Well for starters because you've gotten all your facts entirely wrong. Contrary to your claim, Ayers had zero to do with Obama's appointment to the board. He was motivated by Deborah Leff and "recommended by Pat Graham, and elected by the bipartisan founding board members: Susan Crown, Pat Graham, Stanley Ikenberry, Ray Romero, Arnold Weber, and Wanda White." Here, I'm not going to read the rest of your post. Would you like to retract this mess you've made above, start over, and work from a foundation of actual facts?
You're kidding, right? Obama voters are the type of people who bk their credit cards and walk away from their mortgages. The Treasury markets will FREAK OUT after Obama's elected. They know darn well the Democrats will BK Treasury debt. I can hear the rhetoric already, "why should we give up our dole so that China and Japan can get our money". Clip it and save.....
I don't live in "plan" world I live in reality world. Obama will EXPAND out troop presence overseas. Obama will INCREASE social service programs and entitlements. The taxpayer is BROKE and ready to say fuck you to ANYONE who attempts a tax increase. Bad fiscal mix.....
Your first point is just stupid. You can't generalize an entire group of voters. The fact that you tried is amazing to me. I'm an Obama voter and I certainly don't fit your description...neither do any of the other Obama voters i know...or even Mccain voters...typically generalizations are based off of ignorance, but you seem intelligent so I'm not sure why you felt you had try. About the treasury market, I simply don't know how they will react to him getting elected, and I would bet you don't know either. I for one will be glad that we will start paying down some of this enormous debt that our country has incurred (for right or wrong). It's also interesting that you generalize (yet again) that dems will BK the treasury debt, when right now its democrats who are attempting to lower the $700 billion proposal. Whether thats the right thing to do or not I don't know, but the fact that they are trying to reign in our debt right now disproves your generalization that all dems will do is BK the whole treasury.
Obama will EXPAND out troop presence overseas. How and why? Why do you think Obama will be more likely to expand troops overseas as opposed to mccain? Obama will INCREASE social service programs and entitlements. Probably. Hopefully only for those who deserve it, but I can't predict the future. However the biggest difference between him and Mccain is HE PLANS ON PAYING FOR IT. and the things we already owe. The taxpayer is BROKE and ready to say fuck you to ANYONE who attempts a tax increase. Only the bottom 95% have that attitude because they are the ones feeling the squeeze in all directions...at least much more intensely than the well off top 5%. Wouldn't you know it, the ones feeling the way you describe will be getting a tax break under Obama....The only ones getting a real increase are the ones who can actually afford to pay it.
Mr. "Liberal leftist" Obama is going to expand troop presence? That sounds unlikely, given that he's been accused by the Republicans of setting a "timeline" for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. By how much? Which programs? Well you can check out your tax cut (or increase) here: http://www.obamataxcut.com
Probably. Hopefully only for those who deserve it, but I can't predict the future. However the biggest difference between him and Mccain is HE PLANS ON PAYING FOR IT. and the things we already owe. How old are you?? Ten??
Obama has repeatedly emphasized the need to address the threat to U.S. security coming from Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Western Pakistan along the Afghan border. He has pressed for an increased U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan, and criticizes the Bush administration for focusing on the Iraq war instead of Afghanistan. His opponent, GOP Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), also has said he wants to see more troops in Afghanistan. But McCain has said he may call on the NATO countries to send in their reinforcements rather than deploying mostly U.S. troops. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gates-biggest-threat-coming-from-pakistan-2008-09-23.html Senator Barack Obama is proposing that the United States deploy about 10,000 more troops to battle resurgent forces in Afghanistan, a plan intended to shift the American military focus from the Iraq war to the marked rise in violence from the Taliban. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/us/politics/14campaign.html Obama applauded Bushâs decision to divert some troops that were scheduled to deploy to Iraq to Afghanistan instead, but said that not enough are being sent and since they wonât arrive until February, they arenât being sent soon enough. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/09/politics/fromtheroad/entry4432480.shtml AFGHANISTAN McCain: Favors unspecified boost in U.S. forces. Obama: Would add about 7,000 troops to the U.S. force of 36,000, bringing the reinforcements from Iraq. Has threatened unilateral attack on high-value terrorist targets in Pakistan as they become exposed, "if Pakistan cannot or will not act" against them. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092300897.html On Afghanistan, Obama wants to send in more troops and win the war. But more troops doing what U.S. troops now do -- fighting the Pashtun and calling in airstrikes on anything that moves -- guarantee we will lose the war. As was the case in Iraq, the first necessary step is to change what our troops are doing. From what I have seen, Obama has said nothing on that score, probably because his position on Afghanistan is mere posturing intended to show he will be "tough on terrorism." Obama's position on Pakistan is even more dangerous. In August 2007 Obama called for direct U.S. military action in Pakistan, with or without Pakistani approval. Speaking to the Woodrow Wilson Center, he said, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and (Pakistani) President (Pervez) Musharraf won't act, we will." U.S. President George W. Bush took Obama's recommendation this past July, authorizing such actions. http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache...4554/+obama+pakistan&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
So Obama would take 140,000 troops out of Iraq and put seven to ten thousand into Afghanistan, and you're worried about where all the money for the 7,000 is going to come from. You're an odd guy, Pabst.