Ok, let's talk about Qualifications and Experience

[wingFeather]

Alright Qowner lets level. Your literally as bad as telecom. I did post qualifications and you unilaterally threw them out because you decided they weren't qualifications. Your logic: you know somebody in ND who after going to Harvard and being the editor of the Harvard Law review, worked as a civil rights attorney and local activist in one of the nations largest cities and did all the other things that Obama has done in support of this country. Seriously? Your like Telecoms' evil twin.

Heres the reality, you don't like Obama and thats fine. But what your doing is tyring to bash the guy as subtely as possible. Maybe military service is a qualification to you, to me its not (as I already mentioned I think its unimportant/a negative and the reason is that it affects where your loyalties lie. I'll gladly expand on that elsewhere). Thats the thing, to some extent these are personal choices so if nothign else you don't get to question my choice of qualifications and I don't yours.

I'm done arguing with you because its pointless (something about dragging and experience comes to mind) I'm sure you'll call this a win because im giving up but thats just really going to prove my point that your not interested in people answering your question. I would start a what 'What are McCains qualifications' but you would be snorting fire and brimstone and would miss the joke.

[/me in thread]

The same argument can be used to support a candidate with serious problems, like chronic wife beating.

"Well, you may think that beating a woman is bad, but personally I feel that women are lesser creatures and deserve to be punished. Therefore, all that matters is that this candidate leads the same lifestyle as I do."

[WDRacing]

The same argument can be used to support a candidate with serious problems, like chronic wife beating.

"Well, you may think that beating a woman is bad, but personally I feel that women are lesser creatures and deserve to be punished. Therefore, all that matters is that this candidate leads the same lifestyle as I do."

Hells yeah...smack a b1tch

[WDRacing]

Flat tax usually refers to household income, and possibly corporate profits as well, being taxed at one marginal rate. The problem is with "fairness" in some aspects as this would not necessarily be a progressive tax rate like we have now. Proponents claim that since everybody pays the same rate, it treats everyone equally and thus is fair to everyone. Opponents of the flat tax claim that since the marginal value of income declines with the amount of income (to a poor person, $100 is worth more than to a rich person) then implementing a flat tax is unfair to the poor as they will be paying more money than they currently do.

So, a guy who makes 500k/yr pays 19% flat tax which is $95000 in taxes (has $405k left over). Lower income guy makes 30k/yr pays 19% flat tax which is $5700 (has just over $24k left over). The amount paid by the lower income guy has more impact on his lifestyle than the upper income guy. The current tax system taxes the lower income person less than the upper income guy thus those who oppose flat taxation believes it is more fair to the poor. Of course, the guy making more money does have "loopholes" to lower his overall tax rate due to investments and such which the lower income person does not have. No, there would be no loopholes for the "rich" guy with a flat tax.

So since the "poor" people can have the option of filing the same way they do now and claim deductions, the flat tax rate really only does benefit the rich and powerful. I have no problem with the rich people keeping their money...it's theirs. But it's hardly a tax solution...it is fair, but it doesn't help everyone. It simply helps the rich keep more money. I'd feel better if there were a way we could simply fix the tax issue for everyone rather then a single group.

[audtatious]

So since the "poor" people can have the option of filing the same way they do now and claim deductions, the flat tax rate really only does benefit the rich and powerful. I have no problem with the rich people keeping their money...it's theirs. But it's hardly a tax solution...it is fair, but it doesn't help everyone. It simply helps the rich keep more money. I'd feel better if there were a way we could simply fix the tax issue for everyone rather then a single group.

Flat tax would be imposed on everyone. There would just be a line drawn where anyone making below "X" would not have to pay a flat federal tax rate. At least that's the way I understand it.

[96Qowner]

Alright Qowner lets level.

Oh, brother. OK, so I went through all 93 posts over 2 days and here's what I came up with:

1.) "He went to an Ivy league school thats kind of a De Facto qualification"2.) "He is a fantastic orator"3.) "He has also participated in the several levels of government from the grassroots level on up as opposed to jumping right into a senate role."4.) "-Taught constitutional law"5.) "worked to foster neighborhood development throughout his life.6.) "Worked as a civil rights attorney"7.) "Has lived abroad (especially in a Muslim country). He may have been young but its still the experience.8.) "Is not and Has not been involved with military leadership (rather dubious as a qualification)

Have I missed anything? Step back a minute and ask yourselves if these 8 qualify him to be President. Usually, we expect more ... don't we?

When I say that this election is between McCain and an unqualified guy, how am I incorrect? Would anyone with these qualifications (like my neighbor) be suitable to run for President, or is Obama somehow special?

I apologize for the hurt feelings, guys ... just trying to get people to respond. There's an entire page of posts that have nothing to do with the thread topic. I asserted that Obama fans don;t like to talk about his qualifications. More than one poster seems angry that he's been called to task. That's ok with me as long as y'all acknowledge that you just don't care whether he's qualified or not.

[Encryptshun]

I don't think anyone's feelings are hurt, Q. It's just that without knowing what you consider a qualification for president (as opposed to a qualification for a nextdoor neighbor), it's still a matter of you having veto power over anything the Obama-side can ever list. It's like argumentative Calvin-ball.

[audtatious]

4.) "-Taught constitutional law"

Lectured on constitutional law. Somewhat different than being a professor and teaching.

7.) "Has lived abroad (especially in a Muslim country). He may have been young but its still the experience.

Primarily lived abroad until he was 10. Otherwise his trips were mostly "visits".

[96Qowner]

without knowing what you consider a qualification for president (as opposed to a qualification for a nextdoor neighbor), it's still a matter of you having veto power over anything the Obama-side can ever list. It's like argumentative Calvin-ball.

If I became argumentative, again sorry. Actually, you put your finger on my question:

What do Obama supporters think are qualifications?

So far, we have 8. At least one Obama fan has declared that he doesn't even need those 8 - he just doesn't care. I'm claiming that Obama fans don't care about qualifications, because, as near as I can tell, they have deep trouble identifying any (many).

[rn79870]

96. Remember, this is relative. What do Obama supporters think are his qualifications OVER McCain, is a far better question. Admittedly we have but 2 choices, so it's only fair to compare the two of them. You're looking for Mr. Pefect and you'll never find him in a 2 party system.

To the list I add that Obama has not been part of an administration that has failed the American people for the last 8 years. He brings none of the baggage, nor any of the skeletons that come from familiarity with the failed administration. He severs the ties of failure that have held America away from world respect and allow us to be a positive influence on the international community. McCain carries the stigma of the failed administration for a reason, he's part of it.

[Encryptshun]

^ Bob,

So is that one qualification or several? i.e.

"Qualification = I add that Obama has not been part of an administration that has failed the American people for the last 8 years. He brings none of the baggage, nor any of the skeletons that come from familiarity with the failed administration. He severs the ties of failure that have held America away from world respect and allow us to be a positive influence on the international community. McCain carries the stigma of the failed administration for a reason, he's part of it."

or

1) Not a part of the current administration

2) Has none of the baggage

3) Has none of the skeletons

4) Will sever the ties of failure

[96Qowner]

When I ask Obama supporters for his qualifications, they never give them to me. Instead, they ask questions, as if they didn't understand me. Like you, they just don't want to try to answer. Like you, they'll try to change the subject. Like you, they'll talk about anyone BUT Obama. Here we are, almost 100 posts later, and you're still trying to change the subject.

I think it must be because they agree that he's unqualified in the traditional sense of what it means to be qualified, and very defensive about it. There was never any reason to argue. The question was, "what are his qualifications?" Unfortunately, you've now listed what he isn't instead of what he is.

Can you add to the 8? If you really think he's more qualified than the list gives him credit for, then by all means list more qualifications for the Presidency of the United States of America.

It's a simple question. What does Obama know about running the Federal government? Who has worked beside him for decades? What has he accomplished in past jobs? You can't just leave that part of the job application blank. Can you? Who would hire a guy that did that?

[audtatious]

Who would hire a guy that did that?

These people

and these people



and these people

and this chic

and even the person who did this

[Encryptshun]

1.) "He went to an Ivy league school thats kind of a De Facto qualification"2.) "He is a fantastic orator"3.) "He has also participated in the several levels of government from the grassroots level on up as opposed to jumping right into a senate role."4.) "-Taught constitutional law"5.) "worked to foster neighborhood development throughout his life.6.) "Worked as a civil rights attorney"7.) "Has lived abroad (especially in a Muslim country). He may have been young but its still the experience.8.) "Is not and Has not been involved with military leadership

Per Bob's post, add:

9.) As a member of the current administrations opposition, less likely to be prejudiced by the international community

[mtcookson]

To the list I add that Obama has not been part of an administration that has failed the American people for the last 8 years. He brings none of the baggage, nor any of the skeletons that come from familiarity with the failed administration. He severs the ties of failure that have held America away from world respect and allow us to be a positive influence on the international community. McCain carries the stigma of the failed administration for a reason, he's part of it.

Making it sound like Obama's party has never failed America. I seem to recall his party being the one letting the captured bin Laden go... likely helping to fuel the whole mess we're in now.

[C-Kwik]

Indeed, in the above example, his tax payment $ is MORE than the taxable income of the other person. Why is this considered unfair? The benefit received by that more than 10X payment is not 10X - frankly, the ROI is horrible.

Few people who attempt to live off 20K of taxable income per year would complain about being able to afford to pay 3.5 times that in taxes while still having 9 times that to actually live off of. I'd venture to guess that if a person who made $250K/year were suddenly put into a situation where he could only muster up $20K per year of income for the rest of their life, he would likely change their outlook on taxes.

I'd agree, the ROI is horrible on an individual basis. And frankly, if we don't change how the government uses the taxes, we probably won't see the benefits I speak of.

Um, no. Not accurate. Please don't assume that the large corporations CEO salaries are the norm for all businesses. In fact, the average small to mid-size businesses, whose totals far outnumber the large corporations, have CEO salaries that are less than that by a lot.

So, the average is lower than you might think. This is an example of the Media hype - where using a few examples are used ot imply that all CEO's are extremely wealthy and super-rich people.

My fault for not being more specific. But I do believe you understand who I was referring to. But just so that we're clear, I'll define it as broadly as large corporations.

Keep in mind, I don't look down on CEO's for making so much money. What I look down on is that corporations will pay a huge base salary, plus benefits and perks while the company is losing money. Furthermore, when it becomes real bad, it is generally the people on the lower end of the pay scale getting the boot first or at least bearing the brunt of the problems.

I could propbably go on, but it would be getting way off this topic...

[C-Kwik]

When I ask Obama supporters for his qualifications, they never give them to me. Instead, they ask questions, as if they didn't understand me. Like you, they just don't want to try to answer. Like you, they'll try to change the subject. Like you, they'll talk about anyone BUT Obama. Here we are, almost 100 posts later, and you're still trying to change the subject.

From my observations, its a two-way street we are on. You've been asked what you define as qualifications for President and have essentially avoided the question. Those you are asking for Obama's qualifications have answered your question. Perhaps not to your liking or satisfaction, but they have answered. So who is really avoiding the questions? If you're quest is for a good discussion and answers, then you might share with us what matters most to you. Then perhaps those you ask the questions to can be more specific about the qualifications you want to hear about most.

[96Qowner]

When I ask Obama supporters for his qualifications, they never give them to me. Instead, they ask questions, as if they didn't understand me.

Sorry, but I really can't understand what is SO DIFFICULT about the question.

There is no need to argue over them. Obama supporters have been able to list all the experience and qualifications they think he has.

If you want to know what McCain supporters think are legitimate qualifications, you should start a thread with that topic in the title. This thread never had anything to do with McCain or Nader or Barr or Bush. It's about what Obama supporters think are the necessary qualifications for the job.

Have we finished the list? That's ... all there is? Now's your chance to avoid looking foolish when people ask in the future.

Or you could ask questions, change the subject, or talk about someone else.

[rn79870]

The ironic thing is that you have been fed the qualifications, including ones not listed in the list,(educational, etc.) for three pages now, and yet you persisted in ignoring them for much of. As I understand it, you feel McCain's military record (pro war) and his senate service (however negative that may be) are sufficient qualifications for the presidency. I think we proven otherwise in our successful rebuttal of your "experience" argument. Thanks for the discussion. Hopefully we've provided enough for you to think about as you evaluate the two candidates and make the correct decision.

[C-Kwik]

Below are two things you've posted early in this thread. This was after most of the list you reiterated was posted. And you can't tell me these 2 posts do not dismiss the qualifications that were provided to you.

I assume no such thing. I'm just asking if ANY Obama supporters can actually list ANY qualifications. I was hoping for something more meaningful than he's smart or educated or talks pretty, or worked as an organizer in the Chicago black community until he could start running for political office. Whether Obama is qualified has nothing to do with any opponent.

Well, if that's all you can come up with, he IS unqualified. You described a rather ordinary American citizen. A guy with all of those qualifications lives on my block in my modest neighborhood in Fargo, ND. No way should he be President. He wouldn't have a clue.

And so we're clear here, you acknowledged a response from the Obama guys here:

Oh, brother. OK, so I went through all 93 posts over 2 days and here's what I came up with:

1.) "He went to an Ivy league school thats kind of a De Facto qualification"2.) "He is a fantastic orator"3.) "He has also participated in the several levels of government from the grassroots level on up as opposed to jumping right into a senate role."4.) "-Taught constitutional law"5.) "worked to foster neighborhood development throughout his life.6.) "Worked as a civil rights attorney"7.) "Has lived abroad (especially in a Muslim country). He may have been young but its still the experience.8.) "Is not and Has not been involved with military leadership (rather dubious as a qualification)

Have I missed anything? Step back a minute and ask yourselves if these 8 qualify him to be President. Usually, we expect more ... don't we?

When I say that this election is between McCain and an unqualified guy, how am I incorrect? Would anyone with these qualifications (like my neighbor) be suitable to run for President, or is Obama somehow special?

I apologize for the hurt feelings, guys ... just trying to get people to respond. There's an entire page of posts that have nothing to do with the thread topic. I asserted that Obama fans don;t like to talk about his qualifications. More than one poster seems angry that he's been called to task. That's ok with me as long as y'all acknowledge that you just don't care whether he's qualified or not.

And you've again dismissed it. Which is fine. But don't expect others to jump on your bandwagon as a result. Dismissing it without reasoning lowers your credibility here. But if you want to address the qualifications that you are judging this on, then you need to come forth with your metrics. Give Obama supporters a chance to prove you wrong. If you have a strong case, you needn't worry about what the responses will be. In fact, so long as you provide reasonable metrics (Being old and white would not be one of them for example ), it would further strengthen your arguments. Your position is not much different than pleading the fifth. Its a strategy that might work when working with a standard of proof that is beyond a reasonable doubt, but not enough to hold water to a preponderance of evidence.

Sorry, but I really can't understand what is SO DIFFICULT about the question.

Again the same applies to you. It's hypocritical to ask this and not consider that you've also been asked a simple question to help further this discussion.

Like Encryptshun, I stand undecided. I'd like to see a more meaningful discussion here. So don't take this as questioning your motive. Some of us actually want to learn something here.

Ugh. To retype every single issue on every single Obama thread... no thanks.

That last paragraph applies to you too...

[96Qowner]

My metric is that he should be more qualified than my neighbor.

Does that make any sense to you?

[telcoman]

This needs its own thread.

I've been asking Obama supporters about his qualifications and experience, here and on other forums. The vast majority of them know virtually nothing about Obama. Their responses typically fall into a few categories.

1.) Bush was an awful President and he was supposedly qualified.

2.) McCain is old.

In the end, 3.) they declare that experience and qualifications aren't necessary for a President.

So, let's see if anyone actually thinks he's qualified. Here are the rules:

!.) Bush isn't running so lets not talk about him. Saying Obama won't be any worse than Bush is not an argument for Obama's qualifications.

2.) Saying McCain is old isn't an argument for Obama's qualifications

3.) If you think the next President should be unqualified, save us all some time and just say so.

Otherwise, I'd love to hear Obama's qualifications for the job. I'd love to hear just what Obama supporters are thinking. Keep in mind that being over 35, a non-felon, and breathing are eligibility requirements, not qualifications.

Well here is why Obama should be our next president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

It's a long read and probably not going to change the minds of some of those here because they believe this country is in fine shape now and want four more years of the present mess we are in that eight years of Bush republicians have given us.Keep in mind that McCain is half dead already and has already admitted he has no understanding of economic issues. His Dr Phil flunky economic advisor claims most Americans are winers.Under an Obama presidency things can only get better. It is doubtful he could do worse and McCain whould just prolong the mess we have now.

Telcoman

[smockers83]

I've been kinda sitting back on this thread. As an observer I'd like to point out a few things. The terms qualifications and experience are being used interchangeably. Qualifications does not equal experience. The qualifications for president are cut in stone by the Constitution. What everyone is debating as qualifications is experience. Any job has certain qualifications that must be met (education, other jobs as prerequisites to advance, etc) along with experiences that are looked for. Everyone has different experiences and each experience can bring something different to the table.

The #1 problem - the economy. Who is better at addressing that, McCain with all his military/military committee experience, or Obama with the education/experience he has. Finance is a subject McCain has little or no experience in.

Issue #2. Peace in the middle east. Tell me how McCain has the skills necessary to address that problem. He doesn't. He lacks a moderate approach to the issues involved. At least Obama is open to sitting down and listening to the parties. That's a good start in my opinion.

Issue #3. Iraq, and bringing US troops home. McCain's military experience may well lead us down the path that has failed thus far. Obama has said the right things in this regard.

Issue #4. Energy. Obama far exceeds McCain here. McCain is basically clueless. Summer tax holiday as a means to resolve the fuel issues facing the country. That's a joke. Obama isn't perfect here either, but he at least has an idea that there is a problem greater than the mere price of a gallon of gas.

Issue #5. Health care. McCain's plan is ridiculous. Obama's isn't terrific, but it's viable.

Issue #6 Social Security. McCain's allowing individuals to choose their investment for retirement is ridiculous. 70% of the American population can't save a dime, let alone save for their retirement. FAIL. Obama wants to raise SS taxes on $250k plus incomes. I'm good with that.

As you said, these are opinions on the man, not qualifications. But I will take issue with them.

#1 One can be educated and not know much about economics and the economy and business. Someone said McCain serves on the Senate Commerce Committee. Obama wants to impose higher taxes, however he's been smart to say that he would wait to see how the economy does. Imposing higher taxes would hinder economic recovery. Reading some of the things on both, both don't seem to have a great grasp on economics/finance, however both have some great economic advisers. There was a great article on their economic plans in the latest Fortune, but I don't have it with me to review for this.

#2 Obama wanting to sit down and talk, that can get a little spooky if not done correctly. I agree its a good goal, but to just say I want to talk after you've test-fired missiles..I'd be kinda uneasy. Military experience does not equate to no diplomacy. McCain knows what war is--he went thru Vietnam, in which the Iraq war has been equated to. Also, military commitment doesn't mean fighting and no peace.

#3 This kinda runs in from #2. Bringing troops home as Obama wants to does put pressure on Iraq to take responsibility, which it needs to. However, this is something that should be hasted over. It should be done delicately and with patience, it cannot be rushed. Things are getting better in Iraq. How do I know? Because I don't constantly hear about it on the news...as the saying goes, (and rightly applied to this war and the media's coverage of it) "no news is good news." Also because Iraq is starting to get involved in regional talks and restructuring ties, something they couldn't do earlier.

#4 Agreed that the gas tax is a joke. I think McCain got on that because of Hillary (just a guess). If we just combined the two on energy, we'd be almost perfect.

#5 Not brushed up on them on this issue, so no comment.

#6 What you state is the very problem with Social Security today--it is not meant as a retirement fund. That's why people don't save for it. So the problem with it is getting away from that thought process. One of the best ways to invest long run is an index fund. If we force people to start investing and saving, then we'll finally get away from this notion of SS as a retirement fund. Then we won't have problems with people in retirement struggling. Retirement should be saved for in our own accounts, why should other people pay for others' "retirement."

[C-Kwik]

My metric is that he should be more qualified than my neighbor.

Does that make any sense to you?

Nope. I don't know your neighbor. Nor do I know what traits of your neighbor you are going by...

[smockers83]

To add, I think this is one of the first times (in this forum) that I've seen someone blame Clinton for something...which no one has answered my question to in another thread. Also, people are a bunch of whiners when it comes to the economy. Sure it sucks but only in certain areas and some of the biggest areas--gas and food (and housing for those who were either dumb or unlucky and got caught in the mess). Other than that though, we really aren't in a recession, although many like to believe we are because of the media-fueled perception. Higher prices does not equate to a recession, especially when they're only in certain markets. GDP has yet to stop growing or barely growing (to me that's a major factor of deciding an actual recession), unemployment, although a trailing statistic, hasn't really been affected. Not many people have actually lost jobs, the recent increase in unemployment is students. Also, what the whining comment shows is evidence of the dual economy in the US. Obviously richer people can say people are whining while the poorer people are actually struggling.

[telcoman]

.

#6 What you state is the very problem with Social Security today--it is not meant as a retirement fund. That's why people don't save for it. So the problem with it is getting away from that thought process. One of the best ways to invest long run is an index fund. If we force people to start investing and saving, then we'll finally get away from this notion of SS as a retirement fund. Then we won't have problems with people in retirement struggling. Retirement should be saved for in our own accounts, why should other people pay for others' "retirement."

Social Security is much more than a retirement fund. SSI is also part of it. A sudden OJB accident by the main breadwinner will provide living expenses for a non working spouse and children. It was always designed that the current workforce will pay for current retirees. SS retirement along with pension, 401k, and other investments should be a goal of Americans to fund their golden years. Many don't realize that their retirement years could be longer than the years in the workforce. McCain stating that current workers paying for current retirees is stupid is not going to help him. It just shows his lack of understanding of the issue.Inceasing the SS tax on income over its present $102k makes much more sense to save the system.

Telcoman

[rn79870]

I'm not sure it is an increased tax as much as it is the removal of the cap on income subject to SS withholding. Maybe there is an accountant who understands this and can explain it. Regardless, perhaps the McCain supporters can explain why are they are debating pennies when the country is spending $100 a day, per family, supporting the war? That's over $3000 a month per family. That would go a long way to fix the SS system and many other things wouldn't it?

[WDRacing]

The McCain supporters don't have to explain anything about the Iraq War Bob...McCain wasn't the President for the last...well man if I look back it appears that he hasn't ever been the Commander In Chief. So it seems to me that it's just a tad unjust to poke a man in the eye that wasn't steering the ship in it's current direction...or is that just me?

The war will be drawn down as it is coming to a point where the Iraqi Gov is able to take back control of their country. The surge DID work and troop withdrawal is being called for by the Commanding General. But then again none of this is new news.

So maybe we can throw stones at McCain on a topic that he actually has a part in? Since he hasn't been a part of the war, or had his budget plan for SS put in place...

Lets look at where money could have been better spent on the people. The DEA and the war on drugs...Billions wasted. Nasa...nuff said. Congressional Ear Marks...we could go on for days about what money was spent where and how everyone would be happier if it was in their pocket. But guess what...it's already spent. So the future is what matters...cause the past is exactly that.