Case in point for low taxes: Clinton lowered the tax rates during his administration and the economy thrived and consequently there was a budgetary surplus.

If you feel that you are not paying enough U.S. taxes, feel free to send the U.S. Treasury more of your earnings. They accept personal check and money order.

You don’t seem to know much about macroeconomics. Low taxes are also socially responsible.

Rubbish. You just said that you don’t want taxes to be raised during your lifetime, but that they need to be raised at some point. If they need to be raised at some point, it means that you acknowledge that lowering taxes will not be enough to pay the deficit – it is just that you don’t want to contribute to pay the bill.
It has nothing to do with macroeconomics, just greed.

And I honestly don’t see how a politician, who tells voters they need to sacrifice in this generation, be considered in this instance a populist politician. (His NAFTA rethoric, on the other hand…)

“Yes, we can only do so much for future generations. At some point one needs to live in the moment. And no to your second question.”

I find that disgusting: to leave debt to your children and grandchildren because you don’t want to sacrifice. So it has nothing to do with recession or economic stimulus: just greed.

Yes, we can only do so much for future generations. At some point one needs to live in the moment. And no to your second question.

Regarding your second point, this is what I said about the whole “Obama-says-he-will-enter-Pakistan-without-permission” issue:

“The fact that Obama would publicly proclaim that he would invade an ally when that ally has thus far done nothing wrong, is disturbing. As such, he displays an alarming lack of judgment and diplomatic skill.”

I might add that he’s got the populism part of his act down but the diplomacy part seems quite immature.

“Yes, but not during my lifetime.”

Yes, let your children and grandchildren pay for it, right? Surely, you are not saying that recession would continue during your lifetime, right?

“The subtext of any geopolitical alliance is that its useful until its not. “

Correct and that is what Obama alluded, if you cared to read what he actually said.

“If Pakistan deliberately fails to act and Al Qaeda continues to grow, then Pakistan is not being an ally, and the US can reconsider the relationship at anytime.”

Sure, any U.S. ally can be reconsidered at any time. The subtext of any geopolitical alliance is that its useful until its not. The fact that Obama would publicly proclaim that he would invade an ally when that ally has thus far done nothing wrong, is disturbing. As such, he displays an alarming lack of judgment and diplomatic skill. And your whole argument for him becoming President is that Obama, in his short political career, has shown “judgment” through his public statements on various issues.

“So you are basically agreeing with him that there is a need to increase taxes at some point.”

Yes, but not during my lifetime.

“Ok so Obama espouses invading Pakistan, a U.S. ally. There’s a new one — U.S. invading its allies. Are you going to twist that one into a good change too?”

Let me run the logic through you: if Pakistan is a true U.S. ally then it will help the US erradicating Al Qaeda – and thus the US would not need to do this extraordinary measure. If Pakistan deliberately fails to act and Al Qaeda continues to grow, then Pakistan is not being an ally, and the US can reconsider the relationship at anytime , and thus your latest argument does not stand.

“Clearly, you have no grasp of macroeconomics. The country is also in a recession and in a recessionary environment you need economic stimulus. Hence, raising taxes is the wrong move right now. At some point the U.S. will need to raise taxes but not now.”

If he is elected, he will only take office in 2009, so a lot of things can happen between now and then. He also didn’t say when he would apply tax reform. My guess it will take a year or so. So we are talking about 2010. So you are basically agreeing with him that there is a need to increase taxes at some point.

But I am not sure that taxing the very rich – a minority – will make much difference in the economy even when in a recession – it is the middle-class that counts as they are the ones affected by inflation.

Here is an article touching on the very points:

Donald Macintyre: To be in favour of peace is not anti-Israeli

Thursday, 28 February 2008

It started with an internet campaign against Robert Malley. Malley, who worked on the Clinton team at the failed Camp David Israel-Palestinian peace talks in 2000, had fetched up in a long list of people who advise Barack Obama on foreign policy. Mr Malley, who now works for the International Crisis Group, is not on the Obama staff, or anywhere near it. But it still triggered a series of hostile comments apparently designed to undermine the candidate’s credibility with Jewish voters. Most appeared in conservative blogs and websites, but according to Newsweek, attacks on Malley also surfaced in emails sent out by staffers on Hillary Clinton’s campaign team.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/donald-macintyre/donald-macintyre-to-be-in-favour-of-peace-is-not-antiisraeli-788498.html

BTW right of return is surely the Palestinians’ prerogative?

“In his last days in the Whitehouse he made a pretty impressive effort in trying to get the two parties together – but tellingly when Yasser Arafat could not accept the terms being forced on him. Bill Clinton, shockingly, directly blamed Yasser Arafat and in public. Knowing full well that if Arafat had accepted the terms he would be a marked man. Arafat even told the world’s media that he would expect to be assasinated.”

Alan Dershowitz a law professor at Harvard University said that the failure of the negotiations was due to “the refusal of the Palestinians and Arafat to give up the right of return. That was the sticking point. It wasn’t Jerusalem. It wasn’t borders. It was the right of return.” He claims that President Clinton told this to him “directly and personally.”[17]

Right of return is a red line for Israel, everyone knows it. Clinton was probably angry that Arafat would not recognize that. Though I don’t know if Arafat would have been killed for giving up the right of return for compensation.

In his last days in the Whitehouse he made a pretty impressive effort in trying to get the two parties together – but tellingly when Yasser Arafat could not accept the terms being forced on him. Bill Clinton, shockingly, directly blamed Yasser Arafat and in public. Knowing full well that if Arafat had accepted the terms he would be a marked man. Arafat even told the world’s media that he would expect to be assasinated.

But Clinton still went on to name and blame Arafat.

You’d have thought, at the end of his tenure, he had nothing to lose except perhaps his wife’s bid for the Whitehouse.

Ok so Obama espouses invading Pakistan, a U.S. ally. There’s a new one — U.S. invading its allies. Are you going to twist that one into a good change too?

“The country is in huge debt thanks to the war and incompetent management, and Bush decides on tax cuts?”

Clearly, you have no grasp of macroeconomics. The country is also in a recession and in a recessionary environment you need economic stimulus. Hence, raising taxes is the wrong move right now. At some point the U.S. will need to raise taxes but not now.

“I think you’re splitting hairs.

It can be bad diplomacy, but it is no doubt a change in strategy when dealing with Al Qaeda.

A change of U.S. tax policy by raising U.S. tax rates and thereby hurting the U.S. and global economy [BAD CHANGE]

Oh, so you can see change after all, but you continue to be silly if you think that the present situation is better, let alone sustainable. The country is in huge debt thanks to the war and incompetent management, and Bush decides on tax cuts? Obama (and I believe Clinton) are going to repeal tax cuts, and increase taxes on the rich – I mean, there is little a responsible government can do under these circumstances.

I think you’re splitting hairs. Entering a sovereign nation without permission is invasion and bad global diplomacy, a la Bush-Cheney.

Methinks Obama is half-baked at best.

So, in sum, this is what I am determining Obama’s “change” to be, in specifics:

* A continuation of bad global diplomacy, i.e., possible invasion of Pakistan [NO CHANGE]

* A change of U.S. tax policy by raising U.S. tax rates and thereby hurting the U.S. and global economy [BAD CHANGE]

“I think one nation’s military entering another sovereign nation without their permission is called an invasion…And the concept of preemptive war was first introduced by, none other than, our friend, George W. Bush.

He’s not really the candidate of change, is he?”

You must be kidding me if you can’t see the difference between Iraq and a strike in Pakistan against militant bases. What you have in Iraq is an occupation of a country based on false pretences, and a preemptive war. In the case of Pakistan, there is no talk of occupation or taking out the little dictator, and if a country is knowingly harbouring terrorists who plan attacks against other countries then they become accomplices, and therefore it can’t be considered a pre-emptive strike.

So there is no way Obama is continuing policies of Bush, he is in fact, trying to do what Bush should have done a few years back: go after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden wherever they are hiding.

And when a nation invades without any provocation, that is called “preemptive war.”

And the concept of preemptive war was first introduced by, none other than, our friend, George W. Bush.

So Obama is willing to continue the faulty policies of Bush.

He’s not really the candidate of change, is he?

My point being: before we say that Barack Obama walks on water, let’s dissect some of his known views.