Why vote Obama?
-
OBAMA HOOD
-
I hope the republicans who are spouting hateful "anti-American" retoric are prepared for the backlash coming. Here is a congresswoman from my own state who is implying that there are democrats who are anti-American and the media should investigate this. In my opinion this has gone too far. If you don't agree with some republicans you are a leftist, socialist, terrorist, anti-American... this hate-speak has got to stop. This only feeds and empowers the radical fringe who will use it as mental justification for violence.
http://www.dccc.org/page/content/bachmannvideo1/
here is what Colin Powell had to say about this topic
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/19/sots.powell.obama.cnn
seems to me the rich and powerful are doing anything they can to hold on to power.
-
What's scary is she actually believes the crap she says.
-
@watkins said:
Dear Ron,
Socialism doesn't have to follow an extreme model, such as post-war Chinese communism. The concepts of socialism are no different from the precepts of most religions, and specifically Christianity, so why does the word socialism raise your hackles? For example: 'Do as you would be done by', is a good socialist concept. To my mind, and relating to employment, it means paying a man/woman a decent hourly rate for their labour. This is evidently not the case for many developed countries as those on the lower rungs of society's prosperity ladder will testify.
I think we need to agree to disagree.
Kind regards,
BobBob, I live my life by the Golden Rule you mention: "Do unto other as you would have then do unto you." I don't see this as socialism, but more of a moral guideline. A way to live one's life. If this means you give money to the beggar on the street, fine. Or to donate your time/money to a charity. Or to be just plain friendly. The entire world could benefit from this moral tenent.
A decent wage is important and necessary for any society to allow it's citizens to progress up the economic ladder. Most low wage earners are transient. They don't stay at this level of earning for very long. The desire to improve oneself motivates one to seek other endeavors, to improve their lot in life. I believe this is easier to accomplish under a capitalistic system than a socialistic system specifically because of the relative tax rates. What would motivate anyone to pursue earning more money if the tax rate is 75% (as in Stinkie's example in another post)?
Look at how much money the US government pisses away each and every year. We could afford a national health care system under our current tax rate plan.
I think we can almost agree to agree.
-
Dear Ron,
Nicely put. I would write more, but its time for bed and I have work and taxes to pay tomorrow.
Kind regards,
Bob -
@sepo said:
Well if the state end up owning some banks than Bush will be first socialist president US had... To be honest there is nothing wrong with state helping unfortunate ones....Scandinavians made descent model out of it. Healthcare for everyone even when not run prefectly (like our NHS in UK) is more desirable than none...In UK on both side of the house (or rather 3 sides) they all agree that strong NHS is something which all of us want here. Also I believe that top guys should pay more. Some of them pay less taxes than me and that is not right when they make like millions. Selfishness is not way forward for the humankind.
How true it is that Bush will be known as the first republican president to tend toward socialism! The US does as good a job of helping the unfortunate as any other country in the world, national health care notwithstanding.
-
Ron
I have to say having political conversations with you is pleasant. I think the world would be a better place if we could all discuss political issues in a civil manner.
Look at how much money the US government pisses away each and every year. We could afford a national health care system under our current tax rate plan.<<<
10 billion a month in Iraq could go a long way towards a national health care system.
I agree with you that a socialist society my be a dis-incentive to improving your current economic situation. I used to work at a gas-station convenience store. People would come in and use a 1 dollar food stamp to buy a 3 Cent piece of gum to get the 97 cents of real change. They would do this several times until they had enough change to buy a pack of cigarettes, Then they would do it again and again until they had enough money for a six pack of beer. They would do this while they had three children in tow who looked like they could use a square meal. I think the welfare system back then was broken. I'm not aware of what system is in place today but I would agree with your assessment that there are undesirable aspects to a socialistic society. I'm sure there are undesirable aspects to any form of society.
Anyway It's nice to have pleasant and enlightening conversations with people that disagree with you. I hope the next few weeks that this philosophy wins and the dirty sleazy politics subsides.
-
-
@watkins said:
Dear Ron,
Socialism doesn't have to follow an extreme model, such as post-war Chinese communism. The concepts of socialism are no different from the precepts of most religions, and specifically Christianity, so why does the word socialism raise your hackles? For example: 'Do as you would be done by', is a good socialist concept. To my mind, and relating to employment, it means paying a man/woman a decent hourly rate for their labour. This is evidently not the case for many developed countries as those on the lower rungs of society's prosperity ladder will testify.
I think we need to agree to disagree.
Kind regards,
BobSocialism, according to Marx (Karl, not Groucho), was the transitional step from capitalism to communism. It would be achieved via class struggle and a "proletarian revolution". For almost two decades, we've heard the class warfare arguments from the left - claiming the right wanted to cut funding to the social programs (which generally were lies, presumably intended to stir the lower economic classes into discontent), claiming that across-the-board tax cuts were "tax cuts for the rich", and other such inflamatory rhetoric. All that has set the stage for Obama and his presumed goal of revolution (if he continues to hold to the Alinsky model as much as he has to this point).
As for socialism's precepts being akin to Christianity, I'll definitely have to disagree with you on that. Christianity holds no teachings regarding "collective ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods", nor the creation of an egalitarian society (beyond spiritual equality). In fact, other than admonishments to obey the laws of government (insomuch as they do not contradict the laws of God), the only earthly hierarchical teachings are about church leadership and structure.
"Do as you would be done by" is not a socialist concept. Just ask those who were "done by" the revolutionaries in Russia or China.
It would be better stated, "do unto the wealthy as you perceive they have done unto you, by killing them and redistributing their wealth among your comrades." If you've not watched the movie "Pursuit of Happyness", please do. It shows what the drive of an individual to better himself can accomplish in a free-market society. That kind of opportunity is not available in a socialist system, because it means someone would stand out and be different from his peers. No, socialism is contrary to human nature.Having said that, I suspect that we, too, may need to "agree to disagree" - though I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on all this.
-
@bellwells said:
A decent wage is important and necessary for any society to allow it's citizens to progress up the economic ladder. Most low wage earners are transient. They don't stay at this level of earning for very long. The desire to improve oneself motivates one to seek other endeavors, to improve their lot in life. I believe this is easier to accomplish under a capitalistic system than a socialistic system specifically because of the relative tax rates. What would motivate anyone to pursue earning more money if the tax rate is 75% (as in Stinkie's example in another post)?
Ron, as I pointed out already (and I just read a post of Jackson's in the same vein), money isn't the only reason people work. Everyone I know works his of hers proverbial butt off, despite the tax pressure over here. Self-acclompishment, you know. Like it or not, huff and puff all you like, the facts prove you wrong. As for the example I gave (which even to our standards is extreme), it was meant to show that I don't mind paying a lot of taxes, as I feel that I should contribute to the community I am a part of, rather than filling socks with wads of cash. Don't twist my words, it's bad form.
-
Personally, I've never understood the logic of that phrase "High levels of taxation act as a disincentive to earn more."
They certainly act as a disappointment...but a disincentive?...how? Social responsibility aside, higher earnings are higher earnings.Sure there's the problem of a little more pushing you into a higher bracket, but that's just detail. Any policy-makers worth their salt could figure out solutions to cases like that, so that more earnings always equates to more in your pocket, not less.
It's always been my experience that the disincentive line is always pushed by people who are themselves high earners...and have no problem of lack of incentive to continue working their way through the higher tax bands.
It's just a con...either to keep the masses where they belong or so that they can keep more of those high earnings for themselves. I've seen plenty of people in various jobs take on masses more work and responsibility for pay rises that were hardly noticeable, People will go to extraordinary lengths to earn more if they need the money, or work just as hard for the sake of a job well-done if they don't. Either way, how much is deducted in tax is utterly irrelevant.
-
Whoa...there is a lot of information in this conversation to sift through...I'll need to finish up some real work before I respond.
-
It appears that if you don't like Obama's position on an issue, just wait for a news cycle or two, and he'll fall in line.
-
@unknownuser said:
@rickw said:
We all know he's for "change" (it's all we'll have left in our pockets after paying for his new social entitlement programs)
We all know he's for "hope" (we hope we can live on the "change" left in our pockets)
We all know he's for raising the taxes on the rich.
We all know he's for meeting with leaders of rogue states without precondition.
We all know he thinks he's campaigning against George W Bush.So, aside from a decent-looking younger guy who can give a great delivery of a canned speech that says practically nothing (almost hypnotic, isn't he?) and an older running-mate who thinks President Roosevelt addressed the nation on TV during the stock market crash of 1929, what do we get? Does anyone have substantive answers? I'll not be argumentative - but I will be analytical
one answer:
Our government is 10 Trillion dollars in debt. And some say that's just the Debt that's obvious the real number is likely to be 70 TRILLION
-
the first social entitlement program he should tackle is our societies DEBT so let's see who can he get the money from...oh yes the citizens ALL of them rich poor, white black, male female, Young old...we are all on this sinking ship together and we had all better pick a hole to plug.
-
See answer number 1
-
See answer number 1
-
Misleading he has said he would meet with after the appropriate lower level diplomatic arrangements have been met. But even if that is not true do you believe we can solve world problems with our enemies with Bombs alone. What we tend to forget is that these "ENEMIES" are just like us a society of people and unles you intend to eradicate every single Iranian living on this planet than it seems to me that we should find a way to have open and honest dialog with them so that we can get on with the business of allowing people of any and all ethnic backgrounds to develop and prosper as peace loving people. I don't pretend to understand the motives of the Iranians but I do firmly believe that violence and war will only lead to more violence and war. it's a simple law of physics action and reaction. Until someone is truly brave enough to step aside and let an aggressor fall on his face the shoving match will continue. War and war mongering are not the answer and never have been.
-
See answer number 1
Anyway as to your response on "substantive" answers specific to Obama well when you are lost and you get to a fork in the road and one sign says stay on the same path you have been on for the last eight years or take this path which may lead to a happier place...I'll take may or might, or possibly. or slim chance in hell, or only a glimmer of hope...over certain continued suffering any day.
I don't claim to know what Obama's plans for our countries future are anymore than you can claim to know what McCain has planned for our future.
Let's just boil it down to candidate x and candidate y. Candidate x represents a continuation in whole or part of the policies of the past eight years and candidate y represents a "potential" change in the policies of the last eight years...Again I vote for the "potential" change.
So for me it's really less about the specifics of Obama's promised policies because we all know how much a politicians promise is worth, and more about that glimmer of hope that "change" may happen.
-
Not sure what you're trying to say. Obama's already stated he intends to expand social spending. Given that, even raising taxes on the rich won't cover the additional spending AND pay on our national debt. Kennedy proposed lowering taxes to avoid a recession; we're sliding into one, and Obama wants to raise taxes (of some). Some point to Clinton's tax increase as increasing revenue from the rich, but forget that he raised them retroactively, so people didn't have time to prepare. There was one year of increased revenue, then it leveled off (as a percentage). In the few years that followed, the dot-com bubble increased capital gains and boosted the economy, allowing the government to pay its expenses with money left over (sort of - they still robbed Social Security). Then the bubble burst, and we started sliding into recession going into the 2000 elections. I have no doubt the recession that started in 1999-2000 would have been a lot worse (especially after 9-11) had it not been for the across-the-board tax cuts pushed by Bush. The bottom line: Clinton didn't control spending, but he got lucky. Bush really didn't control spending, nor was he lucky. Obama won't control spending (will expand it, most likely). We'll have to wait and see if he has any luck beyond getting nominated.
-
A lot of what I said was tongue-in-cheek. However, since you took the time to treat this one seriously, I will do likewise
First off, Obama said as much in a primary debate. It was later that he expanded on his answer (creating the impression - whether right or wrong - that he made the changes after getting negative feedback).
Second, Iran, it appears, is a nation held hostage by its leaders. From the information I've read from journalists who have interviewed regular Iranians (for example, there was an excellent article in a recent issue of Smithsonian magazine), there is an affinity for America not shared by its leaders. It makes the question a difficult one - how to deal with threats from a government without alienating the nation. The mistake tends to be making the assumption that Muslim threats are politically-based (U.S. foreign policy, etc.), when in fact they are religiously-based. That is not to say that all Muslims are a threat - that's a different topic of discussion. But there is a segment of the Muslim population that is bent on the destruction of 1. Israel, 2. the USA (in part for its support of Israel), and 3. all non-Muslim nations/people. In the Islamist mind, the world is divided into two groups: those under Islamic law, and those who must be converted or destroyed. With those people, there is no real negotiation, no real solution. For them, the bomb is the only solution - and I say that with deep regret. Don't forget, for 30 years America had basically just turned the other cheek. It is only in the last 10 years that we have actively (militarily) done anything about the Islamist threat.
Third, a similar situation exists in the minds of anti-capitalists (whether socialists or communists). Despite Solo's naive comments, communism will always be a dangerous thing. In America, we have (at least for now) the right to disagree and coexist. In Russia during the revolution, to disagree meant death (for 10 million people), and after the revolution, it meant either death (for another 20 million), political imprisonment, or exile. In China, it meant death for 2.5M during the revolution and for another 40M during the "Great Leap Forward", and today still means death or political imprisonment (source of stats). In that regard, radical Islam is akin to communism: dissent is not tolerated, it is crushed. We should not expect anything different if Obama's Alinskyist views are allowed to culminate in their intended end.
@unknownuser said:
Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default. (emphasis added)"
So what does it mean, this "revolution"? What does it mean, this concern that "they will move to the right"? What else could it mean but a revolution akin to that in Russia? And if that happens, expect opportunities like the one we are experiencing now - the free expression of contrary ideas - to be a thing of the past. It may not happen overnight - in fact, it will likely happen by degrees. One small step towards socialism, followed by another. One freedom yielded, followed by another ("Politically Correct" speech, anyone? "Hate crimes" legislation, anyone? "Fairness Doctrine" anyone?). If we analyze any canned Obama speech, you'll see all the elements of that Alinsky quote - the fomenting of frustration, the dissemination of dissatisfaction, the chants of "change", ultimately leading to a lunge towards a leftist ideology.
- (because it came after #5) - McCain isn't Bush. He's been contrary to Bush on several substantial issues, and will be a different president than Bush was (thankfully). Change will happen regardless of whether McCain or Obama is elected - it's mere conceit that Obama claims he's the only agent of change. Beyond that, it goes back to Obama's Alinsky-inspired philosophy. All in all, given the Dems in the primary, it seems Edwards might have been the least threatening ideologically, but then I haven't researched him as thoroughly...
Personally, if it really came down to another $1T in debt or several steps towards communism, I'm afraid I'd have to take the debt. Unfortunately, we may have to take both. Like you said, though, we'll have to see what a politician's promises are worth...
-
-
Pat Buchanan? LMFAO, why not post an article from Rush limbaugh?
Here is the original of your post from his site 'RIGHT from the beginning' http://buchanan.org/blog/
-
Like him or not, here's a few more reasons to vote for Obama (speaks to many of my concerns quite eloquently):
-
Thanks Tom, this video from that site says it all: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27276457#27277773
-
@rickw said:
...So what does it mean, this "revolution"? What does it mean, this concern that "they will move to the right"? What else could it mean but a revolution akin to that in Russia?...
How about one akin to the American Revolution? (How 'bout those rabble-rousing radical revolutionaries: our Founding Fathers?) The French Revolution? More recently the Velvet, Orange, Rose, and Tulip Revolutions? For that matter the Cedar Revolution? And also the Blue Revolution in Kuwait? (Admittedly, the Purple Revolution hasn't worked out so well...yet? :`)
-
@unknownuser said:
@bellwells said:
What would motivate anyone to pursue earning more money if the tax rate is 75% (as in Stinkie's example in another post)?
Don't twist my words, it's bad form.
Oh, I wasn't twisting your words, stinkie. I was giving the 75% tax rate (you said you paid) as an example of that level of taxation at which I think capitalists would begin to lose desire to earn more. I can say this because I have experience, I'm a capitalist, you're not.
I understand you don't mind paying high taxes, I very much do mind.
-
Oh, allrighty then. I am a capitalist, though. Let me put it this way: I'm a mildly leftist, considerate capitalist. I like to make money (yay, money!), but I do not mind sharing it. I'm not always over the moon with joy when I see how much taxes I have to pay (who is?), but in the end I feel it's for the better.
Advertisement