I have to say Obama was Excellent on Faux News Interview..shown today...

[KoKo]

But, there were two things that bothered me. His "pulling back" over "Government Regulating Environmental Laws"...Obama said Government shouldn't be "top down" on regulation and (what I heard was) that Industries should "regulate themselves" because there's been "too much top down Govt. Regulation.) He's in favor of "Cap and Spend."

The other was ...he played into Chris Wallace's hands about his "Foreign Policy." He backed off "Ending the War in Iraq" with what he said was "requiring the Iraqi Government to set Benchmarks." (Since when is it up to the Iraqi, puppet Bush, Government to set benchmarks over the folks who are VOTING FOR OBAMA TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ?)
Other than those two big policy issues...I thought he did very well. But, did either of those two points bother anyone else here? :shrug:

(DISCLAIMER: I don't support either Obama or Hillary at this point)

[thereismore]

1. He was great. Wallace just race-baited him at least 3 times in a row

and he couldn't get anywhere. And Barack destroyed McSame on taxes.

[flor de jasmim]

2. I'd have to listen again to make sure, but...

I didn-t hear that the industries would regulate themselves, but that the govt would set the standards but leave to the companies the way to do it, rather than specifying every type of measure. That is, the companies would be held accountable for producing the proper results, but the process for achieving that would be left up to them, or could be, at least in part.

On ending the war in Iraq, again I heard something different--that he would set the strategy for leaving and would be willing to listen to the generals on the ground as far as tactics, but he was clear that the strategy would be to leave carefully but as quickly as possible.

[jaxx]

3. This is what he said:

<snip> OBAMA: Well, on issues of regulation, I think that back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, a lot of the way we regulated industry was top down command and control. We’re going to tell businesses exactly how to do things.

And I think that the Republican party and people who thought about the margins (ph) came with the notion that you know what, if you simply set some guidelines, some rules and incentives for businesses, let them figure out how they’re going to for example reduce pollution. And a cap and trade system, for example, is a smarter way of doing it, controlling pollution, than dictating every single rule that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and oftentimes is less efficient.


<snip> OBAMA: What I would do is say — what I will do is say we have a new mission. It is my strategic assessment that we have to provide a timetable to the Iraqi government. I want you to tell me how best to execute this new assignment and I am happy to listen to the tactical considerations and any ideas you have.

But what I will not do is continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook and allow them to put our foreign policy on ice while they dither about making decisions about how they are going to cooperate with each other.

Full Transcript: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/27/transcript-obama-on-fns/

[Frances]

4. I will back Obama 100% if he is the nominee

but I worry that he is too trusting about corporations doing the right thing. I am reading No Ordinary Time, which is about Roosevelt and World War II. ALCOA, for example, was so greedy that if Roosevelt had not intervened, we would have been in huge trouble.

Corporations always look after their profit margin to the exclusion of everything else. Obama may be right that there is a better way to cut down on pollution than to have strict regs, but corporations would have to be monitored in the strictest way possible.

When Obama crticizes the regs of the 60s, I get nervous. Those regulations came about out of necessity. Sometimes I think Obama believes some of that General Electric crap that Reagan convinced the country was common sense. It's because of Reagan's likeability and great speaking ability that the Repubs were able to make the rich richer at the expense of the middle class.

I understand that Obama can't give Bill Clinton credit because Obama's opponent is Hillary, but Bill Clinton did do his best to get rid of some of the Reagan junk.

BUT, of course, I'll support Obama if he is the Dem nominee, which I think he will be.

[jaxx]

5. I think Obama will take care of the middle class.

[dtotire]

6. Here is his interview with Business Week

He is very middle of the road.

Facetime with Barack Obama
In conversations with Maria Bartiromo, the Presidential hopeful talks about his plans for taxes and charges that he lacks experience

Interview in Business Week:


Barack Obama is arguably the most sought-after person in America—with the possible exceptions of soccer star David Beckham and Kristen, the call girl in the Eliot Spitzer scandal. So trying to secure an interview on the economy with the senator is about as easy as getting 15 minutes with Alexander Hamilton. Finally on Mar. 27, after Obama delivered an address on the economy in New York, I sat down with him and asked him to plug some specifics into his grand plans for change. Then we talked further by phone on Apr. 2. What appears below is an edited version of both those discussions, including portions of the initial interview that aired on CNBC. Since we first talked, the calls for Senator Hillary Clinton to stand aside and cede the nomination to Obama have grown louder. But as of press time on Apr. 2, the bruising contest showed no signs of ending.
MARIA BARTIROMO
Critics might say we're in dicey economic times. We need a President who is going to hit the ground running. How are you going to convince critics who say you lack the experience of some of your colleagues on the campaign trail?
BARACK OBAMA
Look, there are only three candidates left: myself, Senator Clinton, and Senator McCain. None of us has run a business or been President. And so when it comes to economics, the experience all three of us have must be assumed from our policies and the people we have around us. And if you look at some of the people who support me, whether it's Paul Volcker or Warren Buffett, these are not people who would support had what it will take to manage this economy. And when you look at my approach to the economy and how I've talked about it over the course of not just the past year but since I've been in public office, you'll see that I've been ahead of the curve. I gave a speech in September warning that the problems that we were seeing on Main Street were going to have an impact on Wall Street.
How high will you raise the 15% capital-gains rate?
I haven't given a firm number. Here's my belief, though: We can't go back to some of the confiscatory rates in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%. It would be significantly lower than that. But I think we can have a capital-gains rate that is higher than 15%. When I talk to people like Warren Buffett or others and ask them how much of a difference a 20% or 25% , they say: "Look, if it's within that range, then it's not going to distort economic decision-making."
But it's not just the Warren Buffetts of the world who own stocks. Let's say the cap-gains tax goes from 15% to 25%.That will have an impact on a lot of people.
That's why I think that maybe you could structure something in which people with certain incomes would stay at 15%. The broader principle is making sure we've got a tax code that is fair for all Americans. It is not unreasonable to say that those of us in the upper brackets have benefited disproportionately from a globalized economy and those benefits have been compounded by the Bush tax cuts. We can take a look and see how we can exempt people who own stock through 401(k)s or pension funds while still making sure that those who have been the primary beneficiaries of economic growth over the last decade and have seen their incomes skyrocket are paying a fair share. What we're talking about is going back to the tax structure during the '90s. Rich people were still rich. But we had a more balanced budget and as a consequence could sustain economic growth. For us to roll back some of those tax cuts and put this economy on a more stable fiscal footing…that is actually good long term for our economy, for investors, and Wall Street.

2. Page 2

The pattern we're on right now—having added $4 trillion worth of debt in the name of our children and our grandchildren and borrowing from China, South Korea, and Mexico, as well as the oil-producing states—that's not a recipe for long-term economic growth. And look, I would prefer lowering taxes for everybody, including myself. But it wouldn't be the responsible thing to do. You can't fight a war that is costing $10 billion a month, rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, educate our kids to compete with China and India, make sure that our senior citizens aren't wasting away, and still eliminate taxes for the wealthiest Americans. You can't do all those things at once. You've got to make choices.

What about the top marginal rate for ordinary income?
What I've said is that we should go back to probably a top marginal rate of 39%—what it was before the Bush tax cuts. I would not increase taxes for middle-class Americans, and in fact I want to provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less. For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family. I don't want senior citizens who are bringing in less than $50,000 a year to have to pay income tax on their Social Security. And I want to provide an additional 10% mortgage deduction, a mortgage interest credit, for those who currently don't itemize. Because if you live in a house that's pretty expensive, like I do, and I itemize, I get a pretty big break from Uncle Sam. If you own a $100,000 house, and you're making $65,000, $75,000 a year, you're not getting that same deduction. I think that will actually help relieve some of the pressure on homeowners.

Why raise taxes in a slowdown? Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?
There's no doubt that anything I do is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office next January. The thing you can be assured of is that I'm not going to make these decisions based on ideology. I'm not a dogmatist. My opponents to the right would like to paint me as this wild-eyed liberal, but I believe in the market. I believe in entrepreneurship. I believe in capitalism, and I want to do what works. One of the problems with the Bush Administration has been its rigidness when it comes to economic policy. It doesn't matter what the problem is, they'll say tax cuts. Trade deficit? Tax cuts. Slowdown in manufacturing? Tax cuts. At a certain point, if you've only got one arrow in the quiver, you're going to have problems.

Tell me how you've been managing your campaign and how that relates to how you'll manage the White House.
My basic approach to leadership is to hire very good people, set a clear vision for where I want the organization to go…then give people a lot of power to do their jobs and hold them accountable for doing them. I said early on that I wanted to have a cooperative atmosphere. I didn't want a lot of drama. I wanted to focus on building a broad-based network of support rather than just relying on all the usual suspects in politics. We put together a budget, and we stuck to it. We've put together clear objectives and we've achieved them. So I think it's fair to say that having started from scratch and competing against organizations built over 20 years—including an organization built by a former President—we have outperformed the others in terms of fund-raising, volunteer participation, votes, and states won. And we've done so without a lot of turmoil or turnover. And I think it should give people some confidence that I know how to manage a team.

Maria Bartiromo is the anchor of CNBC's Closing Bell .http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_15/b4079017876246.htm?chan=search

I think the top income tax rate should go back to 50%, which it was when Reagan took office. And I think that to pay for universal health coverage we should enact consumption taxes, which would help make businesses more competitive with foreign manufacturers.

[Frances]

12. Thanks for this post

[madrchsod]

9. he is correct on the industry question but

it takes a willing federal government to enforce the the law. micro managing the problems often cause more problems...

[TeamJordan23]

7. Had great answers on the tax issues too. Cannot wait till he becomes Prez. nm

[KoKo]

8. He did lay it out clear about his Tax Policy and delineated what "middle class" is in his policy...

I thought it was a "bit low"...(in that he had 70 to 80 thosand...but didn't address double income families over that who are in terrible trouble) but he was clearer than Hillary...so it was good to hear.

[kentuck]

10. KoKo01...

I think Barack was trying to unite this country. We are in for some rough times ahead. Hopefully we won't end up in a Depression, but who knows? There is a perfect storm out there for some very rough economic times. We cannot approach such a time divided as we have been. We will need to be united. Repulicans and Democrats. Black and white. I think Obama was offering an olive branch to those Republicans that are willing to help. He was moderate and reasonable, I thought.

Also, he did say that it would be his job to define the strategy and Petraeus' job to carry it out. He also said that he would raise the taxes on the wealthy back to where they were under Clinton. And that he would raise the capital gains tax to where it was under Reagan. So he did not desert his Democratic message. I think his appearance on FOX was brilliant.

[BzaDem]

11. It's great when Obama talks with Fox. But when Hillary does, she is an

<insert insult here>
<insert insult here>
<insert insult here>
<insert insult here>
<insert insult here>
<insert insult here>
<insert insult here>
<insert insult here>
<insert insult here>
<insert insult here>
<insert insult here>

yay gdp