What will Obama "Change"? What particular "Hope" does he offer?

Quote from achilles28:

I'd like Obama supporters to detail his platform.

Especially, in regards to this ethereal "hope-and-change" mantra, we keep hearing.

What specific "change" can we expect from Obama?

What particular "hope" does he offer?

Please be specific.
More...

(I'm not a supporter.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Of a proposed course of action He wants men, so far as I can see, to ask very simple questions; is it righteous? is it prudent? is it possible? Now if we can keep men asking "Is it in accordance with the general movement of our time? Is it progressive or reactionary? Is this the way that History is going?" they will neglect the relevant questions. And the questions they do ask are, of course, unanswerable; for they do not know the future, and what the future will be depends very largely on just those choices which they now invoke the future to help them to make. As a result, while their minds are buzzing in this vacuum, we have the better chance to slip in and bend them to the action we have decided on. And great work has already been done. Once they knew that some changes were for the better, and others for the worse, and others again indifferent. We have largely removed this knowledge. For the descriptive adjective "unchanged" we have substituted the emotional adjective "stagnant". We have trained them to think of the Future as a promised land which favoured heroes attain—not as something which everyone reaches at the rate of sixty minutes an hour, whatever he does, whoever he is,

Your affectionate uncle
SCREWTAPE

(From Screwtape Letter XXV)
 
Hey, Pabst-your a strange guy, with a lot of opinions, many good ones, some, not so good, and some not so -straight forward to the average punter, without the necessary background.

Please, write a book already, and stop wasting your talent here arguing inconsequentials.


Your writing here is of a very high level, and you will get more informed feedback and debate from a concise publication than you can here, surely.
 
Quote from acronym:

Hey, Pabst-your a strange guy, with a lot of opinions, many good ones, some, not so good, and some not so -straight forward to the average punter, without the necessary background.

Please, write a book already, and stop wasting your talent here arguing inconsequentials.


Your writing here is of a very high level, and you will get more informed feedback and debate from a concise publication than you can here, surely.
More...

You're a real gentleman. Thank's. I know I'm not always "right" but I do love to provoke. Critical thinking is nearly extinct due to PC within the media and academia. :)
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

Give it up. There's no question that taxes will be raised. The country has to pay off five years of nonstop, wasteful, no-bid contract war that it got by repeatedly voting Republican.
More...

Spending has DEFINITELY been the problem, but taxes is not the answer. It could easily be counter productive (weak economy, Laffer Curve effects, etc).

We need to dramatically CUT SPENDING.

Both parties suck on this issue. Ron Paul had the correct idea, but unfortunately he is a bit of a whack job (wanted to eliminate the CIA for example. Mainstream America would never go for that one).

I believe that no matter who is elected is going to have a financial disaster on their hands, and if they don't cut spending, a third party may actually arise with that as the platform. Sorta like Newt and his crew of 94, but without the burden of having to tote a Party line on all the other stuff. I think the Dems may accelerate this a bit if they raise taxes in an already sketchy environment however. Either way, something major is going to happen. Spending cuts chosen, or spending cuts forced.
 
Quote from Jayford:

Spending has DEFINITELY been the problem, but taxes is not the answer. It could easily be counter productive (weak economy, Laffer Curve effects, etc).

We need to dramatically CUT SPENDING.
More...

Well as I've previously pointed out here, the recent president's who have cut spending per GDP are Carter and Clinton, the ones who have raised it are Bush I, Bush II and Reagan.

So you can vote Democrat and hope they keep up their fiscal conservatism or vote Republican and hope that they display some great change.

Both parties suck on this issue. Ron Paul had the correct idea, but unfortunately he is a bit of a whack job (wanted to eliminate the CIA for example. Mainstream America would never go for that one).
More...

I enjoyed Ron Paul as his utopian philosophies made me laugh out loud. For example, forcing the dollar to be backed by gold was hilarious, when there simply isn't enough gold. Ridiculous, yes, but then almost all of his policies were.

Then there's the whole racist survivalist newsletters things where he (to this day) refuses to release them, and the ones that did leak out which were signed by him displayed shocking racism. Which he says he didn't write but they refer to him in the first person and directly quote a close personal friend of his.

But anyway, since spending cuts won't happen unless we're willing to cut the bloated military (which we're not) then it's tax increases for everybody. Get used to the idea.
 


But anyway, since spending cuts won't happen unless we're willing to cut the bloated military (which we're not) then it's tax increases for everybody. Get used to the idea. [/B]
More...


Its not just military excess. Entitlement programs eat up even more. There is an amazing amount of waste in the system. I agree that politicians won't cut anything. They may be forced to eventually however.
 
Quote from Jayford:

Its not just military excess. Entitlement programs eat up even more. There is an amazing amount of waste in the system. I agree that politicians won't cut anything. They may be forced to eventually however.
More...

Entitlement programs consume not quite half of the federal budget, but if you include retirement benefits for the military, the military consumes more than half.

Nobody's going to touch social security, the most that can be done is to means test it (which I would support).

The military was cut slightly during the "peace dividend" when Republicans supported the cuts. Sadly, now it's back beyond the total military expenditures of the top 10 other world countries combined. So it grows because the country needs to be "strong."

Not sure who the threat is that it needs to be at the total of the top 10 other countries combined but it's grown again. It has grown further with Bush's "off budget" "emergency" appropriations which were like giving a 10 year old a credit card.

So, more taxes. The Republican sleight of hand of giving the public money which it didn't have in the form of tax rebates now has to be paid for as well.
 
I just found this site. I have no opinion on the validity
and/or biases of it.

http://www.globalissues.org/

Military spending here. If the info is correct, this seems
like a useful site:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#USMilitarySpending

http://www.globalissues.org/article...ContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld

One has to remember that the amount spent on the U.S.
military (even IF there was no waste etc.) is not the total
picture. I posted a couple weeks ago that China (and of course
Russia) could shoot down our satellites. One wonders of the
cost to replace them should war brake out. One wonders of
the cost to go back to using spy planes instead of satellites.

What is the cost of inspecting EVERY cargo ship entering a
U.S. port for a nuke?
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

You're a real gentleman. Thank's. I know I'm not always "right" but I do love to provoke. Critical thinking is nearly extinct due to PC within the media and academia. :)
More...

Oh, so your just a talented troll?:D

I used to think, good writing was about using big words in context, but actually making an idea "clear" in writing is more difficult, whether I agree with you or not, you manage to do that, is what I'm saying.
I'm uncertain what the market may be for "somebodies political/socioeconomic opinions", maybe, given your background, a thriller would be a safer bet, but you can write.
Like a "Da Vinci code", of Chicago politics/financials or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top