Wow it feels good to finally see some debate on these opinion comments.. not to mention some Republican responses. I am starting to believe people may actually read the opinion pages (which in my opinion are the most redeeming pages of the DP). It was getting ridiculous listening to all these bandwagon jumping Obama Nation members.

Sen. Obama previously said that he would end armed forces activities in Iraq. I think that would save something in the neighborhood of several billion dollars per day we are currently spending there. The fact that Sen. Obama actually had an economic plan pre-dating the collapse of Lehman Bros and the bailout doesn't mean that his current plan is somehow worse than whatever "plan" "that other one" would present - someone who had no plan to begin with, and still doesn't. G. Gilliard SEAS '92

I could care less about the hollywood types. For me, its all about the economy. From 2001 through 2007 total government spending increased a whopping 47 percent, from $1.86 to $2.73 trillion. It didn't do that all at once, but rather, grew each year an average of 6.2 percent. The worst year during that time period for government growth was 2002, when it increased 7.9 percent. The best was, perhaps surprisingly, 2007; government spending only advanced 2.8 percent that year. Republicans tried to reform themselves, but did too little too late. How did the Democrats do? Spending has advanced this year an astronomical 8.3 percent, to $2.96 trillion, exceeding even the worst of the Bush years. Total spending this year was more than a trillion dollars higher than it was when Bush took office in January 2001, and more than $200 billion of that increase was accomplished in just the last year.Ã? The tax dollars that Obama plans to spend on socialized programs such as national healthcare will come from the taxpayers one way or the other. The money the government uses to pay for military expenses, welfare, civil servant salaries, government works programs, disaster relief, etc . . . is based on the money the government expects to collect from taxpayers and businesses. This money is not just sitting around waiting to be spent; it is a projected amount that they expect to collect. Especially now, that we have committed 700+ billion dollars to rescue all these corporations and defaulted home loans. Not to mention the 85 billion we spent bailing out AIG and the money for the other corporations we already helped. To top that off we now have a 10 trillion dollar deficit. Where is Obama getting all this money he has committed to tax cuts, tax credits, reducing the deficit, education benefits, healthcare benefits, and other social reforms? Understand,I am aware I missed a few of his handouts. At the Saddleback debate, he said people making less than $150,000 will see a tax cut, those making over $250,000 will see an increase in taxes; he never mentioned the fate of those who fall in between. There is a good chance heÃ?ll do the same as McCain, and leave taxes in their present state, because of our economic circumstance. Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation says Obama has proposed nearly $350 billion per year in new spending; in all actuality his budget is looking closer to $850 billion. No matter the amount, at this point in time, the entire corporate tax code only raises about $350 billion annually. Even if Obama doubles the taxes on those making $250,000.00 or more he would still fall short of his goal. Not to mention, in our current economic downturn the tax base will not reach the projected $350 billion. So, itÃ?s unrealistic to think the extra tax dollars collected will be enough to pay for all these things, and itÃ?s unrealistic that he will be able to achieve all the promises he has committed to. For certain he knows this, and is aware that honoring all his promises is not a feasible proposition; so he is in fact, just stringing everybody along. More of the same is that, not only has he committed his administration to providing all those benefits to the voters and raising taxes on businesses, but he committed to raising the minimum wage again after it was just raised a few months ago. His claims that he is going to gain tax dollars by making businesses pay capital gains tax is pure nonsense, because businesses donÃ?t pay capital gains taxes, they pay income taxes. Further, by raising taxes on businesses and raising the minimum wage, it just makes it that much harder for small businesses to remain in business. In the end, his plans to tax those making $250,000 is just going to inspire people to duck the tax by stopping short of those earnings, and impede commerce. People arenÃ?t idiots; it will especially affect start-up businesses, as they will choose to not put the extra effort forth if they know they will not benefit from it. Likewise, people are notorious for getting over on the system, where is the incentive to bump earnings into the next tax bracket and have the hassle of dealing with more employees if youÃ?re comfortable where you are at? What he is creating, is an insurmountable hump that will deter people from growing their businesses beyond $250,000 in yearly gross sales. Otherwise, a business cannot be viable if there is not enough cash flow to keep it solvent. By adding more overhead in the form of another wage increase, and a reduction in cash flow from an increase taxes, margins of profit start shrinking, which in turn reduces cash flow. Small businesses are the heart and soul of America; more people are employed by small businesses than large businesses. In order to stay in business, they would have to raise their prices, which would in turn be passed on to the public. So nobody will truly benefit from his economic plan in that aspect. Raising the minimum wage might increase the amount of money in your paycheck, but the IRS will just take more tax to build their coffers. Again, Business owners are the only ones who get hurt. If the business fails, and the people are left unemployed, another burden is placed on the tax payers in the form of unemployment or health & welfare assistance. As for his healthcare plan, he claims it will not be socialized/ Yet, when the insurance companies no longer are in the loop, because everyone jumped on the government bandwagon, the feds will either have to oversee it themselves by forming a new federal agency or sub-contract it out to others. Either way, wastefulness and sloth, at the expense of the taxpayer, will be the ultimate outcome. All we have to do is look around us to see the many fine examples of government run agencies, and programs that are subsidized by the government to evidence the inefficiency of such organizations. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are a few great examples. Additionally, Obama wants to restrict trade. Restricting trade is idiotic, as the value of the goods we export is almost 95% of what we produce. His fiscal philosophy, cast from the JFK administration, may have been great during JFKÃ?s short tenure, but in our current dilemma we cannot afford to go that route. He needs to be cornered in the debates about these issues. ObamaÃ?s economic plan looks like Swiss cheese. Take note that in the Tennessee debate in, he dodged the question, when asked what he would sacrifice. The thing that scares me most about lawyers who seek the presidential office is that they are indoctrinated in the ways of twisting the truth and the law in a most convincing way.

Interesting column, but some points bear mentioning. You outline a wide range of ways in which celebrities can make a difference, and immediately go on to say they are insignificant because celebrity endorsements fail to impact survey respondent evaluations of candidates. More on those studies would have been interesting, but they are also somewhat besides the point. Changing public opinion toward candidates in presidential general elections -- in which voters have many other sources of information -- is hardly a fair test of celebrity impact. However, if we look elsewhere we can find a significant effect of celebrity endorsements on mass opinion and behavior. First, these celebrity events (and concerts especially) may simply draw people who otherwise are un-interested in politics -- and therefore less likely to be registered to vote -- to a single place where volunteers can get them registered and/or mobilized in the election. Stars' value in this way is not so much their value as persuaders but as organizers. Ssecond, celebrities can both donate money (as you mention), but they can bring attention to lesser known candidates that encourages others in the general population to donate money to those candidates. James Fowler, a political scientist at UCSD, used FEC campaign donations to find evidence of a "Colbert Bump" in financial support for candidates. More on that study here: http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/colbert_bump.pdf Third, celebrities may make a difference earlier in a campaign or in a primary where voters have less information about a candidate or that allows them to distinguish between candidates with similar policy stances. Two communication scholars at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee have used survey data to suggest that knowledge about Oprah's endorsement of Obama may have increased opinions about his viability as a candidate, but not favorability towards the candidate (http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/4/386). However, looking at preferences at the state level rather than individual level, two economists at the University of Maryland use an interesting approach. They look at sales of O! magazine and Oprah Book Club books to obtain county-level estimates of support for Oprah, and then look at voting in these states before and after Oprah's endorsement. They conclude Oprah's endorsement was worth an extra 1,000,000 votes for Obama. (http://www.econ.umd.edu/~garthwaite/celebrityendorsements_garthwaitemoore.pdf) You raise some interesting questions in your column and actually suggest some ways in which celebrities may matter. So before you dismiss them out of hand, you might more closely consider the various ways in which we can talk about celebrities mattering -- changing minds a month before the election may not be the only way. Moreover, talk to your professors who actually know this literature. There is exciting, innovative research being conducted across the country about this and other highly relevant matters. Before you reach conclusions on the basis of an interview with a Penn writing fellow and an Engineering freshman, you might see what the experts have to say on the matter.

I assume Obamaniacs vote based on how their favorite actors tell them to...there's no way that people actually evaluate Obama's proposals for higher taxes on small businesses & capital gains and surrender in Iraq and still support him on their own.