In the rare cases I actually get comments, they usually come in the middle of the night on a post that I wrote over a year ago... so if you are reading these and I'm wrong about my predictions, take a gander up towards the top and see if I posted a "I was wrong" post before you bother posting a "see I told you so" comment that will cause me to picture you pointing at your monitor... because I will picture you fat with a bad haircut... like me.
Now the predictions:
If Barack Obama wins the U.S. presidential election November 4, 2008 I predict:
- Despite claims that "Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase", I predict there will be tax increases on families making far less. I am going to say if you make $45,000 per year, or a family making $75,000 per year, your taxes will be raised by March 1, 2010. If I'm within $25,000, give me a break on the comments, OK? I was correct in my assertion that they raised taxes.
- Barack Obama's website claims "Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began." If I am reading that correctly, that says we will be out of Iraq in summer 2010, although it also claims "...a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel." Since the last statement does not define a number, I am a bit suspicious of it. My prediction: at the beginning of 2011, our troop commitment in Iraq will be 50-75% of what it is now, and will never drop below 25% of what it is now. We have troops on the ground in a part of the world where we are likely to deploy again. I don't see that changing, regardless of who is elected. (See how I talked in percentages? I don't know the numbers, and I don't intend to look them up because I'm a guy on a notebook computer rambling out an unfunny stand up routine, not a journalist.)
- Almost immediately, our conflict in Iraq will be referred to as an "occupation", or some term far more flowery than "war". The media will gladly oblige, although here or there it will be pointed out that the terminology changed. Maybe on Fox... by the way, the whole media is liberal leaning, quit whining about one station (Jim Norton pointed this out on Opie and Anthony). Furthermore, if you're going to gripe about Fox News, gripe about the fact that it is a horrible news station, not that it leans a little bit right (and yes, its a little bit, everything else is just leaning a little left, that's why it seems that way). Truth is, "occupation" is a more accurate term at this point. This doesn't mean that people aren't getting hurt and killed, and it doesn't mean that isn't tragic. It just means that "war" is a bit heavy handed to describe what is going on right now.
That's it. That's all I am predicting right now, let's see if I'm right.
