CLINTON HITS IT OUT OF THE PARK State, National, International, posted by Domo Dan, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 5, 2012 at 11:52 pm
In the old fashion method of speech giving, that is, let me speak with a drawl and explain complex issues clearly, Bill Clinton seems to have nailed the re-election for Obama. Yes, he made it very clear that the best recovery strategy was based on Arithmetic, and that the fight was between the middle class against the rich. He also made the distinction between cooperation and individual gain. There is no doubt that the democrats are in the corner for bringing the fringe population (middle class, immigrants, poor, the young and the old) into the political circle.
The Republicans have a Vice President that's in charge of a Presidential race, speaking with grace, but fibbing on facts while everyone was watching. A true Sarah Palin moment if I ever saw one. Paul Ryan may have lost the election with those little white lies (I ran the marathon in under 3 hours ... no you didn't replied HIS BROTHER).
Everyone has chosen sides, name calling no longer has the bite it did four years ago (Obama is a demon, socialist, insert your favorite hate word). No one is listening anymore. In fact, people that are doing that now (Chuck Norris for example) sound like lunatics.
The democrats have their share of loons. The woman holding up her medicare card with tubes flowing from her nose. My gosh, that is what the repubs are talking about ... people taking advantage of the system and costing everyone way too much money.
The fact is, that the only time in the last 50 years that the US has realized a balanced budget was under Bill Clinton ... no ands if's or butt's. But, who wants a bunch of poor people standing in line for free government money?
This may not be the exciting election we experienced four years ago, but it is one where the lines are clearly drawn. May the best tribe win.
Please reserve your comments to the issues and not calling me a bunch of names. Remember, that tactic has become passe.
Posted by Another independent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 7:23 am
It is amazing how one-sided everyone is these days when they paint history - both Democrats and Republicans.
Clinton saved the world on his own? The Republican Congress who actually controls spending gets no credit? Bush Senior who set the stage gets no credit?
And please let's forget the Clinton rolled back the Glass Steagall act on his watch - which later became one of the major elements of our most recent financial crisis.
You undermine your credibility as a poster when you present such a one-sided revisionist picture of history.
Like the previous poster intimated, I'm not about to vote for Obama simply because Clinton gave a great speech.
The fundamental choice/question here is do we want a socialist or capitalist path for this country. I don't like the current end-state of many socialist countries and I appreciate that American capitalism has raised all boats.
I'll vote for the guy who I think will best get us back on track.
Posted by Billy Jeff, a resident of the Jensen Tract neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 7:43 am
AI, you are correct. To be more precise, Clinton moved in whichever way the winds...or polls...blew him. The prosperity we enjoyed during that time was more a result of the dreaded "Contract With America" and coffers flush with funds from the tech boom. NO politician was responsible for the tech boom. That was Capitalism at work. Yes, some people become incredibly wealthy but it lifts everyone else with it.
Oh, and DD, glad to see you and Clinton are still promoting class warfare. Real classy.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 8:45 am
I do not like the Romney/Ryan ticket because their views on social issues are not good, but I do not like the lies coming from both parties.
As I watched Clinton's speech, I kept thinking: did he forget how his policies played a role in the 2008 housing crisis? His policies took a while to cause damage but eventually they did. The 2008 mess was thanks to both parties, and Clinton's policies in his second term contributed to that mess (policies that he proposed and were passed in 1999, on his way out of office, right before Bush took office).
And what Clinton said about the healthcare Obama passed: did Clinton forget that most of the provisions have not even gone into effect?
And then there is Michelle Obama's speech: struggle? Did she forget that her husband went to a very prestigious private high school in Hawaii? He may not have been wealthy but he was not poor, definitely not the way Michelle talked about it. The president's mom had a phD and made good money, his grandmother worked and had a good income too. He was raised by white people (first his mom and then his grandparents), had a middle class, not a poor, childhood.
This is such an awful election, but as upset as I am with the democrats, I hope Obama wins in November.
Romney/Ryan do not have good solutions (financial) either, and they have promised to implement policies that would set women's rights back.
The GOP should have easily won this election, given Obama's performance so far, and yet they are struggling because they cannot get independents and women completely on board.
Posted by Karen, a resident of another community, on Sep 6, 2012 at 8:51 am
President Clinton did a fantastic speech and told it like it is...and like Presidnet Clinton said it takes longer than 4 years to clean up the mess that was started before he took office. There are jobs out there,but you need to apply to get one of them, and the health care is helping so many. This great country needs to come together.....
Posted by well, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 9:05 am
I thought it was an excellent speech. Probably the best of either convention. I voted for Clinton and Obama in the past.
This time I am voting for Romney. Last time I believed Obama when he said he would reduce the deficit and go through the budget "line by line", he doubled it instead and I don't agree with his spending priorities and focus on public sector rather than private sector growth.
I thought Obama was middle of the road politically, he became very far left when in office. I don't like the class warfare and the war on business. I don't trust that he will stay / move to the middle this time around so cannot vote for him.
Agree with many of resident's points except his / her conclusion. However, I'm much more concerned with the economic issues than the social ones. It pretty easy to say that you "saved" the economy when you've spent however many trillion doing it. It has to be paid back though and this is what is being ignored.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 9:14 am
"President Clinton did a fantastic speech and told it like it is...and like Presidnet Clinton said it takes longer than 4 years to clean up the mess that was started before he took office."
A mess that Clinton helped create. Yes, republicans under Bush did a lot of damage, but Clinton's policies (like the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act) played a role in the financial meltdown we saw in 2008.
"the health care is helping so many"
How? The major provisions (that save money) have not gone into effect yet!
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Pleasanton Valley neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 9:15 am
If he's the best they can run out there, they're in big trouble. I've never been able to understand why this man is so revered after all the womanizing he did. And the lies he stood up there and told last night? My,my.I find it interesting that Obama has kept Hillary in Asia during the convention.
Posted by Walter, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 9:35 am
Though disgusted by Bush, I voted for McCain last time as I really thought Obama was untested and too raw for the job. But I was impressed with Clinton's speech last night. We were spiraling out of control when Obama came into office and he stopped the tailspin and probably saved the nation by so doing. I was against universal health care when Nixon wanted it, and I was against Obamacare when it was Romneycare in Massachusetts. But I now support Obamacare. Saving lives and preserving health are good things. People will remain productive and won't suffer the grinding anxiety when faced with insurance companies that wouldn't insure 'preexisting conditions'. Also, the ACA will produce more jobs in the health industry. I'd rather see more nurses and doctors than generals. Finally, I find Romney's attempt to run from his own health care policies he instituted in Mass to be a very pathetic thing. I will, for the first time, be helping to re-elect a Democrat to the office of presidency. Like Lincoln, one of our finest presidents has been busy saving the nation while others have attempted to tear our nation apart.
Posted by Independent Voter, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 9:54 am
Resident experesses my views. I'm not particularly an Obama fan, but I fear the "devil I don't know" in Romney/Ryan more than the "devil I do know". I voted McCain in the last election, I'm a middle class woman - and the Republicans have totally alianated me this time around! I lived in a 'socialized' country for 15 years - and agree that the worst thing for America is for it to become like that. Worst of all our politics have become so entrenched in "their side" with neither side willing to compromise (some taxes & some spending cuts for example).
Posted by Dude, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 10:17 am
Fact Check should be interesting. Clinton was Clinton... it depends on what the meaning of is is.
Foe example, 4.5 million new jobs, but over that same timeframe we lost 4.2 million jobs resulting in net new jobs of only 300,000. He left out the lost jobs.
+4,500,000 new jobs
-4,200,000 jobs lost
=300,000 jobs gained. Clinton's speech is full of this kind of arithmetic.
Clinton had a Republican controlled Congress. In January 2007, Bush had a Democrat Controlled Congress
At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH
Remember the day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress.
So when someone tries to blame Bush. REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Sep 6, 2012 at 10:27 am jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
best recovery strategy was based on Arithmetic... fact is, that the only time in the last 50 years that the US has realized a balanced budget was under Bill Clinton
Let's address that - Bill Clinton's arithmetic was, as WSO stated, a foul ball. Strike 1 was 4.5 million new jobs claim
Strike 2 is $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade. Let's be generous, and forget that any debt reduction is just to pay back over $5trillion in new debt in less than 4 years.
The repeated claim that Obama’s budget reduces the deficit by $4 trillion is simply not accurate.
By the administration’s math, you have nearly $3.8 trillion in spending cuts, compared to $1.5 trillion in tax increases (letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income Americans). Presto, $1 of tax increases for every $2.50 of spending cuts.
But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting. The $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank.
Moreover, the administration is also counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end.
In other words, by projecting war spending far in the future, the administration is able to claim credit for saving money it never intended to spend. (Imagine taking credit for saving money on buying a new car every year, even though you intended to keep your car for 10 years.)
Rather than good arithmetic, independent budget analysts called the maneuver 'a major budget gimmick.'
Posted by Clown Convention, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 10:34 am
Clinton hits it out of the park??? Ya, right. B. J. Clinton is a good speachmaker, but he was doing a lie a minute. OMG, just how stupid can people get? Clinton is and was a chronic liar, with the morals of a junkyard dog, that should have been impeached. I think it's a riot how the lefty loons idolize him.
BTW, looking out at the audience at the DNC looked like a clown convention. This is the group of loons that took any reference to God out of their platform. Quite revealing. Of course, that got vetoed (in a very undemocratic manner) by the head loons when they realized that would have been a KO punch to Obama's re-election chances.
Then John Burton, California Democrat's lunatic-in-chief, likening Republicans to the Nazi Propaganda Chief was the icing on the cake. Not unlike California's famously loony Gov. Moonbeam Brown, when he called Meg Whitman (the current CEO of Hewlett Packard) a Nazi.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Sep 6, 2012 at 10:39 am jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Strike 3 was a BIG swing and a miss, Bill Clinton's wonderful balanced budget.
In more ways than one, Clinton era policies set the American economy on bad course. A large income tax increase on high earners helped to make the books look good. Changing accounting methods to show Social Security revenues made it look even better. The dot-com bubble was the icing on that cake.
But we were headed for a fall. When the writing was on the wall, the push for Freddie and Fannie to relax the criteria for home loans to extend that bubble was just going to make that fall bigger
The set the government promotes to the public has a healthier bottom line: a $318 billion deficit in 2005.
The set the government doesn't talk about is the audited financial statement produced by the government's accountants following standard accounting rules. It reports a more ominous financial picture: a $760 billion deficit for 2005. If Social Security and Medicare were included — as the board that sets accounting rules is considering — the federal deficit would have been $3.5 trillion.
Congress has written its own accounting rules — which would be illegal for a corporation to use because they ignore important costs such as the growing expense of retirement benefits for civil servants and military personnel.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Sep 6, 2012 at 10:47 am jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Of course, what we know right now, with the election two months out and the economy in a very WEAK recovery, the Obama administration plans an even BIGGER tax increase on high earners. A tax increase during the Clinton admin bubble economy was one thing, but this is quite another.
Yes, if reviving that good feeling from the Clinton era is the answer to fix Obama's failed policies, I think we are headed for a losing season. Time to fire the manager.
Posted by Old Guy, a resident of the Willow West neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 11:23 am
I've lost a lot of faith in the American voter over the last many years. However it is encouraging to read that so many of you who refuse to fall victim to the likes of Bill Clinton. He was a very marginal president at best, however his personal conduct defines his legacy. How the DNC and its membership allowed him to represent their cause is questionable and possibly revealing at the same time. The lame effort to sanitize his past personal conduct and allow him to rise to the position of keynote speaker at the Democratic convention has apparently not slipped by many of you. Good for you all but as I watched the convention crowd it was apparent many attendees continue to be blinded by the effort to provide a positive place in history that he does not deserve. Equally unsettling was watching our president come to the stage and publically embrace a man who brought such shame to the presidency. This moment is not so much about policies and platforms but a about basic moral values.
Posted by Dave Husted, a resident of the Valley Trails neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 11:36 am
Where is George W. Bush in this equation? I'm another Republican who was sorely repulsed by eight years of Bush's administration. Lied us into the invasion and war with Iraq; presided over the 9-11 attack which would have been stopped by a vigilant administration; couldn't find Osama bin Laden if his life depended on it (he let him escape Bora Bora); helped create one of the longest and deepest recessions in American history while Wall Streeters were wildly slapping him on the back; showed a cavalier disregard for the rights of US citizens. As a Republican, I refused to vote in the last election. McCain offered no alternative to Bush's incompetence, as far as I was concerned.
This year I'm prepared to vote for Barack Obama. He positioned himself against the insane and the incompetent and he has conducted himself surprisingly well while in office. Romney, on the other hand, is offering four more years of Bush, who he has refused to criticize. Same cast of characters. What is the difference between the two? Both weak men who capitulated to the extremists in their party, Bush bowing to Cheney, McCain to Palin, and now Romney with Ryan, who is nothing more than Palin with a calculator.
Whatever happened to wise and pragmatic Republicans like Romney's old man? They've gone over to the Democratic side of the aisle if you ask me. Another former Republican voting for Barack Obama.
Posted by good for something, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 11:39 am
Okay! This is the BEST thread I've read in the general election arena EVER. Honestly, the level of deep understanding on both sides, and the lack of name calling (okay a little but well deserved name calling. Now, this is what I call a Town Forum. Good job folks. Now let me get back and read more of your comments. Keep punching guys, I may learn something yet.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 11:45 am
Old Guy said: "He was a very marginal president at best, however his personal conduct defines his legacy. How the DNC and its membership allowed him to represent their cause is questionable and possibly revealing at the same time. The lame effort to sanitize his past personal conduct and allow him to rise to the position of keynote speaker at the Democratic convention has apparently not slipped by many of you."
I agree with you that Clinton's personal conduct was often times not stellar. But I disagree with your view that he was a "marginal" President. He was definitely an above-average President. Personal conduct and Presidential performance have to be sometimes judged separately. As another example, Jimmy Carter's personal conduct was stellar, but despite that he was a "marginal" President.
So who would you rather have? Someone with saint-like personal conduct, or someone who is a superior President? For President, I would rather have Clinton. However, I think that Jimmy Carter is outstanding as a statesman and diplomat in his highly prestigious role as an American ex-President, and that that is largely due to his impeccable personal conduct.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 11:56 am
I'm always baffled by comments that criticize Obama for not fully healing the economy in the four years since he took office in 2008. What we had back in 2008 was no ordinary recession - it was the worst economic melt-down since the Great Depression, with banks collapsing, stocks in free-fall, and people wondering whether the whole economic system was going to collapse. I remember even the staid, cool Warren Buffett expressing anxiety about what was happening because he had never before seen anything like it in his long life.
If we are going to criticize Obama for not bringing the economy back to full health in the four years since that melt-down, then wouldn't it also be fair to criticize the previous Presidential administration for getting us into the economic melt-down mess in the first place? So now the same political party whose President was in office when the melt-down occurred is criticizing the current President for not cleaning up the mess that they made fast enough? Bizarre.
Posted by Another independent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Sam - I'm definitely not a fan of Bush, hence one of the reasons I voted for Obama last time.
But it is too simplistic to blame the financial crisis on one Presidency just like it is too simplistic to expect Obama to dig out of the mess in one term.
I highly recommend "All the Devils are Here" to give you a more complete view of how the crisis started. I put the Fed at the top of my list for those to blame, but they are not alone.
I am NOT voting for Obama this time because I've come to realize these past 3.5 years that he is way to far left for me and fundamentally doesn't understand or appreciate the power of markets and how capitalism helped created our great nation.
I suspect Obama's "you didn't build that slip up", while an honest mistake taken out of context, belies more of his fundamental beliefs. Given the current grind down of the socialist Europe, I continue to be surprised how many people including the President continue to ride that horse.
Posted by Old Guy, a resident of the Willow West neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Well Sam I know it is the intent of many to do just as you suggest. Separate personal conduct and presendential peformance or commonly known as sanitizing a persons background. If not he wouldn't have been allowed to occupy such an esteemed postion last night at the convention. We could debate Bill Clintons performance in regards to his success or non success in policy making and moving the country forward and I'm sure we would still disagree. However you can not separate his personal conduct from the presidency. He was the most public figure in the world at that time and he brought shame to the office. I'm not saying we should cast him away to a dark and cold place but allowing him to rise to such a postion of high esteem is just plain wrong.
Posted by Another independent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 12:36 pm
I have a lot of respect for what Clinton did as a President. His personal conduct left much to be desired.
This American trait of overlooking a person's sins as long as they are on the same side as you permeates our society and is prevalent with both Republicans and Democrats. Unfortunately, it is common trait.
This is why we end up with situations like the Pen State/Sandusky situation where many people around including Paterno looked the other way.
As long as you are "bringing home the bacon", people will forgive you for your other moral short comings.
I will give credit to Obama that he is a fundamentally good person. He just has a view of the world/US that I don't share.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Old Guy said: "Well Sam I know it is the intent of many to do just as you suggest. Separate personal conduct and presendential peformance or commonly known as sanitizing a persons background. If not he wouldn't have been allowed to occupy such an esteemed postion last night at the convention. .. I'm not saying we should cast him away to a dark and cold place but allowing him to rise to such a postion of high esteem is just plain wrong."
Well, I guess I have a different view of what makes a good national leader than you do, Old Guy. I take it for granted that any good or great national leader has a bit of a scoundrel in him, so I'm not too disappointed when it's discovered that the guy is no saint. For example, I think that in many respects Richard Nixon was a great national leader (something that, no doubt, many of my liberal colleagues would disagree with me on). I think that King Edward I of England (the king played by Patrick McGowan in "Braveheart") was a great leader. Great national leaders are exceptional individuals and, more often than not, not "nice guys".
As for Clinton, he was a bit of a scoundrel and (even worse in my eyes) exhibited poor judgement in the Monica L. case. But despite some personal failings and character flaws he did a lot of good for the country and, IMHO, performed better during his years than George H.W. Bush, Sr., or another Republican President would probably have done. So I'm giving Clinton a bit of a pass on his personal failings.
If you want a "nice guy" or a drinking buddy for President, then vote based on personal conduct. If you want a leader, ignore the "nice guy" qualities. Look instead for smarts, character, and the ability to go toe-to-toe and eyeball-to-eyeball against the toughest leaders that the rest of the world has to offer. Obama has those characteristics, but I'm not sure if Romney does.
Posted by steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Sam, you previously mentioned that obama is being criticized for not 'fully healing' the economy during his one term. Although many have possibly worded their criticisms poorly, it's more appropriate and factually correct to assert that he did not keep his 2008 campaign promises of lowering the unemployment rate to 8% or lower, balancing the budget and lowering the deficit. Those are just 3 of his broken promises, all related directly to expectations he set to heal the economy.
I'm not surprised he underestimated his ability to deliver since he understands little to nothing about the economy, the private sector, capitalism (which he apparently loathes), or holding a job outside of govt.
For these reasons it's fair criticizing obama and any deflection to previous administrations is just a smoke screen for the current failed administration.
Posted by Dude, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Recommend you see 2106, Obama's America. Does not matter Liberal of Conservative, you are wrong with what you think he is doing and why. In his world view even the poor in America are rich on world standards. He is using "Debt" as the weapon of mass destruction.
Posted by Another independent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Neither the Republicans nor Democrats can be proud of what they've done regarding debt management. So I don't believe Obama is alone with regards to being irresponsible on this front.
If you ever wonder why the rich continue to get richer under this environment and the poor get poorer, make sure you view Marc Faber's video on Zero Hedge. The Fed can print money in order to buy the Government's debt essentially deflating the dollar and creating inflation.
But what they can't do is direct where that new money goes. Inflation comes in many forms and the rich can take advantage of the "good inflation" in securities while the poors' income generally doesn't keep up with the "bad inflation" of food and energy. So in the end, most peoples' standard of living declines while that of the rich increases. Just like what has been happening and accelerating these past 10+ years.
Regardless of this, I'm still voting for Romney as I believe he will take a market-oriented approach so solving problems.
Posted by Dave Husted, a resident of the Valley Trails neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Boy, is it me, or do others think that there's one poster out there who's moving from one computer to the next, to the next, to the next? A remarkable uniformity of viewpoint (and writing style). Very dedicated person, by the looks of it. And perhaps very bored with his/her life as well.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Steve said: "Although many have possibly worded their criticisms poorly, it's more appropriate and factually correct to assert that he did not keep his 2008 campaign promises of lowering the unemployment rate to 8% or lower, balancing the budget and lowering the deficit. Those are just 3 of his broken promises, all related directly to expectations he set to heal the economy."
In 2008 in the midst of the greatest economic melt-down that this country has seen since the Great Depression, Obama promised to balance the budget??? (within 4 years, I presume?). Really? Wow, that IS a pretty bold promise. Can you please provide a link to a reputable mainstream news site that gives his quote where he promises that? I would really like to see that. Thanks.
Posted by Another independent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Sam - I think you know the answer to your question as Obama never made the literal promises that Steve outlined. However, he did promise to lower the annual deficit by 50% and that his stimulus bill would lower the unemployment rate and it would stay below 8% (or something like that). Please don't request that I find the actual sources for these two promises as it is pretty widely known that he made these.
So given reality is much different than Obama promised, it's got to be one of three things:
- he lied (wouldn't be the first politician to do this)
- he was niave and over confident in his actions
- he really didn't know what he was talking about
Given how important it is to get out of this economic mess, none of these reasons instill confidence in me that Obama's second four years would be any different than his first four years.
I understand that Obama is going to highlight tonight that the choice is between two fundamentally different paths for the country. I agree with Obama on this, but I disagree that his path is the best.
Posted by Old Guy, a resident of the Willow West neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Well my friend Sam I see we differ significantly in our expectations of national leaders. Just because the leaders (both current and historical) you mention performed well in some respects does not forgive them for their bad behavior. Regarding Mr. Clinton I recognize that he did the best job he could and pleased a lot of people. On the same note he let a lot of people down and we just cannot look the other way. Bill Clinton should be evaluated for the total experience of his public service.
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 6:40 pm Julie is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Wow, I am impressed with this thread. I stopped frequenting these boards because of all the nasty name calling, and simply "weird" posts. This thread proves that people can disagree respectfully.
I especially agree with posters here such as Dave Husted and Sam. I think Obama had difficulty with some of his promises because he didn't have a congress that was willing to work with him. The two parties have become so divided, and extreme - beyond what I ever recall in the past.
I'll admit, I watch Survivor :). It's an interesting psychological study on human behaviour. It's rare that a person wins that game without breaking some moral code, whether large or small. It's not impossible, but it's very rare. I never assume that a person who rises to the top position of power (in a powerful country to boot) is a saint.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 6:47 pm
"Another Independent" said: "Sam - I think you know the answer to your question as Obama never made the literal promises that Steve outline."
Well, thanks for chiming in but, no, I was asking an honest question and I did NOT know that the "promise" by Obama that Steve was referring to was not a "literal promise". All my life I just assumed that a promise is a promise. But now you're telling me that there are two different classes of promises - "literal" promises and "non-literal" promises - and that Obama made a "non-literal" promise.
But I'm getting confused here. If a person breaks a "non-literal" promise, can that person be accused of literally lying? Or is it just a non-literal lie since it was a non-literal promise? Can one non-literally lie about literal promises, or do non-literal lies just apply to non-literal promises?
I'll leave you to ponder all the semantics of all of this. In the meantime, I suggest we simplify the discussion here by just sticking to Obama's "literal" promises.
Posted by Dave Husted, a resident of the Valley Trails neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 9:38 pm
All people make promises about many things and with the best of intentions. Then a bus hits them, or they twist an ankle, or a spouse falls ill. Obama, I think, made promises with the best intentions of fulfilling them. That he has fallen short on some does not make him a liar. A lie would be when Bush claimed there was 'indisputable evidence' of WMD in Iraq when he knew full well there was indeed disputable evidence. Or when Romney says Obama has been expanding welfare rolls for political gain.
An unfulfilled promise isn't a lie. The lie involves matters of truth/falsity; a promise involves matters of intent. You can make a promise with every honest intention of fulfilling it. But then one encounters, say, systematic obstructionism by those who want to oust Obama and reinstate the very people who surrounded Bush. Well, yes, the promise may have gone unfulfilled, but it is explained by pointing to unanticipated occurrences, such as an underestimation of how badly Republicans want to regain the presidency.
The irony, of course, is that the same people who are criticizing Obama for failing to accomplish all he set out to do also tend to be the first ones to criticize him for being a tyrant in accomplishing what he has accomplished. As a once-proud Republican, I am now ashamed of my party and my sympathy and support goes to President Obama.
Posted by Walter, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 6, 2012 at 11:30 pm
Nicely thought out comment from Dave Husted. I was moved by Mr. Obama's references to Lincoln's own travails when the nation was split apart.
Clinton, despite his successes on the policy front, obviously wasn't a man to bring us together as a nation. Nor is Romney. Did Romney even mention our troops? Does he care about them at all? Both Clinton and Romney are tragically flawed men. I think Romney cares deeply about becoming president. And I think it has something to do with reaching a goal that had eluded his father. But I do not think he cares much at all about my family and my neighbors.
But no one can say that Obama is lacking on the human decency front. His family is a national treasure, and his own conduct while in office has been nothing short of exemplary. I think we need a leader like Obama who, slowly but surely bring our economy back to where it needs to be, and will do so without blanching in the face of outside pressure. He is an extraordinary man, as any African American would have to be to have ascended to his position. Every time I see him and his family I feel great pride in our country.
Posted by Billy Jeff, a resident of the Jensen Tract neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 6:56 am
The first two years of Obama's administration, both houses of Congresses were controlled by Democrats. Not to mention the many years prior to that. We've been failed by politicians of all stripes so let's not get delusional.
Posted by Another independent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 6:59 am
I watched Obama's speech last night. He sure is a gifted orator. He peppered his speech with a couple new promises,one of lowering the rate of education costs inflation by 50% over the next 10 years.
I highlight this with the hope of starting a discussion on how he might do this. From my perspective, this is an important discussion and will highlight the difference between a market-oriented approach to solving economic problems and Obamas approach. This highlights the stark differences between the two paths Obama and Romney represent.
Rather than jump and and provide my perspective on how Obama might lower education costs, let me start with posing the question and then I'll jump in later.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 7:37 am
" I think Obama had difficulty with some of his promises because he didn't have a congress that was willing to work with him. The two parties have become so divided, and extreme - beyond what I ever recall in the past."
The first two years of Obama's term we had an all democrat House and Senate. Blaming the republicans? Maybe the house the past couple of years, but Obama did have the democrats control the house and senate for the first two years of his term.
Just like a post above that talked about Bush wanting to do good things but Congress would not cooperate... remember that Bush had a republican House and Senate for 6 years.
It is this justification from both parties that has the country in such bad shape. The democrats think they can do what they please because of supporters unwilling to see reality, and same goes for the republicans.
Whatever the outcome of this election, the country is in trouble. But I personally think we would be better off with Obama, who will respect women's and other civil rights and will appoint a good person to the Supreme Court.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 7:39 am
Another Independent: :"I watched Obama's speech last night. He sure is a gifted orator. He peppered his speech with a couple new promises, one of lowering the rate of education costs inflation by 50% over the next 10 years".
AI, I don't think you quite understand the meaning of the word "promise". I just looked through the transcript of Obama's speech. Nowhere in it does he promise to do what you say. Here's the section of Obama's speech that I think you're referring to:
"Help us work with colleges and universities to cut in half the growth
of tuition costs over the next ten years. We can meet that goal
Do you see the words "I promise..." anywhere in this section?
Posted by Another independent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 8:34 am
OK, let's stike the word "promise" as that was not the point I was trying to make. Let's assume he threw out a goal or challenge.
Still given this, how do you suppose Obama would pursue this? How would he get the education market to moderate its price increases? Would it be through price controls, would it be through government subsidies? How would he as President affect the outcome of this market?
Posted by steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 9:50 am
Sam, sorry it took me so long to perform the research you required to refresh your memory about obama's broken campaign promises, I was busy at work yesterday. Here's some links (from reputable sources, which I assumed you meant to be 'not Fox') to get you started:
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 10:40 am
Steve said: "Sam, sorry it took me so long to perform the research you required to refresh your memory about obama's broken campaign promises,"
OK, Steve, thanks for the links, but if you look back at my post you'll see that the one "promise" that I jumped on was your claim that Obama promised to balance the budget. None of your links show any promise by Obama to balance the budget. They do indicate that he promised to reduce the budget deficit, but none of them show any Obama promise to balance the budget. So - not to rub your nose in it - I'm going to have to claim vindication on that point.
As for the other two promised you listed in your original post, lowering unemployment below 8% and lowering the budget deficit, yes from your links it appears that he did make them and that he did not deliver on those promises.
I'm no blind Obama supporter. As you may have noticed, I tend to be a social liberal but a fiscal conservative. If Obama didn't deliver on his promises, then those are certainly points against him. BUT, speaking as a fiscal conservative, I'm not going to let the Republican party off the hook the present economic mess, either. A Republican President was in charge when this train wreck occurred. So if a Democratic President is at fault for not cleaning up the train wreck fast enough, do I think that the solution is to put another Republican back in charge of running the train? Not so fast.
Posted by Another independent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 11:01 am
Sam - great comments on your last post. I too am a fiscal conservative and socially progressive. And I too don't hold Republicans in regards to fiscal matters.
I am making my choice this time based on the person I believe has the best economic mindset to lead us out of this economic mess. In this case, I believe that is Romney. Obama has proven that he doesn't understand the dynamics of markets and the government's proper role to properly regulate markets to maximize the benefits to all citizens.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 1:29 pm
I agree that Romney/Ryan do not necessarily have a good solution for this economic mess. In fact, they promise the same Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy, and we know how that worked during Bush's 8 years in office. We have a financial mess, and Obama has not done a good job, but I truly believe that Romney can only make things worse.
To that, add the fact that the republicans have threatened to undo Roe v. Wade, to undo Medicare (but to keep the younger generation paying so Ryan's mom and others 55 and older can enjoy the benefit), to cancel many social programs. Obama will at least leave all this alone.
Regardless of the outcome, we have a big mess that will take a while to get better. The job report was released, and it looks like many young people simply gave up, and yet Ryan expect THEM to pay for the current Medicare recipients, his budget does not even make sense and it's too extreme, just like his views on abortion and other social issues.
"The drop in the unemployment rate in August isn't particularly good news for the economy -- it's driven mostly by nearly 400,000 people dropping out of the labor force, rather than more people finding jobs.
But those dropping out aren't so much the discouraged 30-, 40- or 50-year olds. In fact, the Labor Department said there was a modest decline in the overall number of discouraged job seekers.
The drop is because so many young adults, aged 16 to 24, are no longer looking for work. "
Posted by well, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 1:42 pm
"Obama will at least leave all this alone."
Remind me how he is going to pay for leaving it alone? Costs are escalating dramatically as the populations ages and expects vastly more expensive medical care than previously available.
We've also got a lot of interest payments too on all the debt racked up in the last 4 years - how will this be paid for?
I think Romney has a better chance of creating the jobs and opportunities for the young that will enable them to pay tax to help pay for some of this. That is if we give them a chance to get out of the more socialist path forward that I do not personally think will work.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 1:50 pm
"Remind me how he is going to pay for leaving it alone? Costs are escalating dramatically as the populations ages and expects vastly more expensive medical care than previously available."
Look, the problem is NOW, Medicare is running out of money, and it needs fixing NOW, not in 30 years.
Obama at least plans (who knows if he will accomplish it) to cut costs elsewhere (like providers) to infuse those savings into the program. Will it work? Who knows, but it is worth the try.
Ryan on the other hand, plans to leave MEDICARE AS IS for people 55 years and older. That is a lot of money, and a lot of people on a program that will soon run out of funds. And you call that a plan?
And he wants me and others my generation and younger to pay for those 55 and older when we will never get a chance to enjoy the very program we are financing? (and that Ryan wants us to continue to pay so his mom can enjoy the program and he can get the senior vote?)
Ryan does not have good solutions, and he is the most socially backwards person ever. He does not belong anywhere in a decision making role because they we would truly be in a lot of trouble.
Obama is not a good president, I am the first to acknowledge that, but things can be much uglier under Romney/Ryan.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 2:04 pm
"I think Romney has a better chance of creating the jobs and opportunities for the young that will enable them to pay tax to help pay for some of this."
I am not convinced about what you say. Romney says he will create jobs but how? By cutting taxes? He does not have a plan to balance the budget in a way that makes sense.
And why is it that the young should pay for the old and then when the young are old they are asked to be on their own, no help? And on top of that, the young right now are facing very expensive college tuitions, again no help if it is up to Ryan/Romney. Reform is needed, and it needs to happen at all levels. How unfair it is to ask the young to both: 1) finance the older generation's retirement (55 and older) 2) pay huge college tuition bills and 3) save for their own retirement and never see a penny of the money they had to put into social security and medicare
Find a solution that is fair all around. Right now, Obama's plan seems more fair, and it may work. Ryan's plan for sure won't work, we will run out of funds before all those 55 and older are no longer on the payroll.
Posted by well, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 3:19 pm
The younger generation are going to pay for the health care of the older one regardless of who gets elected no matter what they say now. The same will be true when you get old.
In his heart, I think Romney is much more mainstream than he appears. I doubt there will be big social changes. I think Obama, in his heart, is much more left leaning than he likes to appear and we're in big danger of becoming an entitlement society like Europe.
I have lived there and honestly it isn't something to aspire towards. There were healthcare disasters in our family (waiting lists that did unspeakable damage etc) there that would never happen here. There are generations of families who have never worked because they don't have to and have a pretty good life, so why bother working.
In my view now, I think Obama throws money at problems that our children will pay for later and I think there is a good chance that Romney will try to tackle the roots of the problems - the structural issues.
We're in big danger as you say of running out of funds and Romney has demonstrated experience dealing with situations like this.
Just my opinion though. I voted for Obama the first time (because could not stand Bush and totally agree he has so much to answer for too) and honestly have been so disappointed. I don't agree at all with Romney's foreign policy and think Obama has done well in this area. CA has opened my eyes to where very left leaning leadership can go however and it's a disaster.
Posted by Walter, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 3:56 pm
I find it somewhat amazing that people say things about what Romney feels in his heart. That's like analyzing Geo Bush's brain vis-a-vis his gut. If Romney had a (moderate's) heart, he wouldn't have selected Paul Ryan. By so doing he caved to the fringe activists in his party. From what I can gather, he only cares about winning the presidency. After that, who knows. Probably more caving into the ex-Bush advisors he's surrounded himself with. And more war, you can bet on that. Iran? Likely. China, possibly. Much to the embarrassment of the Republican party, we've had Bush I, Bush II, and now the party wants Bush III. What are they thinking?
Beyond wanting to extend and increase tax cuts for the wealthy, Romney hasn't offered much of a plan. At all. He selected Ryan but says he doesn't really agree with Ryan's laughable budget proposal. So, what are we left with? Lots of whining from folks who simply dislike Obama because of who he is, and who will criticize him no matter what he does. When Bush left office we were losing 750,000 jobs per month. Romney gives us nothing to indicate anything more than more of the same if he gets in. I prefer positive job growth as we have been getting from Obama. And when ACA fully kicks in, it will mean much greater job growth. I'm hoping the American public, Democrats and Republicans like myself, will stay the course and support a very impressive president who, as Clinton so eloquently stated, has accomplished a great deal in a mere 3-1/2 years.
Posted by Walter, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 4:45 pm
It's comments like those above that are chasing moderates like myself away from the Republican camp. I had initially been inclined to vote for McCain last time, but ended up sitting out the election because I couldn't stomach the likes of Palin and her venonous, sloppy thinking.
It is almost unimaginable that someone can hold such simplistic thoughts.
Pleasanton, the city of well-educated and wealthy. Well, maybe half of it is right.
Posted by Well, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Don't worry Walter. A vote for Romney is pretty meaningless here anyhow, so you'll get what you want, in CA anyhow.
If everyone is so smart here though, I wonder why we're in such a mess that the schools are falling apart etc. Do really think it's for lack of taxes in what is one of the highest taxed staes? Do you agree with public sector employees getting $200k a year and more for retirement?
Anyhow, it's just a discussion. Sorry for going off topic, I'm just so sad about the state of things here. Nothing is going to change in CA.
Posted by Finger in Face, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 5:09 pm
I still see the pointed finger in my face,,,, Sometimes lies flow so easily.
Walter, Obama kept most of the scary DEM radicals in hiding. He had a hall filled with administration employees we pay, and who have been serving as 'surrogates' 24/7 on all media and will continue thru election. ..fighting for THEIR jobs !!!including Biden running his own 2016 campaign,,,, very little was about 'the people'.
Today's UNemployment of 8.1% is HIGHER than it was on Obama's Inauguration Day. This months 'new jobs' are LESS that what needed
to stay even with population gains. Convention CNN factcheckers said the 4.5 million new jobs they were all told to use, is LESS than the 5 MILLION LOST...LOST, meaning a 500,000 NET LOSS...half truth, the numbers just roll right by the uninformed and clueless. Any important issue, when they weren't campaigning to a special interest 'group; or minority 'group, was full of fuzzy information and when not full lies, were half-truths...knowing most of their consitituents wouldn't know the difference.
Posted by Walter, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 7, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Well, you're probably right, 'Well'. The election is already decided in California, and has been ever since the Republicans fielded this year's slate of candidates. The election is probably already decided at the national level as well. Nate Silver does a convincing job of showing trend lines and likely winners and losers.
So the question is why my former party, the Republican Party, has fallen off the deep end. Romney is not the right guy, and this became even more true after he selected Palin-with-calculator Paul Ryan. And most of the Republican posters here belong in the same bag of nuts as the candidates -- the best the Grand Old Party -- was able to put out in the field: Michelle Bachmann, Perry, Trump, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul.
The only candidate I thought showed any semblance of sanity was Huntsman, and we know what happened to him. Moderates would have flocked to him. But no, we are left with this cardboard cut-out of a candidate who we know likes money and winning elections and is willing to do just about anything to acquire either. Why would I or any other moderate decide to vote for a guy who gives the 'speech of his life' in front of all of America and can't bring himself to mention the troops and how he plans to support them? Huntsman wouldn't have slighted them like that. But he couldn't even muster a million primary votes before dropping out. That is shameful. The GOP hates Obama and his policies, but they can't get behind a rational, moderate candidate who might defeat him. That's why I fled the party and why I'm repulsed by the zealots on this site who cherry-pick and twist any sliver of information they can to turn it to their supposed strategic advantage. In fact, all they do is expose themselves for who they are, and I think the GOP's candidate this time around reflects who they are. In my estimation, moderates will vote for Obama, once again, not because they support all of his policies but because the GOP alternative is so unpalatable.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 8, 2012 at 10:30 am
While I am hoping Obama wins, I am realistic, and I am concerned when I hear supporters post about how great Obama is. He is not, and if any of you is trying to help his campaign in swing states, you have to stop talking that way.
Here is an interesting opinion you might want to read:
", the realization was setting in among Democrats that their hopes for breaking open the election had probably fallen short. When they woke up Friday morning and heard the new jobs report, they knew for sure.
Not only were the numbers a sharp disappointment, but they also showed how tough life has become for so many Americans. In the past month, for every person who found a job, almost four people gave up hope and left the work force. The percentage of people in the work force today is the lowest in more than three decades -- and that is three years after the recovery supposedly began."
Posted by Walter, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 8, 2012 at 10:38 am
Yes, I think Obama only won N. Carolina by maybe 16 thousand votes, if my memory serves me, and so it certainly won't be a slam dunk for him this time. And Indiana appears headed into redness. But, as we know, President Obama's victory over McCain was a trouncing. He can easily afford to lose N. Carolina and Indiana and still achieve a resounding victory.
My main concern is my former party's attempt to suppress the vote in so many of the battleground states. This is not principled action on the GOP's part, which is consistent with my argument all along. We don't have a problem with voter fraud in this country. All of the voter suppression efforts are initiated and supported by the GOP. It is meant to make voting more difficult, especially for the aged and urban poor. This is shameful behavior by a party that knows itself to be on the ropes, and I think will only further accelerate a movement of moderate Americans away from the kinds of extremist insanity we're seeing on a daily basis from the zany ones who have hijacked a once great party.
It will be interesting to see how CNN recognizes the apparent lack of any bump for Romney after the convention and a noticeable bump for Obama after his. Gallup now has Obama winning by 4 pts, whereas they had him losing by 2 pts. less than two weeks ago. Moreover, Gallup shows a 52-42 favorability rating for Obama, which hasn't been that high since he ordered forces to take out Osama bin Laden. Heck, even the rightward tilting Rasmussen shows Obama with a 2 pt. lead where they had Romney up by 4 only earlier this week.
Posted by Dave Husted, a resident of the Valley Trails neighborhood, on Sep 8, 2012 at 2:33 pm
I'm afraid I don't understand your question, Steve. I do know that President Obama has been very forthcoming in releasing his yearly tax returns. If you're asking us to compare to Mitt Romney's tax returns, well, we're rather limited in this regard aren't we? So, again, what's your point? Or perhaps you thought you were responding to another thread?
Posted by Finger in Face, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 8, 2012 at 11:14 pm
Walter, sorry you lumped 3 Bushes as one...that just won't fly.
Jeb is like his Father and Mother, not his brother Jeb also has a hyspanic wife and brown son.
I do thank you for reminding us of Bush, however. Sept 11 is near. It reminds us of the most horrific attack and lost lives on our homeland....just 7+ months after inauguratiion. In that same first year, there was the accounting scandal, and the jolting silicon valley DOTCOM BUST ! ! !
In spite of that 'pile on' of multiple tragedies in his first 10 months,and don't remember a steady drumbeat of whine, whine, whine, oh woe is me..
Posted by hmmmm, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 9, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Yahoo news: this just shows where things can go. My husband (30 years in the manufacturing business, a senior manager), just got a 2% salary increase and said thank you very much. He appreciates times are tough. Good luck with your strike for not getting 30% Chicago - stay classy!
Chicago Teachers union go on strike:
. . . .The district had been offering a raise of 2 percent a year for four years. The union called that offer unacceptable — particularly after Mayor Rahm Emanuel last year canceled a previously negotiated 4 percent pay raise, citing budget problems.
The union countered by asking for a 30 percent pay raise over two years, followed by a request for a 25 percent increase over two years. Just weeks ago, Lewis told delegates the union had adjusted its demand and was asking for a 19 percent pay raise in the contract's first year.
Posted by Finger in Face, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 10, 2012 at 12:19 am
hmmmm, Chicago teacher's union sort of sounds like Jerry Brown's public unions. Yea, they came up with this really get tough penion "fix" last week, Why, IF CA can just hang on, and the state's still in buisnee in 30 yrs, when the 'fix' on today's NEW hires actually kicks in,.... why, we should see some results....in 30 years, when those new hires retire!! WHATA DEAL !!!
You don't suppose that was a smoke and mirrors trick to fool us into thinking, everything's been done they can do....we JUST HAVE to pass
Posted by hoops, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Obama deserves a chance to finish what he has started.Nobody could have fixed what he inherited in one term,especially with Republicans trying to sabotage his presidency every single step of the way.Is Obama perfect...no.Has he made some mistakes....yes.His agenda going forward is much better off for this country than a repeat of trickle down.Ryan is a right wing idealogue and Romney is well,what is Romney.It depends on who he is talking to and what state he is in.How can someone be elected who will not even say what loopholes he will close in his tax plan.It is a simple question.He is the fixer but speaks only in generalities.I am afraid this is going to get ugly before it is over.