Obama in 2008 part 2

Style over substance charge still may be valid IMO

Published on December 10, 2006 By Draginol In Democrat

My friend Cordellia thinks she might be in favor of Obama in 2008 depending on how things go.

I agree with her that it's hard to be certain without knowing who the choices are. But having looked at his positions and statements, I'm pretty sure I couldn't vote for him even though I agree with him on a lot of his votes.

Let's see how we match up:

Abortion: Support

Affirmative Action: Strongly oppose

Rights for gays: Support

Teaching family values in public schools: No opinion

More federal funding of healthcare: STRONGLY oppose

Privatize social security: Support

School vouchers: Support

Death Penalty: Strongly support

Mandatory 3-strike laws: Oppose

Decrease taxation on wealthy: Support

Illegal Immigration: Oppose

Expand free trade: Neutral

Patriot Act harms civil liberties: Disagree, patriot act = good. No evidence
of loss of civil liberties.

Military spending: Support

Limits on campaign funds: Strongly oppose

Supports UN: Oppose

Replace coal and oil: Strongly support

Drug enforcement: Neutral

Allow churches to provide welfare: Support

I am not sure I could vote for an Obama based on his political views. But it's not clear yet. For instance, I agree with him on a lot of his votes -- I don't agree with the interpretation the test takes of his votes.

I don't know if my views on immigration (where he's a total nut in my opinion) would disqualify him.

He also is clueless on economics. "Tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs" is a ridiculous statement. So who does he think creates jobs? The government?

He's also anti-2nd amendment.

He also thinks imprisonment should be about rehabilitation. I think imprisonment should be about taking bad people off the streets.

Overall, he's a guy who wants the government to have a lot more power and for individuals to have a lot less. There's no evidence that he knows how the real world works economically and seems driven by feeling more than his head. He seems to like to appear compassionate by taking away other people's freedoms IMO.

So I guess no, I probably wouldn't vote for him. I do agree he says nice things.

He said:

The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States.

Blue states may pray to the same God but they it's the red states that are the ones who seem to actually deliver the goods. 23 of the top 24 states in terms of charitable giving per GDP were red states Coincidence?

There are very distinct cultural values in our country that can't be easily rectified. The left really needs to reconcile the statistical reality that as a general truth that they have substituted political belief for tangible action. That is, to believe in a better world is actually more important than actually doing something to make the world a better place.

Obama's handful of actions so far seem to indicate that he is of that group -- he wants nice things to happen but he doesn't seem to understand how to make those nice outcomes occur. Taxcuts for the rich don't create jobs he says. Okay. Who creates jobs then? He is big into gun control even though there's a wealth of evidence that legal gun ownership makes society safer in the broader sense (those gangs in the innercity aren't buying their guns legally).

Comments (Page 3)

Draginol

on Dec 13, 2006

"While there certainly are Democrats who run businesses, they are relatively rare."

Quoting census statistics or out your ass statistics?

"Democrats are as common in business leadership positions as Republicans are in academia. That is, they exist -- in theory."

Biased, pointless.

These are statements of fact. Not just first person experience but there have been countless business surveys of CEOs, entrepreneurs, and executives and they are overwhelmingly Republican.

"We don't need a nanny state to give us free pills or send us checks when we get old or send us checks when we have children we can't afford."

Maybe you don't, but millions of current generation Americans, have and continue to need a social security program. The reality is a large segment of the population is unable to work in the majority of jobs, beyond a certain age, and whatsoever in the competitive marketplace beyond a certain age. Say these two ages are 60 and 80. With millions living beyond these ages, the burden will fall to their children, and families, when they go into poverty taking care of their elders then the country's economic development is stunted indirectly. It is far better to have a marginal safety net then none at all. Not to say trimming and molding the social security system wouldn't be fair, but removing the social security system, a system millions depend on for their daily subsistence and millions more indirectly depend on to maintain the economic security of their own lives, would be far more damaging to the economy then the alternative.

Again: The government acting as a nanny. People apparently unable or unwilling to save mnoey for retirement.

You may think it's far better to have some safety net (and the billions we spend are significantly more than marginal in my opinion) but that is obviously subjective. I don't agree.

In your opinion the government's role is to provide money to individuals who are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves. That's a valid opinion. But it's not one I share.

Taxation is the physical confiscation of a person's property. I pay my taxes -- willingly -- but I never for a second think it's a voluntary thing.

I am curious why you think that the federal government provides "stable and resonably assured economic growth". The government is largely a hindrance to economic growth. What you seem to think is that we have a managed economy. We don't. We have a mixed economy that is mostly based on a free market. The good times we have is not because of the government other than in the sense of them not actually sabotaging it through excessive taxation and regulation.

Governments can certainly harm the economy but they definitely don't help. They walk a tight rope between providing services that its citizens deem necessary and excessive economic interference that can stifle the economy.

As a citizen with the right to vote, I won't vote for politicians who think their willingness to give tax dollars to other people demonstrates compassion on their part. There is nothing noble about spending tax money. Too many politicians, and indeed too many Americans on the political left, think that their support of federal social programs somehow makes them personaly compassionate.

Dr Guy

on Dec 13, 2006

That's not the role of taxes, taking money from the rich and giving to the poor, at least not in the United States.

200 years ago, yes. Today? BS!

Draginol

on Dec 13, 2006

Well more to the point - the role of taxes as intended by the founders of our country.

Noumenon

on Dec 15, 2006

I am curious why you think that the federal government provides "stable and resonably assured economic growth". The government is largely a hindrance to economic growth.

Perhaps he's thinking of the Federal Reserve, which has certainly delivered on the "stable" part of the bargain during the last thirty years, and added to growth. Though that too was a hindrance before then.

Draginol

on Dec 16, 2006

Sure. Though that has nothing to do with taxation.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!