That's not to say I am against the idea of talking with our enemies, but I think there is a bit of disingenuousness to this premise. Does anyone really believe that the problem that the US has with Iran's or North Korea's nuclear programs stem from us simply not talking to them? Or that the resolution to these conflicts merely lay in a heart to heart with Kim? The fact is that there is a dialogue between the US and Iran and North Korea. Just not the naive sort.
But back to Mr. Obama's views on the War on Terror. Well his website doesn't even mention it. It does have a section entitled "Homeland Security," which starts out by saying that America's problem is that we are unprepared for terrorist attacks. This is laughable in the face of almost 7 years without any repeats of 9/11, and considering the countless failed attempts by terrorists on our own shores since that terrible day. But let's forget about that for a second. The main points of his plan (I encourage you to read it, especially if you plan to vote for Obama), not all of which are bad ideas, do not even begin to address the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalists or other brands or terrorist.
It's almost as if Obama is more concerned about leaky nuclear reactors and Katrina families than the actual threat of a terrorist attack. And these are all fine and good concerns, but not under the guise of HomeLand Security. Not even close. Is continuing the Democratic Party's constant denial that there is an real threat of terrorism any kind of "real change?" Sounds like the same stuff I've been hearing from the left all along.
Immigration
Since immigration seems so puzzlingly important to so many this election cycle, even though it is one of the founding principles of this country, I will briefly talk about it here. I think all of the candidates on both sides are full of a lot of hot air on this issue. No one wants these people kicked out, and no one really thinks that it is smart to stop the influx of people who want to become Americans. Sure, there are immigrants who consume public services or commit crimes, and these people should be dealt with accordingly. But I have a feeling most people making the arduous journey to come to America illegally do so for many more reasons than a government handout. Perhaps the American dream?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - dee
This is gonna be fun... I marvel at the people who do not realize that America is changing, we are becoming more liberal.. whether some like it or not, its inevitable... Since Reagan and the so called conservative movement, the Republicans have been exposed for what they are and what they really want to do... They want to hate gays for no good reason, they will tell you what to say and what to beleive, they will use fear as a way to push through agendas that benefit themselves only, they cater to the rich, they inject religion into almost everything, they are blindly pro business, they in short have failed to keep up with most Americans... The problem is that Republicans have lost touch.. Once most people have seen the real Republican agenda, they decided that they did not like it and I can't blame the people for that... Most current Republicans are a dying breed in this country and they have brought it on themselves, they do not represent most Americans... Let's see on taxes, THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE MOST MONEY ALREADY, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEST OFF IN THE SYSTEM, do not under any circumstance need additional help in the form of tax cuts.. period.. Obama's position on rolling back the corrupt Bush tax cuts, let me remind you for the first time in history, a tax cut in a time of war, is exactly what should happen.. the rich do not need more help, I don't care how you try to spin it... give those cuts to the poor and middle class, they are the ones who need more money to spend... And as far as the rich paying the most taxes as you claim, ask Warren Buffett or ask a Hedge fund manager how much he pays in taxes and they will explain to you that they pay a lower percentage then people who make significantlly less then themselves... Its hard to beleive your claim when you have a billionare such as Buffett, an honest man, who decided to not get in line with the rest of the rich and screw everyone over, who exposes the real inequality with the tax code... when Republicans makes moves such as giving tax cuts to people who do not need them or deserve them then yes we will have class warfare... On Iraq, yes judgment is important, you may not think so, but a president needs good judgment, Bush does not have good judgment and you see where we have been taken over the last seven plus years... Not only was exection of the war obscene but the lies that got us into war was equally obscene, the mindset that got us into war needs to change... Saddam was NOT a threat yet Bushco made them out to be a threat, I beleive intentionally, in order to aid business and to privatize the army, which have both occurred on some level now.. Most Americans supported taking Saddam out of power because we were told he was a threat, that turned out to be untrue so to say that the American people supported taking him out of power, absent of a immediate threat, is a lie... How long do we stay in Iraq? Seven years now we have been there, how much money have we spent there? Tax payer money I remind you, this war, a war that has been funded on credit, has decreased the value of our currency and is hurting our economy... all the money we have wasted in Iraq and no one can say when we will get out... No one knows what will happen if we pull out, its a typical Republican move to scare the people that if we pull out it will be chaos, but no one really knows, I say we have been there long enough, spent enough money, lost enough American lives, that it is time to leave... otherwise be more specific.. when you don't do this you get what's gonna happen once Barack gets elected, we will pull out... You are right about one thing, the American name is tarnished, your worried about further damage, wake up the damage is already done... comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan is laughable... I cannot even comment on the audacity of that comparison... Colluson between the government and big business has a name, its called Fascism, let's be honest here... I don't want the government and business wiretapping my conversations with anyone.. I doesn't matter whether we are at war or not.. these companies knowingly broke the law and they should be subject to lawsuits... Just as Nixon wanted to take over Steel plants during vietnam, except now we have big business who have ties to the government and they see a win win situation for both if they work together... There was already an exisiting law if the president wanted to wiretap americans, the secret FISA court, but Bush decided that that took too long, so he acted like a monarch fascist and colluded with big business to compial data on citizens who are not terrorits.. a very dangerous circumstance in any free society... I don't see a problem with talking to our enemies, why not... ignoring them definately does not help, so why not talk to them, that would be better than no talking to them and just bullying them into submission, or if that doesn't work I suppose we can just invade and occupy like a good colonial power... There is a real terrorist threat out there I'm not naive to think there isn't, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia after 9-11? Almost all the hijackers where from there, hmmmm i wonder why we havn't caught Bin Laden too? He's supposed to be enemy # 1, when you say one thing and then do other things that make no sense, like invading and occupying a country that posed no threat to us, then don't be surprised if people are suspect of your claims and your fear mongering surrounding the terrorist threat posed to this country... People aren't as dumb, or scared, as you would like them to be... Trade and immigrants, I want to round up all the ILLEGAL immigrants, why can't we do it? We should protect the people who came into this country the correct way and if you fail to offer any consequences for doing illegal actions that is not a good message to send to people.. if nothing happens to illegals then you are saying f*ck the law... NAFTA has hurt our economy, it is common sense, if big business can pay people less money someone else, such as China or Mexico, its common sense they will act on it, it will make their bottom line, and themselves more money... its not that hard of a concept... Free trade is a disaster for this country... I want to protect American workers, I don't want to lower the wage of the American worker which NAFTA ultimately does... again its business vs. the will of the people... Trade is good, free trade does not help America... Poverty gives us terrorists so to simply dismiss this as a soft issue is to simply be out of touch with reality, if we are serious about defeating hate and terror we need to address poverty... Obama's policies are exactly what we need and are closer to what the majority of Americans are seeking whether you like it or want to admit it or not... that's why he is so popular... I think that you, along with many if office, have lost touch with the people... the people are sick of pro business policies and are sick of old school foreign policy... the time for change is here, the time for change is now, vote for Obama
2 - The Obnoxious American
Dee,
For the sake of reading your posts, I would ask that you make use of paragraphs.
As far as the country becoming more liberal, I don't see where you can say that. The GOP controlled both houses back in 2000, and won the presidency. and Bush was re-elected in 2004. Sure, the dems made some gains in 2006, but that's the ONLY gain that they made during one of the most contentious presidencies in my lifetime. The fact of the matter is that the dems are not a lock for the presidency in 2008, and the fact that my post illicited a large blurb from you proves that. The only reason why Dems stand a good chance this year is because of widespread dissatisfaction of Bush and anything associated. But there has been no widespread rejection of the GOPs core principles. In fact, the largest gripe most people have about the GOP these days is that they cannot trust them to carry out the GOP platform (as the GOP failed to do when they controlled both houses, etc).
I really don't see how you can seriously claim an ongoing decline of republicanism, and you've not done anything to prove it in your post other than to make the claim.
As far as tax cuts, you'd be right if there were only very rich people and very poor people. But there aren't. The IRS considers people rich even if they are middle class. Most people living in larger cities such as New York know exactly what I am talking about. What would be considered a "rich" salary in Idaho is barely getting by in NYC. Yet the IRS does not make such differenciations. So when Obama is talking about taxing the rich, he isn't talking about millionaires, he is talking about working class families in larger cities too. And these people do vote.
As far as Iraq, you didn't really read what I was saying about judgement.
And I think we do know what will happen if we leave Iraq. Since comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam abound on the left, after we retreated from Vietnam, 2 million died. You can choose not to acknowledge that, or not care and that's fine. Withdrawal is certainly an option that should be debated on it's merits (although i think we've had the debate before). However, Obama was not being honest when he suggested that we would end the war there by simply leaving.
Lest I remind you, in the years following WWII, many thought that it was audacious to suggest we could ever be on good terms with Germany or Japan, and many thought that they would never recover. These days Germany is the 3rd largest economy in the world, with Japan in 2nd to the US in first place. For someone who follows a leader proposing the audacity of hope, you sure seem to be lacking both.
As far as attacking saudi arabia, come on now, you are just being silly. Even more silly considering your anti iraq stance. Would you really support a war against SA, one of our allies, even though they are one of our best allies in the war on terror? You are starting to show a lack of knowledge.
And NAFTA hasn't hurt American jobs. The growing global economy has changed the playing field. NAFTA tried to acknowledge this. You can debate this all you like, but bear in mind Democratic President Clinton supported NAFTA, and rightfully so. I would suggest clicking the link to the alan greenspan article and giving that a serious read.
As far as people being sick of pro-business policies, I don't think I buy that, most people with JOBS appreciate pro-business policies. And given the unemployment rates, most people in this country have jobs.
You may not like pro-business ideas, but that would put you in a decidedly anti-american position. I hope other readers see your posts for what they are.
3 - The Obnoxious American
One more thing Dee:
" if we are serious about defeating hate and terror we need to address poverty"
This is the biggest load of horse**** i've ever heard.
For one, poverty has always existing in the middle east, yet the history of terror attacks is relatively new.
For another, who we elect President won't change the type of despotic regimes in the middle east, and it's these people who are the cause of poverty in the middle east.
But most importantly of all, I'd like you to show me ONE INSTANCE where government, and not business, ever helped anyone out of poverty.
This country is one of the richest in the world, and even our poor are rich by global standards. This wasn't by luck, and it's not because of government. It's precisely because of our capitalism based society that allows and promotes people to try and make something of themselves, which in turn has a positive impact on the rest of society. The great economic cycle, etc.
Some of these concepts you suggest makes me wonder whether you've read or respect the constitution that this great country is based on.
Actually, I don't have to wonder.
4 - handyguy
As you point out, you are unlikely to agree with the policies of any liberal Democrat. So I'm not sure what the purpose of this long-winded piece actually is.
If a Democrat or a genuine political independent [you don't qualify, sorry; name the last 3 Dems you voted for for anything] wrote an essay about Obama's policies, that would be worth discussing and debating. You're just preaching to the choir, off-key though you may be.
And PS - the reason that I and others often avoid "debating" you on here is that you don't debate at all. You just restate your position, endlessly, in circles. Conversations like that are just meaningless - certainly no one's mind is going to be changed or enriched by them.
5 - The Obnoxious American
"As you point out, you are unlikely to agree with the policies of any liberal Democrat. So I'm not sure what the purpose of this long-winded piece actually is"
It's not really that long, but clearly too long for you to read given the question of the purpose of this article. Here is an excerpt from the article:
The candidate's stance on the issues have not been widely discussed so this article will dissect Obama's positions.
and another:
I hope that this article helps get the discussion back on track about what the candidates are saying they'd actually do, rather than simply how they make us feel when they give a speech. Now that would be a real change.
You are doing yourself a disservice by responding to articles you haven't bothered to read.
"If a Democrat or a genuine political independent [you don't qualify, sorry; name the last 3 Dems you voted for for anything]"
Voted for Clinton and Gore in 2000...
"wrote an essay about Obama's policies, that would be worth discussing and debating. You're just preaching to the choir, off-key though you may be."
Off-key how exactly? Why exactly isn't Obama's policies not worth debating?
"And PS - the reason that I and others often avoid "debating" you on here is that you don't debate at all. You just restate your position, endlessly, in circles. Conversations like that are just meaningless - certainly no one's mind is going to be changed or enriched by them."
What does me have to do with your doing anything? Do you deny the points in the article, do you deny that Obama is an extreme liberal posing as a moderate?
I've never stopped you from making your case in response. Blaming me for your inability to refute these valid points that I raise is putting your position on a very slim reed indeed. And I am just some blogger on some website. If your support of Obama can't withstand the scrutiny of some guy like the Obnoxious American, how do you expect hang in the general? By calling out your opponents voting records?
We have Dee in here on the one hand arguing about the need to resolve poverty and at the same time against free trade - a total paradox in views belying a lack of understanding of them, and you chastising me instead of the points I made. I guess my article on Obama has some merit afterall.
6 - dee
I don't like paragraphs dude, so read it if you want or don't... i don't care... I don't expect you to realize that the country is becomming more liberal, as I said, people like you and most republicans are so out of touch they can't see the winds changing, but it is no doubt... You can't understand why people are supporting such a tax and spend liberal (as you call him) like Obama, it is simply because they like his policies, his liberal policies, better than the conservative alternative... Its not only about his speeches, but they help... I again disagree, if you think old man McCain will beat the Democrat in the election, short of the electronic voting machines being rigged, you are in for a big suprise... no way in hell a republican is going to be elected the next president... The only people complaining about the GOP not carrying out their so called platform and the social conservatives.. and let's be honest, these people are crazy... pretty much everyone else is fed up with Republican rule, republicans included.. its not to say they like Democrats either, most people are becoming independents, realizing that both parties are bought off by corporate lobbyists that do not represent the will of the people... I'm not going to offer any proof to this claim but simply will say, I told you so... I would again disagree, we are moving towards a rich poor society... I see this, you do not... the tax cuts went primarily to people making over $150K a year, i don't care where you live, Idaho, New York, California, people who make that much money are living comfortably... I acknowledg that 2 million died in Vietname after we left, but it was inevitable, we interferred in a civil war, there has to be a winner whether we delay it for 13 years or not... I care about American lives, and too many were lost in Vietnam for nothing, and too many are being lost in Iraq again for nothing... History lesson, we were aware that the Versailles treaty helped in creating WWII, therefore we didn't make that mistake again after WWII, we decided that we would help these countries get back on their feet instead of making them pay for the war... to try to compare WWII to Iraq is absolutely insane... Saudi Arabia, all I'm saying is let's attack the people who attacked us, you can't deny the fact that most of the hijackers were form there... maybe if that is the type of ally you want, you enjoy them, I can't see how they can be viewed as an ally if there citizens attacked us... you can try to ignore that all you want... I know president Clinton gave us NAFTA, that's one reason why I don't want his wife to be president, because NAFTA has hurt American workers... you may beleive the global economy is an unstoppable force I disagree with that assessment... I have a job and I hate pro business policies so there... Low unemployment is great, but there comes a time to deal with wages, a job with a low wage is as shitty as being unemployed, which gets back to the global economy and NAFTA, you know those things that you claim are good for the American worker... And finally, I love American, what I hate is what the Republicans are doing to the country and what their policies and values are doing to the American people... to claim because I'm not pro business that I must be anti-american is again to show how out of touch you really are...
7 - The Obnoxious American
Dee
You can't be anti capitalism and still love America. I mean perhaps you love the land this country sits on, and thats great, but the principles of this country are built on the concept of freedom, and freedom only works hand in hand with capitalism.
I'd like to see you provide a single example of a truly free people who have no poverty, and all of the opportunities we have, in an environment that is anti business. It simply does not exist.
You bring up the tired special interest argument that Obama loves to talk about. His favorite, the lobbyists, who write their checks to help Exxon, who then banks record profits... yeah I've heard the whole rigamarole. Isn't moveon.org a special interest? Isn't huffingtonpost.com a lobbyist? This is how our government works, and it makes sense that people lobby politicians. That's not to say we shouldn't clean out the bad lobbying, and the resulting earmarking and other nonsense. We should. But don't pretend for a second the problem is that we have lobbyist. That's a nonsensical sound byte of an argument if I ever heard one.
As far as attacking SA, yes, most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia as was Osama bin Laden. Did you know that OBL and Al Qaeda hate the Saudis? Back when Saddam was threatening all of it's neighbors before the Gulf War, the Saudi's rejected Osama's request to assemble his jihadist warriors against Saddam. The Saudis chose the US to help them instead, which prompted the creation of US bases there. OBL was outraged that the Saudis would work with the infidel Americans and has ever since been plotting the Saudi Royal Fam overthrow.
And we should attack the Saudis why? I am not saying they are a pefect ally, they are far from it. Among many problems with them, they teach anti-semetic views in school, which bothers me greatly because I am Jewish.
Interestingly, this turn's Obama's claim of the bush admin not talking to it's enemies on it's head. This is an example of the Bush admin actually talking to enemies and getting the most out of them. Obviously, the Sauds are much more willing to be open to our requests than the Iranians, and thus we talk to them. The same offer is on the table for Iran or North Korea, and they know this.
I think it's yet another paradox to suggest we go to war against the Sauds, but it's bad to go against Iraq. Another paradox, to suggest we should talk with our enemies, but then chastise us because of relations with the Sauds. How do you respond to these contradictions?
As far as this country becoming more liberal, perhaps, but there is a pattern in American politics of people becoming more of one, then another. It's a pendulum. Perhaps it is swinging in the liberal direction. But that's not going to stop me from publishing articles such as this exposing the platforms of these candidates for what they are - orthodox liberalism.
8 - Aaron Burr V. Mexico
You can be pro capitalism and still find UNREGULATED capitalism anti american.
Or have you actually READ "The Wealth of Nations"?
Capitalism requires liberal democracy to function.
9 - The Obnoxious American
And the other way around. I am not saying we should have completely unregulated capitalism. Certainly anti-trust and monopoly regulation have been invaluable, as have been labor laws, and a myriad of other government regulations.
But what Obama is suggesting turns the idea of capitalism on it's head. The government is here to support business, not the other way around. The "Government" is really us. And what do we need? Jobs so we can have homes and food and raise families and have the cycle repeat with better results in each incarnation. This has worked great for hundreds of years in this country and will continue, unless we decide that business and jobs are secondary to the operations of the government (as Obama is proposing in not so few words).
Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime. Obama is just talking about handouts, at the expense of people who do work and work hard to get to where they are. Take away the benefit of working hard, and we are living in soviet era russia.
10 - The Obnoxious American
And BTW, Aaron, I find you despicable, if at least a very good shot...
11 - dee
I can be anti capitalist and still love America because that is exactly what I am... so you can think that that's not possible but I am a living example of it... its funny to me that you can't even bring yourself to beleive that someone may be like that... to claim freedom is somehow entrenched with capitalism is insane... people can be free without capitalism... I never claimed that poverty and free people do not exist together, I'm speaking out against poverty, poverty is a huge moral disgrace for the richest country in the world, you are obviously pro business which is fine, I am not, I think poverty should be addressed before pro business ideals... I'm not sure what you are talking about with that one... to me it makes no sense that pro business people lobby politicians, they lobby for things that go against the will of the people, and in short benefit themselves and the ones accepting the money only, all lobbyist should be destroyed and banned from corrupting the government... You may be content with a government that acts like this, I am not, I don't think that it is a system that cannot be changed with of course the will of the people... Let's talk American foreign policy shall we, we supported Saddam against Iran, we funded OSBL against the Russians, how far do you want to go back... our foreign policy makes absolutely no sense, we are all over the place, why? because we are only worried about oil... don't pretend like we give a shit about anyone in the Middle East, anyone will be a ally of ours if they succum to what we want.. our foreign policy is f*cked up and needs an overhaul badly... I don't think we should act like God's gift to the world and claim that the only way we will talk to you is if you do what we want, it is an old school way of thinking, a way of thinking that needs to be changed... All I'm saying is that if we are serious about addressing the so called terrorist threat why not attack the people who attacked us? Iraq didn't attack us now did they? Why havn't we caught Osama? Your free to publish whatever you want, that's the beauty of a free country, Freedom of the Press... I don't want to stop you from laying out your case at all but I also have the freedom to respond to your negative attacks on Liberal positions and or liberal candidates... A liberal America is on its way once Barack gets elected so get ready...
12 - The Obnoxious American
Dee,
You are sliding off the deep end my friend. I'm not saying it's not possible to hold conflicting viewpoints. My point is that they are conflicting. You love America and hate business. OK I believe that's true. But that means you don't really understand America, or what you love about America is not it's founding principles of freedom. Which is why I suggested perhaps you love the land America sits on. Bottom line, you absolutely have a right to hold a position at odds with it self as well as a position that makes no sense. And I have the right to point it out.
It's funny how you talk badly about our being an ally with Saddam back in the eighties or once supporting OBL, then chastise Bush for not having more direct relations with our enemies in Iran or North Korea. I'm confused, do you support negotiations with our enemies or not?
Believe it or not, things change over time, people who are friends sometimes become enemies and vice versa. Are you suggesting that our foriegn policy not reflect the real situation in the world?
And sorry to inform you but the verdict is long in, in terms of being gods gift. I agree that we should not conduct this country from a position of hubris, but when it comes to what's right, I'd much rather the US, and no one else, be in the position of super power.
Dee, I've never said you can't respond. I am happy you responded and welcome your thoughts. To be quite honest, you are providing quite the fodder for me to show the faults in the common liberal mind set. I can only hope that some will read this and gain some enlightenment.
13 - handyguy
Between the loghorrea [bloghorrea?] of Dee and TOA, this thread will surely set some kind of record for number of words per post. Not a record to envy.
14 - The Obnoxious American
Handyguy,
Here are the stats thus far:
Posts complaining about the lack of brevity: 2
Posts talking about the points raised in the article: 0
Total posts: 2
:>
15 - bliffle
Capitalism isn't anyplace in the founding of the US constitution, and in fact was invented in the 19th century. The founders were inventors, farmers and small entrepeneurs, not amassers of capital.
The Constitution DOES contain protections for private property, extending to about the reach of your arm, but the excessive notions of modern Capitalism are foreign to the ideas of The founders. And modern capitalists are as abusive of private property as any communist, witness the seizure of private property through imminent domain for private uses.
Offhand, I'd guess that The Foundrs would be shocked at modern notions of the rights of Capitalism, including the peculiar notion of Cporporate Personage which is so easily and obviously abused for bribing public officials. YMMV.
16 - The Obnoxious American
Bliffle,
You are vastly understating the framers position. The right to own and protect your own property is one of the main and undisputed rights. The constitutional's lack of spelling out our rights is because it's supposed to be inclusive, not exclusive. Meaning, the assumption starts with the right, and what's written can only modify that right. Hence Hamilton's exception to the creation of the bill of rights - here is a quote from wikipedia on the topic:
"The idea of adding a bill of rights to the constitution was originally controversial because the constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people, rather it listed the powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. Alexander Hamilton, the author of Federalist No. 84, feared that such an enumeration, once written down explicitly, would later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had"
Freedom without capitalism is like eating without food. And no one has responded to my challenge to identify one nation, where the people are free and prosperous, and where capitalism is shunned.
17 - The Obnoxious American
I wanted to just point out two things:
How clearly Hamilton saw things from the vantage point of two decades ago is nothing short of amazing. Federalist #10 could not be more about the state of the country today.
And one other obvious point, to suggest capitalism was "invented in the 19th century" is quite possibly the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Ever heard of the bartering cavemen? I'm willing to offer you a mulligan on that one just because I like you bliffle...
18 - The Obnoxious American
a couple of corrections, centuries, not decades, and it was early man who bartered, not sure if that's the same as cavemen, but you get the point.
19 - Jamminsue
Obnoxious; you said:
Balancing the government's budget deficit is good business, but this has no meaningful impact on the nation's economy.
My response: Not true. The US government has to borrow that money, which put them in competition with citizens and, affects the interest rate. The interest rate is based on supply and demand, just like everything else. So, with how ever many trillion of government debt is that many trillion of credit that would be available to citizens. And, the the cost of interest on that debt is a fair slice of the federal budget every year that we would not have to pay in taxes.
That does not address the worst part of the issue which is the fact of where the money comes from to borrow: Who has that kind of money to lend on long-term basis in todays' world? You should be able figure that out.
20 - Dan Miller
There are glimmers of honesty and compassion in Sen. Obama which flare much more brightly than in Sen. Clinton. He seems far more likely to attempt to work by consensus than she does, and he seems more likely to diminish the racial divide in the U.S. Nor, unlike Sen. Clinton, does he inspire high levels of fear and hatred.
Substantive policies aside -- and his somewhat diaphanous policies as thus far articulated don't seem so very different from those of Sen. Clinton -- it seems to me that he would be a better president than she would. Substantive policies chosen for debate during election periods tend to be ephemeral anyway and to be covered in the press by short sound bites attractive to "one issue" voters. Of course, some of those policies will remain important long after the election but many will not; there will be new problems to face, largely unanticipated now or even in November. To face them, one must look to character and ability to build a policy consensus. At the moment, Sen. Obama seems to have a better chance than does Sen. Clinton.
Will I vote for Sen. Obama? I don't know. I have voted against several Democrats, but never for one. I have voted for many Republicans but never against one. This time, much depends on who is Sen. Obama's running mate and who is the Republican VP candidate. Like many people, I find the thought of Sen. Clinton as president (or president - in - waiting) abhorrent and very, very frightening. I don't feel -- and feel is the proper adjective here -- that way about Obama.
In the final analysis, I suspect that most voters go more on feel than on a very difficult rational analysis.
Dan
21 - troll
as they say in the old country - Es ist schmutzig Arbeit, aber jemand muss es tun :
'noxious - you say: *...to suggest capitalism was "invented in the 19th century" is quite possibly the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Ever heard of the bartering cavemen?*
and this has to be the most idiotic thing I've read in days - ! - by equating capitalism with barter you've stripped the concept of all significant meaning
and here: *You can't be anti
capitalismmercantile and still love America.* ... fixed it for ya22 - The Obnoxious American
Jamminsue,
I never said that the government's budget deficit isn't important or that it didn't have impacts. It does. However, only in a small way. Investment inducing, or savings inducing tax cuts might on the face look like a reduction in income for the government, but if they help the economy overall, they can have a very positive effect on taxes collected by the government.
Yes, I am suggesting that cutting taxes increases government revenue, and helps the economy, all at the same time. That's if it's done right of course. The tax cuts Obama is suggesting are not actually tax cuts if the people receiving them are not paying taxes in the first place. That's actually called a handout, and all that does is increase dependency on government assistance, see my comments earlier about teaching a man to fish...
The bottom line - the economy won't be any better because of a balanced budget and in my opinion, it would suffer under the policies of Obama.
Dan,
I thought your post was interesting and thoughtful. I am not sure who would be a better choice for president. I am really not fond of her health care plan (as noted in previous articles), but she does have the benefit of a husband with 8 years of experience. And despite the "party line" of experience not meaning a whole lot - I disagree, it does mean a lot. In fact, the more I look at Obama's platform, the more I am realizing just how much experience matters.
That said, let's not forget the choice isnt between Hillary or Obama, McCain is in there too. I've made no secret of my support of McCain. People may think he is the long shot, but they were saying that about him winning the primary back in December. Remember all those articles about how broke he was? He had to take out a bank loan...
If we really are talking about a true change candidate, and someone willing to reach across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion, then by every metric I can think of, that's McCain and not Obama. Not at all.
And I know the media can't stop talking about the GOP divide on McCain. It's yet another left wing paradox that the GOP is supposedly divided on their candidate, even though he has the delegates pretty much in the bag. Meanwhile the harmonious dems are in a 50/50 bitter split between an egomaniac and a nube who gives great speech. Interesting times.
23 - The Obnoxious American
Troll,
Here's a quote from wiki on Capitalism:
"Capitalist economic practices became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, although some features of capitalist organization existed in the ancient world, and early forms of merchant capitalism flourished during the Middle Ages.[3][4] "
I mean if you want to pretend that I am wrong that's all fine and good. I really don't care.
24 - troll
ya - but you've sidestepped my point...not that I care either
25 - The Obnoxious American
Did I? Not at all. This guy says capitalism was "invented" which by itself is wrong. He said it was invented in the 19th century which is wrong.
Is bartering the same kind of capitalism that we have today? I don't think I was ever saying that, but it's a system of good or services in exchange for other goods and services.
See, when people suggest that something is an invention, there is a suggestion that it's unnatural. To me, the idea of buying and selling goods and services is something that comes naturally to man. It's part of the inherent sense of fairness. They've done tests on certain primates that show they too have a sense of the exchange of one item of value for another. That early man bartered proves much more about what systems naturally work best for man. Capitalism is just an extension of those early days of bartering. But bartering was one of the early basis' of capitalism.
If you want to get into a debate of words with me about the differences of bartering systems and capitalism, that's your business. I think anyone reading this understands that bartering represents a subset of the full suite of what we call capitalism today.
On the other hand, what is not natural to man is communism or to a lesser degree, socialism. Why? Because when there is no incentive to work, work does not get done. And when you have a communist or socialist society, the people running the society (someone needs to be in charge) invariably take advantage of their position. You can see both of these problems manifest themselves to some degree in every failed socialism and capitalism.
At the end of the day, we are not worker bees. We are individual people, we yearn to be free, and to truly be free, we need to be able to engage in enterprises of our choosing, and bring to those enterprises a new view, or an additional value. Our worth in society should be based on what we bring to it. This, and not the Bush Tax Cuts, is what makes people rich. We shouldn't be in the practice of letting the value a person brings to society turn into a burden for that person.