Barack Obama ISSUES thread. (1 Viewer)

[RebSaint]

I've perused his website and I must say that frankly his platform just advocates too much big government for me. Now, it's not to say that I've completely ruled him out. I like his stance on Iraq (doesn't go far enough) and his pledged support of civil liberties.

For example, education is one part of his "plan" which I vehemently disagree. Throwing money at No Child Left behind won't solve the problem. Creating a more bloated, powerful Department of Education won't solve the problem. The Department of Education, imo IS the problem. I don't mind federal funding to help states pay for education, but NCleft behind is a monumental disaster. Scrap it.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/

Read through the site and you'll find out that he's the real deal when it comes to supporting liberal reforms. You'll see "double" spending in many parts of the platform.

Here's one thing though: he'll be accused of being a closet socialist and a liberale but the last Democrat in the White House actually governed middle of the road on some issues--and right/left of center on others.

And two other issues: will Obama change his platform once he's nominated? And how is this country going to pay for all this new spending? We're broke as it is.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

An important thing to remember is he can't spend any of it himself. Since the President doesn't control the checkbook these "promises" are more about defining philosophy. It's common fodder for candidates to do this.

Obama claims he'll fund everything by pulling out of Iraq and letting the tax cuts expire on people making over 250k per year. Frankly I think the pulling out of Iraq stuff is political maneuvering too. I don't think he or Hillary will actually do it.

So in the end he will probably do like most candidates, promises tons then pick one or two key issues to actually pursue as his platform. My guess knowing his focus would be key in on world poverty and health care. Those are the two he'll try and really do out of his personal platform. The rest will just be the Democratic playbook.

In the end they will all spend about the same amount because the Congressional budget won't change drastically based on who's in the White House. However, Obama's big government philosophy that is defined by his spending proposals is one of the reasons I'll probably be voting for McCain.

 

[RebSaint]

An important thing to remember is he can't spend any of it himself. Since the President doesn't control the checkbook these "promises" are more about defining philosophy. It's common fodder for candidates to do this.

Obama claims he'll fund everything by pulling out of Iraq and letting the tax cuts expire on people making over 250k per year. Frankly I think the pulling out of Iraq stuff is political maneuvering too. I don't think he or Hillary will actually do it.

So in the end he will probably do like most candidates, promises tons then pick one or two key issues to actually pursue as his platform. My guess knowing his focus would be key in on world poverty and health care. Those are the two he'll try and really do out of his personal platform. The rest will just be the Democratic playbook.

In the end they will all spend about the same amount because the Congressional budget won't change drastically based on who's in the White House. However, Obama's big government philosophy that is defined by his spending proposals is one of the reasons I'll probably be voting for McCain.

No can do on McCain based on foreign policy itself; I want out of Iraq and am sick of all the sabre rattling and not interested in the expansion of Pax Americana. And I seriously doubt he'll be any different from Bush on the big government issue. Back to what I've said many times before. Both parties want big government which caters to different interests/groups.

Which is why most likely I'll be voting third party again.

 

[Thorin]

An important thing to remember is he can't spend any of it himself. Since the President doesn't control the checkbook these "promises" are more about defining philosophy. It's common fodder for candidates to do this.

Obama claims he'll fund everything by pulling out of Iraq and letting the tax cuts expire on people making over 250k per year. Frankly I think the pulling out of Iraq stuff is political maneuvering too. I don't think he or Hillary will actually do it.

So in the end he will probably do like most candidates, promises tons then pick one or two key issues to actually pursue as his platform. My guess knowing his focus would be key in on world poverty and health care. Those are the two he'll try and really do out of his personal platform. The rest will just be the Democratic playbook.

In the end they will all spend about the same amount because the Congressional budget won't change drastically based on who's in the White House. However, Obama's big government philosophy that is defined by his spending proposals is one of the reasons I'll probably be voting for McCain.

Great post, I agree. I like Obama, he seems like a really great guy, but I will probably have to hold my nose and vote for McCain as well.

 

[DadsDream]

It takes a second term as president to really make an impact on fiscal matters.

The government machine functions on inertia from the policies and laws enacted under the previous administration long into the first term of a new president.

 

[RebSaint]

The government machine functions on inertia from the policies and laws enacted under the previous administration long into the first term of a new president.

I don't necessarily agree here. I think it has a lot to do with how much of a mandate the incoming president has. No president has had much of a mandate since Reagan.

Maybe it's true for resent presidents (Bush I, Clinton, Bush II) but there are plenty examples of presidents making an impact early in their administrations.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I don't necessarily agree here. I think it has a lot to do with how much of a mandate the incoming president has. No president has had much of a mandate since Reagan.

Maybe it's true for resent presidents (Bush I, Clinton, Bush II) but there are plenty examples of presidents making an impact early in their administrations.

Absolutely, and this will probably be one of those mandate elections. Not because one or the other will have a huge majority, but because the electorate is clearly think "change" with their two (apparent) choices and any attempt to stop them early on will be viewed as blocking that change.

 

[stunpals]

You summed it up fairly well. Universal Health Care (in whatever form they decided) will cost the government $$$. Can his platform only stated more taxes on the wealthy and closing loopholes really pay for it? And I agree, leaving Iraq probably won't happen as quickly as either Obama or Hill claim and when the withdrawl is complete - assuming they do - will that pay for all their big budget spending?

 

[daybreaker]

I think Obama would be best for Louisiana and New Orleans. I dont think we'd ever see Kanye saying "Barack Obama doesnt care about black people"

But his stance on poverty and education makes me think New Orleans could see some great benefits from his presidency. He's big on making people earn the help they receive. ie: his plan for a $4000 college check to students who pay it back with community service.

Whereas Hillary's stance of more government assistance I think will only further the status quo.

And then McCain's stance of "who cares about the poor when we need to fight in a war" is probably the worst thing for New Orleans.


Obama's detractors say all he does is talk about change, but if you actually look at his record, he can actually BRING change. And I think thats what we need at the federal level to help our city.

 

[JimEverett]

The difference between Obama and Bill Clinton is that Obama has not campaigned as a moderate. Clinton campaigned on a DLC platform which was Repulican-lite. Obama has done no such thing.
Its ashame that Obama's health care plan does not seek universal coverage.

 

[blackadder]

Obama's not been in Washington long enough to get co-opted on the Middle East apparently, which is a plus in my book. He seems to know something on his own about what's happening:

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/107170.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3511195,00.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/10/opinion/edcohen.php?page=1

"I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel," the Illinois senator and contender for the Democratic presidential nominee told a group of Jewish leaders in Cleveland on Sunday. "If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress."

The Likud Party, in the Israeli opposition, advocates minimal territorial concessions to the Palestinians and promotes settlement in the West Bank.

Obama was addressing a series of attacks, most from Republicans, that suggest that he has surrounded himself with anti-Israel advisers. He noted that he did not take the advice of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Carter administration national security adviser named in some of the attack e-mails.

Obama explained that he accepted Brzezinski's endorsement, based on shared views on ending the Iraq war, but did not share Brzezinski's critical views of Israel. Nonetheless, he cautioned against marginalizing those with different views.

"Frankly some of the commentary that I've seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is non military or non belligerent or doesn't talk about just crushing the opposition that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we're going to have problems moving forward," he said.

Obama also said he encountered more nuanced views among Israelis than Americans.

"There was a very honest, thoughtful debate taking place inside Israel," he said. "All of you, I'm sure, have experienced this when you travel there. Understandably, because of the pressure that Israel is under, I think the U.S. pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation. But all I'm saying though is that actually ultimately should be our goal, to have that same clear eyed view about how we approach these issues."

Obama's grasp of nuance here is laudable but risky. It results in pieces like this, which question his "commitment" to Israel (Likud Israel) and the continued colonization of Arab land and ongoing turmoil in the Middle East that goes along with it:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/114723

 

[Saint by the Bay]

You summed it up fairly well. Universal Health Care (in whatever form they decided) will cost the government $$$. Can his platform only stated more taxes on the wealthy and closing loopholes really pay for it? And I agree, leaving Iraq probably won't happen as quickly as either Obama or Hill claim and when the withdrawl is complete - assuming they do - will that pay for all their big budget spending?

If we actually did withdraw from Iraq and make the tax changes to people above 250k and pull the Oil company tax breaks like Obama says he will it would cover the things that are actually likely to happen.

The problem is he won't be able to do all of that. The Bush tax cuts maybe, pulling out of Iraq and removing the oil company tax breaks the establishment will never let happen. Increase on capital gains taxes would be economic suicide right now and I firmly believe Congress would prevent that as well.

Also, keep in mind the Obama health care plan is quite a bit cheaper than Hillary's since it's not true socialized medicine. Providing subsidized insurance for 45 million or so people is a much less ambitious plan than what Hillary is. Healthcare really is one of their primary differences.

 

[DMaestro]

An important thing to remember is he can't spend any of it himself. Since the President doesn't control the checkbook these "promises" are more about defining philosophy. It's common fodder for candidates to do this.

So in the end he will probably do like most candidates, promises tons then pick one or two key issues to actually pursue as his platform. My guess knowing his focus would be key in on world poverty and health care.

Agree with most of what you say. My prediction is that he'll focus on education and health care. Given that the last five years of big spending have been tilted towards war, I'm more amenable to shifting that $$ back home. Neither platform really speaks to me, but I'm tired of paying for one administration's bloodlust.

My #1 concern is the declining value of my home, but I guess I'll have to wait for the candidates to finish talking about immigration, Iraq, universal health care, and ill-conceived tax cuts before they get to that.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Its ashame that Obama's health care plan does not seek universal coverage.

I feel the exact opposite. I think it's great he's not attempting to actually socialize health care but rather create and affordable subsidized option. I understand the idea of the hidden tax of health care for people who aren't covered however there are so many holes in the idea of providing universal health care for 300 million + people.

 

[blackadder]

I feel the exact opposite. I think it's great he's not attempting to actually socialize health care but rather create and affordable subsidized option. I understand the idea of the hidden tax of health care for people who aren't covered however there are so many holes in the idea of providing universal health care for 300 million + people.

It's done in other parts of the world, but the universal systems are not necessarily centralized. The individual European countries do it. In aggregate they probably cover more than 300 million people universally.

I have trouble accepting the idea that we could not do something that others have already done...it just boils down to prioirites.

But, you're probably right. Rather than some centralized behemoth Obama's idea might be better suited to the US.