Some info:
He never supported the Iraq war, during 2002 during the ultimatum to Saddam from GWB Barack protested the idea of a war in Iraq actively and has been opposed to it since.
He entered Harvard Law School in 1988.
(In 1990, The New York Times reported his election as the Harvard Law Review's "first black president in its 104-year history".)
He has two best selling books, the most recent of which "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream" was published in 2006. The man is obviously very intelligent.
Economically, Barack Obama is not a fool. The slander that he is a liberal fool who cant understand economics is ridiculous. He supports simply removing unfeasible tax cuts that George W Bush gave to people who earn over 1 million a year, a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. Barack Obama simply believes in tax shelters for working class Americans to encourage economic growth. Taxes in essence will be moved from poor to rich, which is more sensible anyway. Barack Obama is simply an advocate of cutting wasteful federal spending, such as the immensely questionable subsidization of Oil and Gas companies who are posting record profits. Barack Obama believes in feasible and sustainable economic incentives such as tax credits and investing in infrastructure. He also believes in cracking down on credit fraud and questionable mortgage practices (he was pushing for legislation against questionable credit practices before the sub-prime mortgage crisis sent the US housing market into a recession.)
He is against the war in iraq and believes in a phased withdrawal, which is fair because it is unrealistic to expect the country to not fall into chaos if you withdrew all at once. His plans for withdrawal is over a 16 month period with excessive diplomatic support towards the Iraq government to take care of themselves.
He is pro-choice, believes in giving women the right to choose what decision to make in regards to unwanted pregnancy. This is supposed to be the land of the free after all.
Unlike other candidates Obama's campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees.
47 million Americans including nearly 9 million children lack health insurance: Barack Obama intends to introduce universal health care, something that the USA can more than afford. By making sure everybody has coverage this ensures that people will be more actively making doctor visits and checking up on symptoms. This means that more serious diseases will be caught while still treatable, long debilitating illnesses like cancer cost the economy far more indirectly than free healthcare will directly. Longer life expectancy, better health, and whats more important, taking away the negative incentives in US society today of not getting checked up, for health insurance companies to not allow treatment, and the incentive for doctors that you being sick or taking drugs makes them more money. The current healthcare system simply imposes burden on demographics that are poor, such as the elderly or the demographics who are financially burdened, such as those dealing with serious illness.
“The cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and states of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. . . . If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we'd see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.” -Barack Obama
Under President Bush, the federal debt has increased from $5.7 trillion to $8.8 trillion, an increase of more than 50 percent. Combine that with tax cuts for the rich which will cost the nation 2.3 trillion.
Debt has interest, excessive spending under the bush administration is crippling the American economy. Barack Obama gets it, it bothers me when people from byond think they get economics and politics better than Barack Obama, his policy, speaches and ideas are centrist, they are feasible and they are intelligent solutions to the problems in your country.
Make the right decision, Barack '08.
ID:39991
 Mar 6 2008, 7:20 am (Edited on Mar 6 2008, 3:50 pm)
|
|
|
Mar 6 2008, 7:27 am
|
|
Spartan261
 |
Barack Obama For '08!
|
:) btw i found this interesting site
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008 For those who have decided to depict barack as super left wing. It seems people who actually put effort into evaluating candidates into 2d metrics (most likely because you are too lazy to pick up a newspaper). | |
I'm finding myself able to agree with you more and more. o:
| |
Yeah, I fully agree with you. Barack Obama is what we need right now, and fast. It's about time we get someone intelligent into office who actually knows what they are doing and who thinks about the people of the country first. Bush has not listened to one thing this country wanted, all he did was send our troops into Iraq to get oil, that is all he has done and it has cost us trillions and sent this country into a state of hell.
I am a Republican and my favorite president was Bill Clinton. He was the best, too bad he got impeached though. He would have done so much good for us if he hadn't been. His wife is retarded though, I really hope she does not win. The last thing we need is a President on her period. Oh man, imagine how bad that would be? Barack '08! | |
Cavern wrote:
Yeah, I fully agree with you. Barack Obama is what we need right now, and fast. It's about time we get someone intelligent into office who actually knows what they are doing and who thinks about the people of the country first. Bush has not listened to one thing this country wanted, all he did was send our troops into Iraq to get oil, that is all he has done and it has cost us trillions and sent this country into a state of hell. ...he was never removed from office... | |
Yeah, I fully agree with you. Barack Obama is what we need right now, and fast. It's about time we get someone intelligent into office who actually knows what they are doing and who thinks about the people of the country first. Bush has not listened to one thing this country wanted, all he did was send our troops into Iraq to get oil, that is all he has done and it has cost us trillions and sent this country into a state of hell. Bush has sent us to war in Iraq, but not because of oil. Also, congress had to allow bush to send troops to Iraq, so blame your local congress members who are suppose to be representing you first. If the US didn't go into Iraq now, the US and the UN would be fighting a much stronger Iraq in 5-10 years. Saddam was known for his gross human rights violations, which include gas bombing his own people regularly in order to develop strategies for fighting against his neighbors. The War in Iraq only exadurated the problem the democrats have of overspending, which will only get worse under a president like Obama, who wants to give everyone everything for nothing. I am a Republican and my favorite president was Bill Clinton. He was the best, too bad he got impeached though. He would have done so much good for us if he hadn't been. His wife is retarded though, I really hope she does not win. The last thing we need is a President on her period. Oh man, imagine how bad that would be? His wife is retarded? Are you 12? You sir are an idiot. Hillary Clinton is 61 years old, I know you probably like older women, but don't flatter yourself, she stopped menstruating a long time ago. Bill Clinton wasn't a democrat, he was a centrist. Not Barack '08! | |
Masterdan, I like the post about right wing conservatives being scared of arguing, right after you disable posts.
Barack Obama's general argument: Everyone gets Everything for free! + Tax the rich! + Tax Businesses! + Tax the Middle Class + Tax the Poor ??? Stronger Economy! The government shouldn't handle welfare, the private economy should. It can become a marketing technique if taxes are lowered and it's encouraged. When the private economy does it, it's donations and not forced. Should I have to pay for free health care because the heroin addict down the street got aids and needs $120,000 aids medication once a week? Or the illegal alien who cut his leg after jumping the border fence? Or the illegal alien who got in a car accident because he doesn't know how to drive? | |
Centralized health care is just another step towards achieving the status of "Ladyland"(Motherland for us Americans). The problem isn't that privatization is bad...it's just that the insurance companies are racking in way too many profits in the process. Instead of the government running it, they should regulate the profits earned by these companies. Personally, I don't mind a little government in my health care, but I do mind having more government than health care.
| |
Strawgate wrote:
Masterdan, I like the post about right wing conservatives being scared of arguing, right after you disable posts. Yeah, I found that to be so ironic... I just joined for the sake of replying: I was actually expecting to be _rejected_ from this guild. lol, I'll give him props for not doing that... Barack Obama's general argument: It's a double edged sword. In order to fix our debitures; the US needs to both raise taxes and lower spending... the sooner the better. As I tell anyone who will listen, look up some research on David Walker's lectures and speeches about what the real economic problems are in the US. (He was the former Comptroller General of the US... basically, chief accountant for the US gov't). So, while Barack may have it right with tax increases, he's got it dead wrong with his proposed $280B increase in spending -- the highest amongst all candidates. The government shouldn't handle welfare, the private economy should. It's no longer economically feasible to have Social Security and Medicare legislated the way they are today. Those two programs (plus national debt interest) will all the US will be able to afford by 2020. It can become a marketing technique if taxes are lowered and it's encouraged. When the private economy does it, it's donations and not forced. Should I have to pay for free health care because the heroin addict down the street got aids and needs $120,000 aids medication once a week? Here's the ironic thing, Strawgate; the Medicare system is already a nationalized form of health care... and it is bankrupting us. Before we even attack any Dem on their proposed universal/first payer health care platform, we must villify nearly all polititions for their unwillingness to reconstruct the Medicare system. Or the illegal alien who cut his leg after jumping the border fence? Or the illegal alien who got in a car accident because he doesn't know how to drive? The illegal immigration problem can mostly be broken down economically: 1) How much detriment to local wage earners does it have? 2) How much would it cost for an aggressive deportation/protection policy? 3) How ingrained is the wage floor illegal immigrants provides local industries? In every respect, the problem and the proposed solutions are very very costly to the US taxpayer. | |
“The cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and states of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. . . . If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we'd see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.” -Barack Obama So how does increasing government spending by more than $280B a year equate to a return to responsible fiscal policies? I mean, you can have a nice quote, but goodness gracious, tell me how that actually reduces the national debt? Under President Bush, the federal debt has increased from $5.7 trillion to $8.8 trillion, an increase of more than 50 percent. Combine that with tax cuts for the rich which will cost the nation 2.3 trillion. Debt has interest, excessive spending under the bush administration is crippling the american economy. Barack Obama gets it, it bothers me when people from byond think they get economics and politics better than Barack Obama, his policy, speaches and ideas are centrist, they are feasible and they are intelligent solutions to the problems in your country. You have provided no reference to these "intelligent solutions" that Obama proposes to reduce the national debt. Tell me how he can given this graph from the national taxpayer's union's analysis of each candidates spending proposals: http://www.byond.com/members/Bootyboy/files/ 2008pres_total.png | |
Basically, Obama is a good candidate. Right now his economic policies are kicking the republicans eco. plans asses. But so far...thats all I see out of him. Also his good public speaking. When the election comes, it will be Obama and McCain, I can vote so, I probably will be voting for Obama.
| |
Pyronick16:
How is raising taxes a good economic policy? Also, good public speaking is a poor replacement for bad policys. | |
How is raising spending a good economic policy?
Name one policy of Obama's that will address his eloquent promise of lowering the national debt. Pyronick16 wrote: Basically, Obama is a good candidate. Right now his economic policies are kicking the republicans eco. plans asses. But so far...thats all I see out of him. Also his good public speaking. When the election comes, it will be Obama and McCain, I can vote so, I probably will be voting for Obama. | |
Strawgate wrote:
Masterdan, I like the post about right wing conservatives being scared of arguing, right after you disable posts.Right, undoing the tax break bush did. Sensible + Tax Businesses!Where are you getting that from? + Tax the Middle ClassNope, tax breaks even. + Tax the PoorNope, again, tax breaks. ???Here ill help you out, getting out of that deficit the last president got you in will reduce your debt and getting otu of Iraq will reduce your expenses from a quagmire foreign conflict that is futile. Stronger Economy! Bingo | |
Name one policy? Taxing the rich and removing redundant government funding, stopping the war in iraq because its a constant drain on the economy and dealing with the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
You gotta spend money to make money, thats how the economy works. You invest in schools to get intelligent people who later run businesses, you give universal health care to keep people healthy and keep them from going bankrupt due to ridiculous costs and you reduce corruptness across the border, take money from the rich and the big companies who get all the breaks who are posting record profits despite the fact that middle america has been facing economic crisis's. | |
So what you are basically saying, give everyone an education so they can become rich, and then leach everyones money to death? The government shouldn't spend money on everything. Private schools(Lower education) are significantly more effecient than public schools while using 1/2 to 1/3rd the money, in order to compete with public schools. Universal healthcare only benefits those in the population who don't contribute to society in the slightest, it raises taxes on everyone and if implemented will consume the national budget in short time.
| |
Strawgate wrote:
So what you are basically saying, give everyone an education so they can become rich, and then leach everyones money to death? No, did i say that? Its called investing in your people. Countries with good schools typically see a stronger economy. Last time i checked you guys had sub-par schools and extraordinary wealth. How pathetic. | |
Masterdan wrote:
Name one policy? Taxing the rich and removing redundant government funding, stopping the war in iraq because its a constant drain on the economy and dealing with the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Let's complete the Obama stance on these policies: 1) Taxing the rich and removing redundant government funding: this is fine policy; however, his platform only does one of those policies. He does promise to reduce parts of government; however, he couples that by bloating government to the tune of an extra $280B a year. Hence, this does not reduce the national debt. 2) Stopping the war in Iraq. On principle, this is the correct policy. However, he must couple this with a foreign policy that is non-interventionist and promises no nation building. In order for the US to see the cost savings of an Iraq withdrawal, we must not spend more money on an economically unsustainable foreign policy. 3) The subprime mortgage crisis: any government fiscal intervention on free markets does not help the market and the government never sees the return on. The free market should determine how the default of the loans occur; any intervention will lengthen and worsen the economic pain. You gotta spend money to make money, thats how the economy works. 100% correct. Let the free market decide what the prices of goods and services are; keep as much government out of it as possible. You invest in schools to get intelligent people who later run businesses, Agreed, kids and their parents are responsible for investing their time and money for constant learning. you give universal health care to keep people healthy and keep them from going bankrupt due to ridiculous costs No, this is patently wrong. Massachusetts can't get it done; neither can the nation. Medicare is the one program that will cripple the Federal budget, and that only covers folks over 65. The entire US budget will only cover Medicare, Social Security, and national debt interest by 2020 without SEVERE reform. Adding national health care will only accelerate this situation. and you reduce corruptness across the border, take money from the rich and the big companies who get all the breaks who are posting record profits despite the fact that middle america has been facing economic crisis's. Heaven forbid companies make a profit. And what is this corruptness you speak of? What US governmental rules regarding trade or commerce has Obama proposed which would make current practices illegal? What rules are international companies violating that would lead you to such a preposterous claim that Obama will reduce corruption? | |
You make a good argument. Its not so black and white wether or not conservative politics or more left wing politics work in terms of economic growth. I think its a balance, i think the government should regulate the credit institutions to keep them from issuing debt in such a way that they are basically pulling one over the consumer, you regulate them simply because when they mess up big time it also hurts the rest of the economy and keeping credit institutions from having full reign of control i dont think is necessarily good policy. They messed up this subprime situation and i think some government controls in place could have prevented it. However now we are debating something that i am less sure about, once you get to the issues and start talking about what will yeild a higher success.. well its interesting. Getting out of iraq and cutting spending and focusing on financial responsibility by reducing debt... thats a policy i would be for. If John mccain wasnt pro-iraq and pro world-police foreign policy then i would have a lot more respect for him.
However im a centrist and im always uncertain when it comes to what helps the economy the most. I believe more money in schools is a sure thing worth the investment though. I dont 100% know if universal health care is a good idea for the US but i know the current system sucks too. I still like a lot of barack obamas policy compared to anybody else, doing nothing is not always the most conservative approach, not when your current system is wasteful and broken and terribly organized. And i never, EVER understood why tax breaks were given to the rich under the bush administration. On that note, after looking at Obama's initiatives i dont think anything he plans on doing is wasteful spending. I believe they are investments into the country that to me seem wise and i believe will yield growth and future cash inflows in the future. | |