I am always amused when I hear Obama's campaign slogan. I am even more amused when I hear his speeches about change, with his heart-warming anecdotes and his charismatic language. Doubtless, he is a wonderful speaker. He has mastered the political principle of directing the masses of people with the power of his words.
But, every time I hear his speeches, I am left with one question: WHAT will you change?
Like all politicians, he associates himself with the best possible words--words like change, hope, prosperity, freedom. However, he has failed utterly in telling Americans WHAT, specifically, he will change. Will he change taxes? The economy? The military? The Constitution?
What change, exactly, am I supposed to believe in? After going to his website, and reading in more detail about what he will change, I have another question: how in the world will he AFFORD change? His policies all require a drastic increase in almost every social service and government agency. With his tax cut plan for most Americans, can he afford his campaign promises? Before I can believe in his change, I first need to know where he is going to GET THE CHANGE to pay for it.
Maybe his new campaign slogan should be "Change We Can Believe In...and Hopefully Afford".
If you've actually listened to him (and not the pundits, which amusingly your views are being echoed EVERYWHERE. "What Change?" people say) you may know that he proposes he proposes a change in two key areas: defense spending and corporate tax breaks. Re-establishing a graduated income tax in order to reverse Reaganomics, and preventing further escalations (and gradually withdrawing troops from the Middle East) could create the type of funding needed for, say, his energy plan.
If you've read his website, do him a favor by spreading the ideas, not the rhetoric.
And just so you don't get the impression I support him, I'll say that we're still dating... I'm not ready to take him home yet.
Why would I do him a favor? I don't support him. Ha.
And I specifically asked "how would he pay for it?" Didn't hear you comment on that.
"The two best-known analyses of the war’s costs agree on this figure, but they diverge from there. Linda Bilmes, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate and former Clinton administration adviser, put a total price tag of more than $2 trillion on the war." -http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html
There's a specific for you. Why don't you research what kind of funding for social programs we would receive if we initiated a fair income tax? Will we need any more $? I'll let you be the judge of that.
And just because you mentioned it, I'm curious: who do you support?
I don't actively support anyone. The candidates don't match up with my principles. McCain most closely does, so, even though I won't actively support him, he'll get my vote in November if he is the Republican nominee.
And maybe you should research the specifics of all of Obama's proposed programs on his website. It took me hours to read through. Each one requires a support jump of tens of millions, sometimes billions, of dollars.
And that 2 trillion price tag is the projected cost. Not the actual. Kinda like the surplus everyone raves about when Clinton left office. There was no surplus. There was a projected one. There was still a deficit in reality, though.
Yes, please tell me how much the war bill IS right now. Would you mind explaining who exactly will be paying for it for the rest of our lives?
Apparently "The Iraq War Will Cost $36,900 Per Montana Household...Even assuming significant force reductions, the cost of the Iraq War will total $6 billion for Montana taxpayers by 2017"
--"Montana Economic Snapshot" January 23, 2008
Yes, yes, he will use the money to rebuild America.
Then terrorists will come and blow all that to hell, wasting all the money. I'd rather spend the money to keep troops stationed over there, to make Iraq a magnet for all the terrorists to come and die. Those terrorists attack the Iraqi people. Better them then us. The US military kills tens of thousands of them. Better the Muslim extremists die there then die here, taking us with them.
"Why would I do him a favor? I don't support him. Ha."
Why would you drag him down for arbitrary reasons, reasons that when matched with statistics are crap? That's dirty politics--I say, hold him accountable for things the public should know. It's called constructive criticism for a reason.
Do you believe it's constructive to echo talk-show guests who haven't researched the issues?
It's politics nonetheless. This isn't a pretty game. You're a good citizen. You research the issues. Most people don't.
The game isn't played idealistically, my friend. I will use dirty politics, bashing, negative points if I see greater payoff. I don't care if they have no relation to the issues. I don't care about constructive debate in politics if negative talking will further my goals more. Democracy is about herding the masses to where you want them to go. If it has to be done with unconstructive means...so be it.
Why don't you rename yourself ''The Propaganda Artist Who Slept With A Progressive Last Night"? That may be what you're stumbling to say...
Sustainably yers, Green Underbelly
If that was supposed to be insulting, it didn't work. If you see me as a propaganda artist, I take that as an extreme compliment. That is what I am trying to do here.
And if I got to sleep with an extremely attractive Progressive Female, then hell, I'm in business!
Sure, whatever you're into man.
Sustainably yers, Green Underbelly
I'm certainly into directing masses of people to where I want them to go. And I'm certainly into sexual intercourse with an attractive female.
And I'm certainly into a debate. Tell me: how would Obama direct national security? The economy, education, social welfare, all that is good. It certainly is secondary to safety, though. None of those things listed do you any good if you are dead.
And I could have predicted that you'd be a fear mongerer too. So predictable. Please, you gave away your hand already-- you'll say anything to convince people that Reaganomics and defense spending is the path towards prosperity. Why would you go against Karl Rovian Theory, which briefly states, the candidate who scares the Bajeesus out of the voters wins. We saw it in 2002 in the mid-term elections. We saw it in 2004 when Jon Kerry, the candidate who served in the military, was evidently proven to be ''weak on defense of this country."
I just don't see it happening this year, I don't. And it's because people like you are predictably avoid common sense in favor of FEAR. How will we ever sleep?
Sustainably yers, Green Underbelly
And I could have predicted that you'd be a fear mongerer too. So predictable. Please, you gave away your hand already-- you'll say anything to convince people that Reaganomics and defense spending is the path towards prosperity. Why would you go against Karl Rovian Theory, which briefly states, the candidate who scares the Bajeesus out of the voters wins. We saw it in 2002 in the mid-term elections. We saw it in 2004 when Jon Kerry, the candidate who served in the military, was evidently proven to be ''weak on defense of this country."
I just don't see it happening this year, I don't. And it's because people like you are predictably avoid common sense in favor of FEAR. How will we ever sleep?
Sustainably yers, Green Underbelly
Ah, but my argument prevents us from living in fear. Unlike Mr. Clinton's term in office, which had a major terrorist attack every 18 months or so, Mr. Bush's term had one attack. He then DID something about it. We have to keep doing something about it.