain sighs.

I had nothing more, and my Obasm died right on the vine - foiled by the pesky logic my brain insists on applying. Obama rightly attacks such logic in his stump speech, referring to it with derision and disgust as “the politics of fear.” However, until my brain can see fit to join Obama's movement and abandon the failed philosophies of the past (i.e. logic and evidence-based argument), I guess I’ll just have to keep taking cold showers and thinking about John McCain.

That will take the tingle out of anybody.

Interesting. If the .67 per hour in 1919 is indeed accurate, it translates into a little over $16K using a CPI adjustment into 2006 dollars. The problem with doing that comparison though is that it doesn't take into account changes in society and growth of the economy over that period. If you look at GDP per capita, a measure of economic status, .67 per hour (roughly 1,400 per year) would be on par with an income of about 82K in 2006. Also, in terms of share of GDP it would have the same economic influence as someone making over 200K. The 1959 GDP per capita and Share of GDP work out to 85K and 144K, respectively. Both of those also assume that employees were only working a 40 hour work week, when in fact it could have been much more.

Good job by the author though of using a simplistic analysis to make the data work out the way he wanted.

Also, the CEO of GM made a over 8.5 million dollars in 2005, although he really took one for the team and cut his salary to 4 million in 2006 while his company was losing 2 billion dollars.

4 million? Wow, sounds awfully greedy doesn't it? This is the sort of class warfare rhetoric that makes Obama (and apparently certain of his followers) so anti-capitalist.

Well, my thinking goes that making 4 million dollars a years qualifies as prosperous. The author is using rhetoric to suggest that since the company lost so much money, it's "fat cats" must not be taking more than their share. If the company is losing so much money, and we know GM is laden with financial problems and layoffs, it underscores Obama's point. The executives are still getting rich, while the workers are being laid off or are suffering lagging wages because the company can't compete in the current market.

 

[Clayton Gray]

I added this to the main page:

UPDATE: Since we have a pretty good group of FBG's who are Obama supporters, I got a suggestion that we start an FBG campaign donation group that is hosted on Obama's website. Here is the link to donate as an FBG, which will be counted as part of our group of supporters. No benefits go to me for setting it up, or to anyone, but it might be cool to see how we as a group can contribute financially to him getting the nomination and eventually the presidency. We're starting out with a goal of raising $1,000 which isn't that much if we each just chip in a little bit. I know I've donated individually, as well as many of you, but in the future, if we all click through this link above, we can track our impact, so donate today!

If you're so inclined, it'd be cool to have everyone here contribute through that link. Again, I get nothing from this, financially or otherwise.

Cool. Just sent in $100.

 

[Clayton Gray]

Pretty conservative guy here, but am impressed with Obama's charisma and leadership skill, and I think that's an important part of being a leader, so though I'm not quite in lockstep policy-wise, I figured I'd come in this thread and see what it was all about.And the first thing I see is people complaining that other people make too much money. You folks aren't doing much to impress the moderates who might be swayed.homer>get a job, GB

You should read the first post in the thread.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Pretty conservative guy here, but am impressed with Obama's charisma and leadership skill, and I think that's an important part of being a leader, so though I'm not quite in lockstep policy-wise, I figured I'd come in this thread and see what it was all about.And the first thing I see is people complaining that other people make too much money. You folks aren't doing much to impress the moderates who might be swayed.homer>get a job, GB

No one's complaining. I'm just debunking a bad article. Obama wants to create a marketplace that will allow growth in all income ranges. I really don't care how much CEOs make, I just want to see growth happening across the board because ultimately it's better for the economy.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The Death of an Obasm

By czs

I am having trouble fully appreciating the phenomenon that is Senator Obama. Certainly, Obama’s overpowering charisma has an amazing effect on any listener, such as spontaneous tears or quasi-erotic tingling in one’s leg. (The latter phenomenon is dubbed the "Matthews syndrome” after a man whose capacity for rational thought has been completely destroyed by the syndrome’s effects.) For me, however, any such tingling is immediately recognized and countered by my brain, which forces the nascent Obasm to a premature and unsatisfying conclusion.

Usually, my brain counters the Obasm by asking difficult and disturbing questions. For example, I will begin trembling with excitement when the senator’s magnetic voice rings out with an inspiring, “Yes, we can.” However, as soon as the leg starts tingling, my brain quashes the excitement with nagging questions: “What, exactly, is it that you think we can do? Do you really think we can afford to do that right now? Shouldn’t we take care of our other responsibilities before we start doing it? How are we going to do it, anyway? Are we going to do it your way, like always, or can we do it my way for once?” (Interestingly, my wife uses a similar tactic to quell tingling sensations. She even uses some of the same questions.)

After hearing Obama’s speech this Wednesday at a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, however, I hoped my brain would finally have some satisfactory answers for its persistent questions (and thus permit me to experience more of that leg-tingling goodness). Obama decided to make a tentative foray into substance, laying out some details on where he wants to take the country economically. We learned that Obama’s grand vision of the economic future is… the past. Yes, “the next great chapter in America's story” is, apparently, a manufacturing economy reminiscent of the early twentieth century.

Obama’s foray into substance begins with a description of the utopian manufacturing economy we had once upon a time, in the long, long ago:

It was nearly a century ago that the first tractor rolled off the assembly line at this plant. The achievement didn't just create a product to sell or profits for General Motors. It led to a shared prosperity enjoyed by all of Janesville. Homes and businesses began to sprout up along Milwaukee and Main Streets. Jobs were plentiful, with wages that could raise a family and benefits you could count on.

Later in the speech, Sen. Obama (with trademark optimism) shows us how this utopia has fallen apart over “the last decades”:

[One of the] major economic challenge we have to address is the cost crisis facing the middle-class and the working poor. … It's the result of skyrocketing costs, stagnant wages, and disappearing benefits that are pushing more and more Americans towards a debt spiral from which they can't escape.

The contrast is beautifully rendered, as always – the old, unionized manufacturing economy offered “plentiful” jobs, wages to “raise a family” and benefits “you could count on,” but the modern, post-union service economy offers nothing but “stagnant wages,” “skyrocketing costs,” and “disappearing benefits.” Obama punctuates the message with some of his trademark inspiration, assuring the audience that the change in our economy is “pushing more and more Americans into a debt spiral from which they can’t escape”

(I am excited to see that Obama not only lent substance to his economic vision, but also rhetorically surpassed President Reagan himself. After all, Reagan only had the courage to ask us, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Obama has the nerve to go well beyond such short-sighted thinking. “Not only are you worse off than you were four years ago,” says Obama, “you are worse off then you were nearly a century ago.” It don’t know if this rhetoric is hopeful, but it is definitely audacious.)

Obama’s inspirational rhetoric of America’s decline put the tingle back in my leg – and oh, was it good. Unfortunately, my brain was not satisfied, and started picking away with typical Washington-style cynicism (also called “research”). In 1919, the year in which “the first tractor rolled off the assembly line” at the Janesville plant and ushered in the apex of the American economy, the average wage for automobile workers was $0.67 per hour. This equates to an annual salary of approximately $14,000 in today's dollars.

When my brain discovered this, there was hell to pay. “So,” asks my brain, “Is Sen. Obama stating that we were better off in the economy of the early 1900’s? Is $14,000 a year is a wage ‘that could raise a family’? Did 1919 auto workers have ‘benefits you can count on?’”

“No,” I argue to my brain, “Sen. Obama could not be that dense and disingenous. He went to Harvard Law!”

So my brain gives Sen. Obama the benefit of the doubt (as so many do, these days) and assumes that he was actually referring to a later, more prosperous era of the American auto worker. After all, the brain notes, by 1959 the UAW had raised the wage of the auto worker to $2.66 an hour – a salary of $39,000 in today's dollars. That is a wage that could arguably “raise a family” and a job with “benefits you could count on.”

“See,” I say, “Sen. Obama wants to bring the auto workers back to this golden era, before the stagnant wages and skyrocketing costs caused by the Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest and Cheney’s subsidization of corporate greed!”

My brain responds quietly, pointing out that today the average line worker at GM makes $60,000 a year and is granted a staggering array of benefits. “In fact,” states the brain, “we haven’t moved away from some golden era of ‘shared prosperity.’ Auto workers are paid far better now than they ever were.”

“But”, I stammer, “maybe the workers are doing better, but the fat cats that own GM are taking more than their share. Obama said so in the speech: the new economy is one where ‘only a few prosper’ and we need to return to a ‘shared prosperity’ by restoring ‘balance and fairness.’”

My brain responds that that GM lost $2 billion dollars in 2006 and $39 billion in 2007, and asks what profits, exactly, the fat cats should be sharing. “Maybe,” my brain asks, “Obama thinks workers should take pay cuts to help offset the losses. After all, he does talk about ‘shared sacrifice.’”

At this point, my leg stops tingling.

Sensing an opening, my brain goes in for the kill: “The truth is,” sneers my brain, “this is nothing new. Democratic candidates from Teddy Kennedy to Gary Hart to Mike Dukakis have tried to prop up the old manufacturing economy, with its promise of lifelong employment at comfortable middle-class wages. They largely succeeded in their short-term goals, bolstering the unions, increasing wages regardless of corporate performance, and ensuring job security regardless of the quality of the work.”

“But you can’t create a quality product with a government mandate, you can’t unionize workers into productivity, and you can’t regulate an industry into competitiveness. So, the quality of the American auto product declined and the industry lost whatever competitive edge it had. Declining revenue, exacerbated by the burden of oppresive union contracts, eliminated industry profits, and when the profits left, the jobs left with them. The truth is, we simply can’t sustain or create jobs in this country unless we sustain and encourage the profits needed to fund those jobs.”

I know there is a comeback to this. I heard it in Obama's speech. Suddenly, I remember the counter-argument. “Yes, we can,” I proclaim proudly.

“No, you can’t,” my brain sighs.

I had nothing more, and my Obasm died right on the vine - foiled by the pesky logic my brain insists on applying. Obama rightly attacks such logic in his stump speech, referring to it with derision and disgust as “the politics of fear.” However, until my brain can see fit to join Obama's movement and abandon the failed philosophies of the past (i.e. logic and evidence-based argument), I guess I’ll just have to keep taking cold showers and thinking about John McCain.

That will take the tingle out of anybody.

Interesting. If the .67 per hour in 1919 is indeed accurate, it translates into a little over $16K using a CPI adjustment into 2006 dollars. The problem with doing that comparison though is that it doesn't take into account changes in society and growth of the economy over that period. If you look at GDP per capita, a measure of economic status, .67 per hour (roughly 1,400 per year) would be on par with an income of about 82K in 2006. Also, in terms of share of GDP it would have the same economic influence as someone making over 200K. The 1959 GDP per capita and Share of GDP work out to 85K and 144K, respectively. Both of those also assume that employees were only working a 40 hour work week, when in fact it could have been much more.

Good job by the author though of using a simplistic analysis to make the data work out the way he wanted.

Also, the CEO of GM made a over 8.5 million dollars in 2005, although he really took one for the team and cut his salary to 4 million in 2006 while his company was losing 2 billion dollars.

4 million? Wow, sounds awfully greedy doesn't it? This is the sort of class warfare rhetoric that makes Obama (and apparently certain of his followers) so anti-capitalist.

Oh, also you should go check out this post and see what noted anti-capitalist Michael Bloomberg had to say about Obama's economic policy speech.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Obama wants to create a marketplace that will allow growth in all income ranges.

Of course he does. Who doesn't?

I dunno, but it sure isn't happening.

 

[whitem0nkey]

found a nice avatar, fell free to use it if you want.

 

[adonis]

I added this to the main page:

UPDATE: Since we have a pretty good group of FBG's who are Obama supporters, I got a suggestion that we start an FBG campaign donation group that is hosted on Obama's website. Here is the link to donate as an FBG, which will be counted as part of our group of supporters. No benefits go to me for setting it up, or to anyone, but it might be cool to see how we as a group can contribute financially to him getting the nomination and eventually the presidency. We're starting out with a goal of raising $1,000 which isn't that much if we each just chip in a little bit. I know I've donated individually, as well as many of you, but in the future, if we all click through this link above, we can track our impact, so donate today!

If you're so inclined, it'd be cool to have everyone here contribute through that link. Again, I get nothing from this, financially or otherwise.

I was due for another donation anyway. Did you set up an actual group? I was thinking about doing this.

Yeah. The name is FootballGuys Obama Supporters. You can find it if you search, or if I figure out later I'll put a link. It's still awaiting admin approval.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Obama wants to create a marketplace that will allow growth in all income ranges.

Of course he does. Who doesn't?

I dunno, but it sure isn't happening.

I'm sure the current administration would like to create a marketplace that will allow growth in all income ranges too.

I'm sure they do, the point is it isn't working.

 

[Clayton Gray]

Pretty conservative guy here, but am impressed with Obama's charisma and leadership skill, and I think that's an important part of being a leader, so though I'm not quite in lockstep policy-wise, I figured I'd come in this thread and see what it was all about.And the first thing I see is people complaining that other people make too much money. You folks aren't doing much to impress the moderates who might be swayed.homer>get a job, GB

You should read the first post in the thread.

I haven't made it all the way through that war and peace equivalent yet, and I realize full well what's said in here isn't necessarily Obama's stance. That said, as a self employed capitalist, the idea of people making "too much money" just makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up, and I felt the need to comment.

Agreed. However, anytime you look at the people supporting a Democrat, some of those people will think there are people making too much money.

 

[timschochet]

I actually liked what Bloomberg had to say, especially about immigration, and I'm not against targeted infrastructure investment. Obama's plan, however, as best I understand it, is a bigger, new deal type WPA investment that would cost billions of dollars and create a large new bureacracy. Obama like so many other progressives seek more and more government involvement and eventual control over industry, as opposed to the market philosophy which this nation has so long prospered under.

Even more important than his specific plans however, and the reason that I have pasted the articles here, is that Obama is pandering to the workers of the middle class who have hit hard times. Like Reagan in 1980 (who, IMO, is the candidate he most resembles) Obama promises a return to the good old days of yesteryear. Well, I noticed there was plenty of disagreement with the cvs article I pasted, but no refutation of his main point, the same point that John McCain made in Michigan: the jobs ain't coming back. McCain lost the Michigan primary to Romney because he was willing to tell the truth about this. Obama in Wisconsin, however, has a different message: yes, we can!

 

[timschochet]

Wow, I'm getting the feeling that Obama and McCain don't really lik each other very much. Check out these two letters from two years ago (I also posted this in the McCain thread.):

McCain's Letter to Obama

February 6, 2006

The Honorable Barack Obama

United States Senate

SH-713

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.

As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.

You commented in your letter about my “interest in creating a task force to further study” this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate’s return in January.

Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public’s low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.

Sincerely,

John McCain

United States Senate

Obama's letter to McCain

February 6, 2006

The Honorable John McCain

United States Senate

241 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Dear John:

During my short time in the U.S. Senate, one of the aspects about this institution that I have come to value most is the collegiality and the willingness to put aside partisan differences to work on issues that help the American people. It was in this spirit that I approached you to work on ethics reform, and it was in this spirit that I agreed to attend your bipartisan meeting last week. I appreciated then - and still do appreciate - your willingness to reach out to me and several other Democrats.

For this reason, I am puzzled by your response to my recent letter. Last Wednesday morning, you called to invite me to your meeting that afternoon. I changed my schedule so I could attend the meeting. Afterwards, you thanked me several times for attending the meeting, and we left pledging to work together.

As you will recall, I told everyone present at the meeting that my caucus insisted that the consideration of any ethics reform proposal go through the regular committee process. You didn't indicate any opposition to this position at the time, and I wrote the letter to reiterate this point, as well as the fact that I thought S. 2180 should be the basis for a bipartisan solution

I confess that I have no idea what has prompted your response. But let me assure you that I am not interested in typical partisan rhetoric or posturing. The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you nor my willingness to find a bipartisan solution to this problem.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

United States Senator

 

[Clayton Gray]

Can we see the February 2nd letter?

 

[timschochet]

Can we see the February 2nd letter?

I'm looking for it now.

 

[timschochet]

February 2, 2006

The Honorable John McCain

United States Senate

241 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Dear John:

Thank you for inviting me to participate in the meeting yesterday to discuss lobbying and ethics reform proposals currently before the Senate. I appreciate your willingness to reach out to me and several other Senate Democrats to discuss what should be done to restore public confidence in the way that Congress conducts its business. The discussion clearly underscored the difficult challenge facing Congress.

You and many in the Democratic Caucus have played a major role in reform efforts in the Senate. In fact, the Indian Affairs Committee hearings you led were instrumental in promoting public awareness of the culture of corruption that has permeated the nation's capital.

As you know, Senator Harry Reid and others in the Democratic Caucus have taken an important step by introducing S. 2180, the Honest Leadership Act, which imposes many of the same disclosure requirements for lobbyists that you have proposed, while also strengthening enforcement, eliminating "pay to play" schemes, and imposing more restrictive rules on meals, gifts, and travel that Members and their staff can receive from special interests that advocate before Congress. This bill, which now has the support of 40 members of the Democratic Caucus, represents a significant step in addressing many of the worst aspects of corruption that have come to light as a result of the Justice Department investigation of Jack Abramoff.

I know you have expressed an interest in creating a task force to further study and discuss these matters, but I and others in the Democratic Caucus believe the more effective and timely course is to allow the committees of jurisdiction to roll up their sleeves and get to work on writing ethics and lobbying reform legislation that a majority of the Senate can support. Committee consideration of these matters through the normal course will ensure that these issues are discussed in a public forum and that those within Congress, as well as those on the outside, can express their views, ensuring a thorough review of this matter.

Given the state of affairs in Washington, we have a historic opportunity to make fundamental changes in the way our government operates so that the actions we take as public officials are responsive and transparent to the American people. Thank you again for your interest in this important matter.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

United States Senator

 

[timschochet]

Whatever the right and wrong over this matter, (And I think we would have to be there to really know what went down), it's obvious that McCain's letter is SCATHING. Unless he's changed his mind in the past two years, he does NOT like Obama. Can't really tell if this is reciprocal.

 

[skol asylum]

Whatever the right and wrong over this matter, (And I think we would have to be there to really know what went down), it's obvious that McCain's letter is SCATHING. Unless he's changed his mind in the past two years, he does NOT like Obama. Can't really tell if this is reciprocal.

I'd seen this back a while back. The thing I took away from it is I can understand how many in Congress, even members of his own party, say John has a legendary temper. I wonder how good it would be to have someone sitting in the White House as the leader of the free world who can't control himself and throws temper tantrums.

 

[timschochet]

Whatever the right and wrong over this matter, (And I think we would have to be there to really know what went down), it's obvious that McCain's letter is SCATHING. Unless he's changed his mind in the past two years, he does NOT like Obama. Can't really tell if this is reciprocal.

I'd seen this back a while back. The thing I took away from it is I can understand how many in Congress, even members of his own party, say John has a legendary temper. I wonder how good it would be to have someone sitting in the White House as the leader of the free world who can't control himself and throws temper tantrums.

His temper is very similar to one of our greatest presidents, Harry Truman. While president, Truman's daughter Margaret once recieved a bad review for a concert she had performed in. The next morning, Truman rushed downstairs to the press room and told them he wanted to "punch the reporter in the nose." There is no evidence that Truman ever allowed his temper to get in the way of his decision-making, and this man made some of the most fateful decisions of the 20th century. Other Presidents with notable tempers include Andrew Jackson, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton.In John McCain's long senate career there is no evidence of his temper affecting a decision.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I actually liked what Bloomberg had to say, especially about immigration, and I'm not against targeted infrastructure investment. Obama's plan, however, as best I understand it, is a bigger, new deal type WPA investment that would cost billions of dollars and create a large new bureacracy. Obama like so many other progressives seek more and more government involvement and eventual control over industry, as opposed to the market philosophy which this nation has so long prospered under.

Even more important than his specific plans however, and the reason that I have pasted the articles here, is that Obama is pandering to the workers of the middle class who have hit hard times. Like Reagan in 1980 (who, IMO, is the candidate he most resembles) Obama promises a return to the good old days of yesteryear. Well, I noticed there was plenty of disagreement with the cvs article I pasted, but no refutation of his main point, the same point that John McCain made in Michigan: the jobs ain't coming back. McCain lost the Michigan primary to Romney because he was willing to tell the truth about this. Obama in Wisconsin, however, has a different message: yes, we can!

Of course, Obama and other liberals like me really just want government to take over industry since we're all socialists, and anti-capitalists anyway... blah, blah, blah...Obama has specific proposals outlined to try to help bolster the American manufacturing sector, address our trade deficit, and bring the American economy and workers into the industries that are going to define the next century, which you can easily look up. Will he be able to pass all of them? Surely not. Will all of them work exactly as intended? Probably not. But if you think we should just surrender, or that the American public is going to buy that, perhaps you should check my sig.

 

[goonsquad]

Gotta say, McCain comes off as a total d*ck in that letter.

 

[Clayton Gray]

I think McCain went a little overboard.

 

[timschochet]

If I were Dr. Evil, I could not conceive a beter plan that what appears to be unfolding. Hillary still has big leads in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and is tight in Wisconsin. Whe you strip down all of the arguments, the real reason for this is that Latinos and poor whites will not vote for a Black man in large numbers. She will also take Puerto Rico (endorsements mean nothing against racial prejudice) meaning they will probably go to the convention with a tie or with Obama in a slight lead. They will NOT work this out before the convention (for the "good of the party" because both of them want to be President. therefore's there's no way to work it out.) At the convention Hillary will try to use the superdelegates plus Michigan and Florida; if she succeeds this will demoralize the Democratic base (they may riot) and result in low turnout, with McCain the victor. If Obama preseveres it will be so bloody that there will be wounds all over the party; plus the Latinos will then switch their support to the one Republican they can live with, John McCain. Either way, McCain wins.

 

[goonsquad]

If I were Dr. Evil, I could not conceive a beter plan that what appears to be unfolding. Hillary still has big leads in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and is tight in Wisconsin. Whe you strip down all of the arguments, the real reason for this is that Latinos and poor whites will not vote for a Black man in large numbers. She will also take Puerto Rico (endorsements mean nothing against racial prejudice) meaning they will probably go to the convention with a tie or with Obama in a slight lead. They will NOT work this out before the convention (for the "good of the party" because both of them want to be President. therefore's there's no way to work it out.) At the convention Hillary will try to use the superdelegates plus Michigan and Florida; if she succeeds this will demoralize the Democratic base (they may riot) and result in low turnout, with McCain the victor. If Obama preseveres it will be so bloody that there will be wounds all over the party; plus the Latinos will then switch their support to the one Republican they can live with, John McCain. Either way, McCain wins.

You should get out from behind that computer for a while. In fact, we could all use a break from you behind that computer.

 

[timschochet]

If I were Dr. Evil, I could not conceive a beter plan that what appears to be unfolding. Hillary still has big leads in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and is tight in Wisconsin. Whe you strip down all of the arguments, the real reason for this is that Latinos and poor whites will not vote for a Black man in large numbers. She will also take Puerto Rico (endorsements mean nothing against racial prejudice) meaning they will probably go to the convention with a tie or with Obama in a slight lead. They will NOT work this out before the convention (for the "good of the party" because both of them want to be President. therefore's there's no way to work it out.) At the convention Hillary will try to use the superdelegates plus Michigan and Florida; if she succeeds this will demoralize the Democratic base (they may riot) and result in low turnout, with McCain the victor. If Obama preseveres it will be so bloody that there will be wounds all over the party; plus the Latinos will then switch their support to the one Republican they can live with, John McCain. Either way, McCain wins.

You should get out from behind that computer for a while. In fact, we could all use a break from you behind that computer.

You're right; I'm sick with the flu, that's why; nothing to do. My kids and wife are all sick, too. But I'll take a break for a while.

 

[H Jass]

You should get out from behind that computer for a while. In fact, we could all use a break from you behind that computer.

Stay away from this thread you're hurting your guy's cause. Still firmly undecided, but a few condescend-ers, like yourself, make it tough to get on your side.Either way, to the others, thanks for the info.

 

[datonn]

You should get out from behind that computer for a while. In fact, we could all use a break from you behind that computer.

And goonsquad knows people who could hook Tim/us up for that little "break" too....one little PM or email and somebody's getting fitted for concrete shoes or a little trip to go dig a six-foot hole somewhere out in the middle of Nevada

 

[Clayton Gray]

If I were Dr. Evil, I could not conceive a beter plan that what appears to be unfolding. Hillary still has big leads in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and is tight in Wisconsin. Whe you strip down all of the arguments, the real reason for this is that Latinos and poor whites will not vote for a Black man in large numbers. She will also take Puerto Rico (endorsements mean nothing against racial prejudice) meaning they will probably go to the convention with a tie or with Obama in a slight lead. They will NOT work this out before the convention (for the "good of the party" because both of them want to be President. therefore's there's no way to work it out.) At the convention Hillary will try to use the superdelegates plus Michigan and Florida; if she succeeds this will demoralize the Democratic base (they may riot) and result in low turnout, with McCain the victor. If Obama preseveres it will be so bloody that there will be wounds all over the party; plus the Latinos will then switch their support to the one Republican they can live with, John McCain. Either way, McCain wins.

This is exactly what will happen.

 

[datonn]

If I were Dr. Evil, I could not conceive a beter plan that what appears to be unfolding. Hillary still has big leads in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and is tight in Wisconsin. Whe you strip down all of the arguments, the real reason for this is that Latinos and poor whites will not vote for a Black man in large numbers. She will also take Puerto Rico (endorsements mean nothing against racial prejudice) meaning they will probably go to the convention with a tie or with Obama in a slight lead. They will NOT work this out before the convention (for the "good of the party" because both of them want to be President. therefore's there's no way to work it out.) At the convention Hillary will try to use the superdelegates plus Michigan and Florida; if she succeeds this will demoralize the Democratic base (they may riot) and result in low turnout, with McCain the victor. If Obama preseveres it will be so bloody that there will be wounds all over the party; plus the Latinos will then switch their support to the one Republican they can live with, John McCain. Either way, McCain wins.

I'm an Obama man in 2008, but what "Dr. Evil" (Mini-Me?!) is saying is not that far-fetched at all. Obama has the BIG-MO right now, but Hillary is going to pull out all the dirtiest tricks in the book to try and make sure she's the nominee coming out of Denver. Barring one of them unexpectedly dying or something, neither one of them is going to back down before Denver...and both of them can make a strong case for why they should be the nominee.Obama really needs to close Hillary out though. Win Wisconsin, then win at LEAST one of Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania. Keep the BIG-MO rolling...taking Florida and Michigan entirely out of the equation. If Obama wins two of those four states, more super-delegates will get off the fence and/or defect from Hillary's camp...and Obama can ride that momentum right into Denver. Then it'll be up to the Clinton camp to decide if they want to FUBAR the Democratic Party for the next 8-10 years by filing tons of lawsuits and/or taking the nomination out of Obama's hands. If Hillary comes out of Denver, I'm gonna be But, we'll see!

 

[goonsquad]

Stay away from this thread you're hurting your guy's cause. Still firmly undecided, but a few condescend-ers, like yourself, make it tough to get on your side.

I'm not losing sleep over your vote, chief.

 

[MrPhoenix]

Stay away from this thread you're hurting your guy's cause. Still firmly undecided, but a few condescend-ers, like yourself, make it tough to get on your side.

I'm not losing sleep over your vote, chief.

Hugh Jass, Ron Paul needs voters.

 

[H Jass]

Stay away from this thread you're hurting your guy's cause. Still firmly undecided, but a few condescend-ers, like yourself, make it tough to get on your side.

I'm not losing sleep over your vote, chief.

Just saying, Dr. Smuginstein. That seems to be your M.O. Tone it down a notch. I bought a PC because of you.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Gotta say, McCain comes off as a total d*ck in that letter.

He is one.

 

[goonsquad]

Just saying, Dr. Smuginstein. That seems to be your M.O.

Tone it down a notch. I bought a PC because of you.

So that's why AAPL has tanked.

 

[Punchie]

I added this to the main page:

UPDATE: Since we have a pretty good group of FBG's who are Obama supporters, I got a suggestion that we start an FBG campaign donation group that is hosted on Obama's website. Here is the link to donate as an FBG, which will be counted as part of our group of supporters. No benefits go to me for setting it up, or to anyone, but it might be cool to see how we as a group can contribute financially to him getting the nomination and eventually the presidency. We're starting out with a goal of raising $1,000 which isn't that much if we each just chip in a little bit. I know I've donated individually, as well as many of you, but in the future, if we all click through this link above, we can track our impact, so donate today!

If you're so inclined, it'd be cool to have everyone here contribute through that link. Again, I get nothing from this, financially or otherwise.

In for $50

 

[Sand]

If I were Dr. Evil, I could not conceive a beter plan that what appears to be unfolding. Hillary still has big leads in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and is tight in Wisconsin. Whe you strip down all of the arguments, the real reason for this is that Latinos and poor whites will not vote for a Black man in large numbers. She will also take Puerto Rico (endorsements mean nothing against racial prejudice) meaning they will probably go to the convention with a tie or with Obama in a slight lead. They will NOT work this out before the convention (for the "good of the party" because both of them want to be President. therefore's there's no way to work it out.) At the convention Hillary will try to use the superdelegates plus Michigan and Florida; if she succeeds this will demoralize the Democratic base (they may riot) and result in low turnout, with McCain the victor. If Obama preseveres it will be so bloody that there will be wounds all over the party; plus the Latinos will then switch their support to the one Republican they can live with, John McCain. Either way, McCain wins.

I'm an Obama man in 2008, but what "Dr. Evil" (Mini-Me?!) is saying is not that far-fetched at all. Obama has the BIG-MO right now, but Hillary is going to pull out all the dirtiest tricks in the book to try and make sure she's the nominee coming out of Denver. Barring one of them unexpectedly dying or something, neither one of them is going to back down before Denver...and both of them can make a strong case for why they should be the nominee.Obama really needs to close Hillary out though. Win Wisconsin, then win at LEAST one of Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania. Keep the BIG-MO rolling...taking Florida and Michigan entirely out of the equation. If Obama wins two of those four states, more super-delegates will get off the fence and/or defect from Hillary's camp...and Obama can ride that momentum right into Denver. Then it'll be up to the Clinton camp to decide if they want to FUBAR the Democratic Party for the next 8-10 years by filing tons of lawsuits and/or taking the nomination out of Obama's hands. If Hillary comes out of Denver, I'm gonna be But, we'll see!

This is really the only outcome that will save Democrats in this election cycle. If it does go to the convention, the debacle of the disenfranchisement in Florida and Michigan will weigh heavily. Hillary coming out of the convention would be a dream for McCain, particularly if she wins by the superdelegate vote. Barack is cleaner, but if superdelegates defect and throw it his way there will be lots of talk about how he simply bribed them better.I had previously thought that if Obama won, he would be the next president. Now, though, I think that if he wins "dirty" it will be a very, very close race. Toss up. Hillary will lose the general election under any set of conditions with this overhead.

This is still the most interesting election cycle I can remember. Finally the Dems had two strong candidates and were virtually assured the presidency. They have managed to shoot themselves in both feet. I wonder if Dean is sleeping these days. I'm mildly surprised he hasn't been booted yet.

 

[skol asylum]

Whatever the right and wrong over this matter, (And I think we would have to be there to really know what went down), it's obvious that McCain's letter is SCATHING. Unless he's changed his mind in the past two years, he does NOT like Obama. Can't really tell if this is reciprocal.

I'd seen this back a while back. The thing I took away from it is I can understand how many in Congress, even members of his own party, say John has a legendary temper. I wonder how good it would be to have someone sitting in the White House as the leader of the free world who can't control himself and throws temper tantrums.

His temper is very similar to one of our greatest presidents, Harry Truman. While president, Truman's daughter Margaret once recieved a bad review for a concert she had performed in. The next morning, Truman rushed downstairs to the press room and told them he wanted to "punch the reporter in the nose." There is no evidence that Truman ever allowed his temper to get in the way of his decision-making, and this man made some of the most fateful decisions of the 20th century. Other Presidents with notable tempers include Andrew Jackson, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton.In John McCain's long senate career there is no evidence of his temper affecting a decision.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23201300/

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Wisconsin's major newspaper endorses, well, you know...

Obama: Change for the good

Both candidates would serve their party well as nominee, but in the Illinois senator, there is a potential for change that can only help this country move on and progress.

From the Journal Sentinel

Posted: Feb. 16, 2008

There is only the tiniest sliver of daylight separating Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the issues, with the notable exception of health care reform.

Even on Iraq, they end up in much the same place: Steady U.S. troop withdrawal, leaving themselves enough wiggle room in case the situation on the ground becomes so dire that more flexibility becomes necessary.

The similarity of views is, in truth, why the candidates return so much to the themes of change and experience.

Our recommendation in Wisconsin's primary on Tuesday for the Democratic nomination is Barack Obama. That's our recommendation because change and experience are crucial to moving this country forward after what will be eight years of an administration careening from mistake to catastrophe to disaster and back again.

The Illinois senator is best-equipped to deliver that change, and his relatively shorter time in Washington is more asset than handicap.

The Obama campaign has been derisively and incorrectly described as more rock tour than political campaign and his supporters as more starry-eyed groupies than thoughtful voters.

If detractors in either party want to continue characterizing the Obama campaign this way, they will have seriously underestimated both the electorate's hunger for meaningful change in how the nation is governed and the candidate himself.

In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board on Wednesday, the first-term senator proved himself adept at detail and vision. They are not mutually exclusive.

On poverty, he eschewed the phrase "war on poverty," preferring instead to describe the task as a long-haul effort. No one should launch a program, fight a battle and declare mission accomplished, he seemed to say.

Instead, it will require continuous and unflagging efforts along several fronts - taxation, education, economic development and, yes, personal responsibility - to make progress. He speaks of strengthening the middle class, helping with child care, early childhood education and ensuring access to affordable health care.

In other words, a broad, nuanced approach that recognizes that problems are linked to others.

Similarly nuanced answers came from questions on manufacturing, trade, school choice, the Great Lakes and energy.

He spoke of turning to alternative energy, not just to wean addiction from oil but to spur more technologies that in turn spur more manufacturing possibilities. We can find "competitive advantages at higher value products," he said, adding that rebuilding much needed infrastructure also can create jobs.

He was a realist, recognizing that no one could likely turn the clock back to Milwaukee's manufacturing heyday. "The percentage of manufacturing jobs to service jobs is not going to be the same as it was in the 1950s," he said. "We're not going to get those jobs back."

Yet he insisted that manufacturing still could become more competitive and the service industry better-paying for its employees.

Which is not to say that we are in lockstep. On school choice, Obama does not see as clearly as we do the intrinsic value in and of itself of low-income parents having a choice.

On health care, we prefer Clinton's insurance mandate, though we recognize that more details are needed. Obama would mandate insurance for children only, a worthy goal, but we're skeptical of his claim that it will get to the same number of people insured as Clinton's plan.

But, again, not a lot separates Obama's views from Clinton's. So why Obama?

It is precisely the excitement that we see in the candidate and his supporters in their demands for change. This promises to alter the political landscape and dynamics for the better, energizing youth for service and involvement as we haven't seen in a very long time.

In Clinton, there is the potential for déjà vu all over again. Right or wrong, she is a polarizing figure who excites all the wrong kinds of political passions.

And even if she didn't, her vote on the Iraq war cannot be explained away as not realizing that the president would take that ball (and blank check) and run with it.

Yes, she has been tried. And much of the antagonism she engenders in the right is simply irrational.

But even without this Clinton baggage and on their individual merits, Obama still has the edge. His experience as community organizer, state legislator, U.S. senator and campaigner who took a dream and became a credible contender measures up well against Clinton's experience as poverty lawyer, first lady and U.S. senator.

The party would be well-served with either candidate, and the historical implications are huge with each.

But in Obama, there is a potential for meaningful change that does not exist with any other candidate.

Link

 

[ren hoek]

 

[skol asylum]

Nice little interview with Obama's sister.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

 

[Kleck.]

I visited my mother today and she and her husband are on board the Obamawagon. I also let my employees know that they can have Tuesday afternoon off to go vote. None of them follow politics and don't vote, but I have them sold on Obama.

That'll be 12 WI Primary votes for Obama, and my wife is working on her co-workers so hopefully we'll be bringing 20 or more.

 

[skol asylum]

Obama Dec 2007 interview on foreign policy.

 

[Clayton Gray]

Obama Dec 2007 interview on foreign policy.

Good stuff.

 

[snitwitch]

There's gonna be a lot of combat wounds.