Is it time for Obama to pull negative ads?

[bctbct]

If I recall correctly Kerry went negative at the end and his numbers dropped.

At this point imo he would be better off getting out the message of what he intends to change.

The last week highlight the negatives.

discuss

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: bctbct
If I recall correctly Kerry went negative at the end and his numbers dropped.

At this point imo he would be better off getting out the message of what he intends to change.

The last week highlight the negatives.

discuss

No, he needs to come out with more negative ads-- his favorability numbers are below McCains' so he has nothing to lose (relatively speaking) and everything to gain by staying negative.

 

[jpeyton]

Obama's ad budget is a lot larger than Kerry's was. He can afford both.

 

[IronWing]

In most of the campaigns I've seen in my lifetime, the nastier candidate won. The nice guys got slaughtered.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: bctbct
At this point imo he would be better off getting out the message of what he intends to change.

Agreed. After a weekend of hell and Wall St melting down, people want to hear specifics. It's no time for amateur hour anymore. McCain will have the upper hand since he actually has a record of 'doing' vis-a-vis real legislation. Frankly I'm tired of hearing it's all Bush's fault and so are plenty of other people. Okay Obama, genius, if you're so smart let's hear your grand plan -- and one that does not involve taking from one class of citizens and giving it to the other. Because if you can't do that, I'll take the devil I do know over one I don't.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

His negative ads are working now because they reflect what the media and newspapers are saying about McCain's campaign. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[bctbct]

I think the media will continue to focus on the negative without Obama. In the next few days he should announce sweeping changes he would make in the financial sector.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: bctbct
At this point imo he would be better off getting out the message of what he intends to change.

Agreed. After a weekend of hell and Wall St melting down, people want to hear specifics. It's no time for amateur hour anymore. McCain will have the upper hand since he actually has a record of 'doing' vis-a-vis real legislation. Frankly I'm tired of hearing it's all Bush's fault and so are plenty of other people. Okay Obama, genius, if you're so smart let's hear your grand plan -- and one that does not involve taking from one class of citizens and giving it to the other. Because if you can't do that, I'll take the devil I do know over one I don't.

Cliffs:
We're in a world of hurt
Don't tell me truths that contradict my beliefs
What's your grand plan (making sure nothing changes) that fixes the problem?
I'd rather stick with the folks that put us in a world of hurt

Cliffs on the cliffs:
I intend to vote party line, like always

 

[brencat]

Okay, I'm certainly not trying to hide anything so:

1. I vote wallet issues first and always (higher taxes = bad).
2. I want divided gov't because I don't trust these fvckers in both parties. If they can't work together, then I'll be satisfied if nothing gets done.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: brencat
Okay, I'm certainly not trying to hide anything so:

1. I vote wallet issues first and always (higher taxes = bad).
2. I want divided gov't because I don't trust these fvckers in both parties. If they can't work together, then I'll be satisfied if nothing gets done.

Unless you are substantially wealthier than the average forum visitor then the Republican Party has nothing to offer you wallet-wise and a lot to damage you in the long run.

 

[sandorski]

McCain wants Obama to get specific. He needs the ideas.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: brencat
Okay, I'm certainly not trying to hide anything so:

1. I vote wallet issues first and always (higher taxes = bad).
2. I want divided gov't because I don't trust these fvckers in both parties. If they can't work together, then I'll be satisfied if nothing gets done.

Unless you are substantially wealthier than the average forum visitor then the Republican Party has nothing to offer you wallet-wise and a lot to damage you in the long run.

Yes, you will be much better off when Obama revokes the GWB tax cuts (in effect, a tax increase, although he doesn't call it that), so that he can give everyone "access to health insurance"-- whatever the hell that means.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: brencat
Okay, I'm certainly not trying to hide anything so:

1. I vote wallet issues first and always (higher taxes = bad).
2. I want divided gov't because I don't trust these fvckers in both parties. If they can't work together, then I'll be satisfied if nothing gets done.

Unless you are substantially wealthier than the average forum visitor then the Republican Party has nothing to offer you wallet-wise and a lot to damage you in the long run.

Yes, you will be much better off when Obama revokes the GWB tax cuts (in effect, a tax increase, although he doesn't call it that), so that he can give everyone "access to health insurance"-- whatever the hell that means.

I will be better off if the next President and Congress revoke the GWB tax cuts period. Future tax rates won't have to go up as much to pay for more irresponsible borrowing. I would be even better off with a single payer national health insurance plan but I don't expect that out of any candidate.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: sandorski
McCain wants Obama to get specific. He needs the ideas.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Unless you are substantially wealthier than the average forum visitor then the Republican Party has nothing to offer you wallet-wise and a lot to damage you in the long run.

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, a higher cap gains rate (even if it goes up just 5% to 20% is still a hike), higher inheritance taxes, and possibly higher social security tax rates.

Seriously, how is this good for the economy? Yes, I'm blessed to be upper middle class and Obama's proposed policies on taxes certainly doesn't help my situation living in the expensive NY metro area.

 

[fskimospy]

Two things. First of all I like how now Obama is "revoking" the Bush tax cuts, when all he's really doing is letting them expire as the legislation was originally written. So now letting legislation do what it was written to do is a "tax increase".

Secondly, no he should not stop with the negative ads. Negative ads work. His favorable ratings are actually somewhat higher than McCain's, but McCain has not paid a serious price for airing some of the worst ads ever shown. I think Obama should slime him back to the stone age.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: brencat
Okay, I'm certainly not trying to hide anything so:

1. I vote wallet issues first and always (higher taxes = bad).
2. I want divided gov't because I don't trust these fvckers in both parties. If they can't work together, then I'll be satisfied if nothing gets done.

I have a distaste for my fellow citizens who show no concern for the well being of others.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: brencat
Okay, I'm certainly not trying to hide anything so:

1. I vote wallet issues first and always (higher taxes = bad).
2. I want divided gov't because I don't trust these fvckers in both parties. If they can't work together, then I'll be satisfied if nothing gets done.

I have a distaste for my fellow citizens who show no concern for the well being of others.

So letting the government take more of your check to do with it as it sees fit is "showing concern for the well being of others"? If I think I can do a better job of helping others with my own money, why should I let the government take it and squander it?

 

[uclaLabrat]

Originally posted by: brencat
Okay, I'm certainly not trying to hide anything so:

1. I vote wallet issues first and always (higher taxes = bad).

Then what do you propose will take care of the deficit, if higher taxes aren't the answer? Spending cuts? OK, where? Education is on life support. Farm subsidies? I'm for it, but have fun trying to win the republican base in middle america when you take away their cash. Military? Whoops, we have two wars (one too many, mind you) that we have to fund or the terrorists win.

Research? If it's not curing cancer, NIH doesn't want to fund it. NIH and NSF have had their budgets obliterated. What about DOE? I think they're still doing ok, at least the grants that have nano-material-super-special-science still seem to get funded no problem, at least from my limited experience. Oh yeah, thanks Bush, for cutting back on our technology research. Can't wait to let India and China whoop our ass on that one. That'll do WONDERS for our economy.

Hmmm...entitlement programs? Should we fix the giant pyramid scheme that is social security? How about medicare? Can we cut down on the bureaucracy? Or will that lead to people gaming the system?

So in your grand conservative financial scheme, how would you fix it? Taxes are bad in your view, but I don't see where we can cut any more without cutting off the nose to spite the face. Well, we could always just give the corporations another tax break, so they can reinvest in "capital". Only problem is, it will just lead to another golden parachute for whatever jackass CEO decides he needs another yacht.

It's going to be awfully hard to stimulate the economy when all the people are too damn broke to buy shit. And that huge deficit is only gaining interest. And yet, you're all in, as long as you don't have to pay a little bit more. So what's your solution?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: brencat
Okay, I'm certainly not trying to hide anything so:

1. I vote wallet issues first and always (higher taxes = bad).
2. I want divided gov't because I don't trust these fvckers in both parties. If they can't work together, then I'll be satisfied if nothing gets done.

I have a distaste for my fellow citizens who show no concern for the well being of others.

So letting the government take more of your check to do with it as it sees fit is "showing concern for the well being of others"? If I think I can do a better job of helping others with my own money, why should I let the government take it?

..because you can't.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: brencat
Okay, I'm certainly not trying to hide anything so:

1. I vote wallet issues first and always (higher taxes = bad).
2. I want divided gov't because I don't trust these fvckers in both parties. If they can't work together, then I'll be satisfied if nothing gets done.

I have a distaste for my fellow citizens who show no concern for the well being of others.

So letting the government take more of your check to do with it as it sees fit is "showing concern for the well being of others"? If I think I can do a better job of helping others with my own money, why should I let the government take it?

..because you can't.

By donating to a charity of my choosing, yes I can. I can select a charity that makes more efficient use of my money, unlike the US Government which will continue to increase funding of failed social programs year after year after year because they have zero incentive to fix the root of the problems or become more efficient.

Of course, in Obama-land it's great to be charitable--as long as you're doing it with everyone else's money.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: brencat
Okay, I'm certainly not trying to hide anything so:

1. I vote wallet issues first and always (higher taxes = bad).
2. I want divided gov't because I don't trust these fvckers in both parties. If they can't work together, then I'll be satisfied if nothing gets done.

I have a distaste for my fellow citizens who show no concern for the well being of others.

So letting the government take more of your check to do with it as it sees fit is "showing concern for the well being of others"? If I think I can do a better job of helping others with my own money, why should I let the government take it?

..because you can't.

By donating to a charity of my choosing, yes I can. I can select a charity that makes more efficient use of my money, unlike the US Government which will continue to increase funding of failed social programs year after year after year because they have zero incentive to fix the root of the problems or become more efficient.

Of course, in Obama-land it's great to be charitable--as long as you're doing it with everyone else's money.

That same amount of $$ and from a larger Pool of people will do far more than what your little contribution all by itself will do. Economies of Scale works and is far more efficient.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: brencat
Okay, I'm certainly not trying to hide anything so:

1. I vote wallet issues first and always (higher taxes = bad).
2. I want divided gov't because I don't trust these fvckers in both parties. If they can't work together, then I'll be satisfied if nothing gets done.

I have a distaste for my fellow citizens who show no concern for the well being of others.

So letting the government take more of your check to do with it as it sees fit is "showing concern for the well being of others"? If I think I can do a better job of helping others with my own money, why should I let the government take it?

..because you can't.

By donating to a charity of my choosing, yes I can. I can select a charity that makes more efficient use of my money, unlike the US Government which will continue to increase funding of failed social programs year after year after year because they have zero incentive to fix the root of the problems or become more efficient.

Of course, in Obama-land it's great to be charitable--as long as you're doing it with everyone else's money.

That same amount of $$ and from a larger Pool of people will do far more than what your little contribution all by itself will do. Economies of Scale works and is far more efficient.

You're forgetting one tiny detail: this is Government we're talking about here. They almost never do anything "more efficient".

On a state level, just look at the sad state of public education. Everyone cries that there isn't enough money-- yet if you look closer you will find many of the worst performing school-districts spend more (in some cases, nearly double) per pupil than their better-performing neighbors. The largest school districs are typically the absolute worst when it comes to performance and spending per pupil-- even though "economies of scale" would dictate they should get comparable results for LESS money per pupil than their suburban counterparts.

Just like throwing more money at the problem isn't a real solution for public education, it isn't a real solution for many other entitlement programs which suffer horrible inefficiencies, and in some cases just flat-out do no work.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: brencat
Okay, I'm certainly not trying to hide anything so:

1. I vote wallet issues first and always (higher taxes = bad).
2. I want divided gov't because I don't trust these fvckers in both parties. If they can't work together, then I'll be satisfied if nothing gets done.

I have a distaste for my fellow citizens who show no concern for the well being of others.

So letting the government take more of your check to do with it as it sees fit is "showing concern for the well being of others"? If I think I can do a better job of helping others with my own money, why should I let the government take it?

..because you can't.

By donating to a charity of my choosing, yes I can. I can select a charity that makes more efficient use of my money, unlike the US Government which will continue to increase funding of failed social programs year after year after year because they have zero incentive to fix the root of the problems or become more efficient.

Of course, in Obama-land it's great to be charitable--as long as you're doing it with everyone else's money.

That same amount of $$ and from a larger Pool of people will do far more than what your little contribution all by itself will do. Economies of Scale works and is far more efficient.

You're forgetting one tiny detail: this is Government we're talking about here. They almost never do anything "more efficient".

On a state level, just look at the sad state of public education. Everyone cries that there isn't enough money-- yet if you look closer you will find many of the worst performing school-districts spend more (in some cases, nearly double) per pupil than their better-performing neighbors. The largest school districs are typically the absolute worst when it comes to performance and spending per pupil-- even though "economies of scale" would dictate they should get comparable results for LESS money per pupil than their suburban counterparts.

Just like throwing more money at the problem isn't a real solution for public education, it isn't a real solution for many other entitlement programs which suffer horrible inefficiencies, and in some cases just flat-out do no work.

1 vs 100's of Millions. Which do you think more Efficiently addresses the Need of People?

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: brencat
Okay, I'm certainly not trying to hide anything so:

1. I vote wallet issues first and always (higher taxes = bad).
2. I want divided gov't because I don't trust these fvckers in both parties. If they can't work together, then I'll be satisfied if nothing gets done.

I have a distaste for my fellow citizens who show no concern for the well being of others.

We know, you're a socialist. Luckily there aren't many of them in power.