[caballo]

Originally Posted by Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are -- beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:

THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."

THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.

THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."

THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years -- and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "

THE FACTS: His proposals -- the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more -- cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged -- although not in his commercial -- that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."

What say you, Obama supporters?

[GT40XStang9]

Originally Posted by Obama

That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology...

Are the Obama supporters okay with the government having control/access to medical records?

How does this sit with the anti-Bush crowd that doesn't like the "phone snooping"?

[Therian]

Beyond the war in Iraq? The war in Iraq is a monolithic giant compared to any other area where spending could be cut...

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by GT40XStang9

Are the Obama supporters okay with the government having control/access to medical records?

How does this sit with the anti-Bush crowd that doesn't like the "phone snooping"?

The Medical records thing has been coming down the pipeline for a while. I'm fine with them creating some secure national health records database. I am not fine with the government monitoring my communications without a court order.

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by caballo

What say you, Obama supporters?

It is what I thought all along.

Honestly all of y'all scared that the government is going to do some kind of public health care are silly if you think either candidate's plan will make it through congress unchanged.

I'd prefer that they first fix social security before they moved into improving the health care system. It's going to cost a lot for us to cover everyone in the US, at least at first, so considering the current budget and economy I can wait for that.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by Therian

Beyond the war in Iraq? The war in Iraq is a monolithic giant compared to any other area where spending could be cut...

yeah, the old $10 billion a month being spent in iraq. you do realize that about 65-70% of that money would be spent anyway to support the troops? even if there was no war in iraq?

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by rbohm

yeah, the old $10 billion a month being spent in iraq. you do realize that about 65-70% of that money would be spent anyway to support the troops? even if there was no war in iraq?

If we weren't in Iraq the money could be redirected to the VA so that they can better serve the people who put their butts on the line for their country.

[caballo]

Originally Posted by jikelly

If we weren't in Iraq the money could be redirected to the VA so that they can better serve the people who put their butts on the line for their country.

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. Care to restate?

[jikelly]

??

What do you think I said?

I would like to see better care for vets, that means I'd like to see more money going into the VA's budget so that they can provide better care to vets. The people who put their butts on the line for America.

Got me?

[caballo]

Originally Posted by jikelly

??

What do you think I said?

I would like to see better care for vets, that means I'd like to see more money going into the VA's budget so that they can provide better care to vets. The people who put their butts on the line for America.

Got me?

What better care can we provide than to provide care for those defending our country NOW?

You worded it poorly, IMO. I see your point, but I feel it's more important to care for active personnel IF we had to choose.

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by caballo

What better care can we provide than to provide care for those defending our country NOW?

You worded it poorly, IMO. I see your point, but I feel it's more important to care for active personnel IF we had to choose.

I'd like to see better care for both active and nonactive duty military personal. Better equipment, housing, benefits, pay, etc...

And more time away from the fronts.

[caballo]

Originally Posted by jikelly

I'd like to see better care for both active and nonactive duty military personal. Better equipment, housing, benefits, pay, etc...

And more time away from the fronts.

I agree 100%. But forced to choose, I'd choose to care for active personnel first.

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by caballo

I agree 100%. But forced to choose, I'd choose to care for active personnel first.

That's fine, but I'd argue they would be better cared for if we weren't stuck in Iraq.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by jikelly

That's fine, but I'd argue they would be better cared for if we weren't stuck in Iraq.

we are not as stuck in iraq as you might think, 13 of 18 provinces have been returned to iraqi control, and the rest are scheduled to be returned in the next year. and there is the little deal about the agreement that is now being negotiated with the iraqi government that would allow US forces to be drawn down in the next three years to help the iraqs sercure their country for themselves. if youhavent heard this, then you need to start listening to something other then the communist news network.

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by rbohm

we are not as stuck in iraq as you might think, 13 of 18 provinces have been returned to iraqi control, and the rest are scheduled to be returned in the next year. and there is the little deal about the agreement that is now being negotiated with the iraqi government that would allow US forces to be drawn down in the next three years to help the iraqs sercure their country for themselves. if you havent heard this, then you need to start listening to something other then the communist news network.

Aren't we stuck? I mean our current president refuses to set "time tables" for withdrawal. The jist I get from the current admin and from you stangnet hardliners is that the terrorists win if we leave Iraq.

Yes I know about the agreement with the Iraq for future US troop deployments\withdrawals there. I know that Iraq seems to be stalling till the election is over.

[caballo]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Aren't we stuck? I mean our current president refuses to set "time tables" for withdrawal. The jist I get from the current admin and from you stangnet hardliners is that the terrorists win if we leave Iraq.

Yes I know about the agreement with the Iraq for future US troop deployments\withdrawals there. I know that Iraq seems to be stalling till the election is over.

I'm startin' a club!!!!

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Aren't we stuck? I mean our current president refuses to set "time tables" for withdrawal. The jist I get from the current admin and from you stangnet hardliners is that the terrorists win if we leave Iraq.

Yes I know about the agreement with the Iraq for future US troop deployments\withdrawals there. I know that Iraq seems to be stalling till the election is over.

dont forget that the UN authority for the US to be in iraq ends this year on dec 31. and al qeada is already eyeing iraq as being central to the expansion of their organization. why? because unless this agreement goes through, they will be able to walk in and fill a power vacuum that will exist. there are still enough problems in iraq to make that happen fairly easily. and if the agreement is accepted, then there will be a timetable for drawing down US troop levels, and eventually the US military leaving iraq. again dont buy the liberal kool-aide.

[Therian]

Originally Posted by rbohm

yeah, the old $10 billion a month being spent in iraq. you do realize that about 65-70% of that money would be spent anyway to support the troops? even if there was no war in iraq?

Anything to back that up?