|
|
Post by Frater G on Nov 7, 2008 0:37:27 GMT -5
Now that the election is over what do you guys think? Will Obama enact change? In what way? The economy is the primary issue. So what will stimulate private sector spending? I would think lower taxes would be a factor....Bottom line is money in pocket and that won't happen if taxes are raised. A five percent raise in capital gains taxes...  Obama supports free trade , McCain had also...that hurts domestic manufacturing. Jobs will still be lost. So much for the economy. Obama said more troops are needed in Afghanistan..to what end? I see no end to this war. What determines winning anyways? Will they cry uncle? All the factors that led to this present economic situation have not been really addressed by either. Instead a bailout was proposed and agreed by both, talk about socialism... and a second one is being discussed for future stability!  Charisma doesn't assure a better future... issues and standards do. Change means reversing the policies that got us here. Ron Paul had addressed those.... American voters were "Starstruck"  |
|
|
|
Post by George the 3rd on Nov 8, 2008 14:56:19 GMT -5
Well, G, as you know I was and am a supporter of Obama. My support for him during the election campaign, as you might recall, was based to a large part on his ability to reclaim that youthful optimism of the 60's. The belief that we as a people, as a nation could and should be better.
My best friend said to me just a few weeks from election day that the Republicans have consistently run their campaigns on a "We're (the USA) the Best" attitude and the Democrats run theirs on a "We can be Better" attitude. The problem in the past is that it has led to the opportunity for the Republicans to label the Dems as unpatriotic, soft on defense, etc.
What I think Obama managed to do this time around is demonstrate that when it comes to defense, especially IRAQ and Afghanistan, that he and the Dems were just as resolute in defeating Alqaeda and other Islamic extremists as the Defense Department and the Bush administration is. There may be slight differences in "tactics" but the strategy Obama outlined ended up closer to what the Bush administration has come to embrace. Also, he let no one question his patriotism or love of this country, though the Repubs tried their best to do just that. It's just that the majority of the country didn't buy it.
But what I think is the proof of the pudding will not be in his administrations stand on that issue, or even the economic one but rather how well he will be able to communicate where he is coming from as a starting point for the discussion of any of the multitude of problems we face then invite those in opposition to come to the table and present in as just as clear and thoughtful manor where they are coming from and join in on trying to come to a consensus that reflects both a workable plan and an effective one as well.
It seems to me that this is what the nation has demanded in so far as, in my opinion, that is what Obama has so eloquently articulated and voters voted for.
I make no secret or apology for the fact that I am inspired and I am, for the first time in a long time, wanting to do what I can to move the nation forward. As it has been stated more that once by the media, it seems we have pushed the "reset" button. We need to seize the opportunity, put past differences aside, focus on the future and find ways to serve our country, not for Obama's sake but for the sake of the future.
I don't believe that "American voters were 'Starstruck'" as much as they were asked once again if they could "Reach for the Stars" and they responded, "Yes We Can"!
|
|
|
|
Post by vajramukti on Nov 9, 2008 20:05:43 GMT -5
I hope you are right, George. I really do. It is difficult to imagine at this point that Obama truly loves America, given his actions during "patriotic moments" such as the pledge to the flag, and his own statements. His associations with Wright and Ayers continue to give me pause. Not so much Wright, I think he is a lunatic and that Obama was a member of the church because that was THE church to be a member of if you were a black mover and shaker in Chicago.
But Ayers...this man believes in change. But he believes blowing up innocent Americans is the way to affect it. Still does. And for Obama to act and say he did not know that about Ayers is frankly stupid. If he didn't, his handlers and other associates should have, so I don't buy it.
However, interestingly enough, I listened to America Left on XM the other day (Thursday) and the liberal pundits on the air were complaining about how Obama is already looking at members of the establishment like Rahm Emmanuel, John Kerry, and others to be part of his staff and cabinet. These pundits were disappointed that we are apparently not going to see fresh new faces, and that change may not be as easy with the same old crew sitting at different desks.
The other thing they spent a great deal of time on was comparing Obama to Reagan, which I found fascinating.
But, I do believe that our government has been given a mandate by the people. I still have never received an answer from anyone I have asked, including here, on 3 things that Obama wants to change, just a vague, general, CHANGE. Of the candidates running, Obama was the newest, the freshest. I think he beat Hillary because she represented the old. I think McCain won the primary because of his reputation as a reformer, and because there was a perception among repubs that, since the liberal media had loved him in the past, they would support him through the election.
The revolution has begun. Obama was given an electoral mandate. Congress, with it's lowest approval rating of all time, was given enough new Democrats to make Obama one of the most powerful presidents of all time. So, I guess he has two years now until mid-terms to show us what this change is, and what shape it will take.
I hope it is good change. Good for America. Healthcare and taxes won't affect me much. My wife and I both are covered by employers. Mandating coverage will not affect either of us. Obama's tax plan might save me $1,000 a year, which is nice if I save it all at once, but $83 a month won't really do much.
The Bush/McCain troop surge has given him the opportunity to realistically pull troops in 16 months. However, he did say all troops in the beginning, and now he is talking about leaving support personnel in place, and bringing combat troops home. I agree, but it is a change from his original statements, and many of his far-left supporters will be mad about that.
If we come home victorious (meaning that the people of the region have a real chance at freedom and stability) then awesome! Any less is a mistake.
Energy, that's a big one. Obama stated that he would bankrupt utility companies that burn coal for electricity production. That accounts for 50% of America. He is anti-nuke, anti-oil, and anti-natural gas, so I wonder what he will have in place if blackouts begin. I think nuke is the way to go, but seriously, I haven't heard what his alternative to coal is. So what happens when Cleco goes bankrupt, and southern Louisiana, East Texas, West Mississippi are blacked out and there is no alternate energy infrastructure in place?
The pundits on America Left were very concerned that Obama, like most presidents, will lead from the middle rather than from the left. The comparisons to Reagan were all about how Reagan is the only president in memory who led by principle rather than special interests, and they were lamenting, now that the election is over, that they don't really know Obama's principles. And they were spot on with the observation that those who lead from the middle accomplish very little. Look at Congress these last few years.
Those who voted for Obama did so because they trust him to bring about change. Change ain't happening if he takes his cues from polls and advice from politicians. Reagan followed his own principles, and Obama should do the same.
He will very quickly be proven to be the leader America needs, or a flash in the pan. Youthful optimism is refreshing, and a great starting point, but as the hippies of the 60s found out, a movement to bring about change requires...well...it requires movement. Somebody has to do something.
So, I enter the next four years cautiously optimistic, praying for our new president. I did not like Bill Clinton, but when he became our president, he became MY president. Obama will be the same. I will give him my trust and my loyalty, because I respect this country and the way it is set up. But he will have to work to keep it!
|
|
|
|
Post by vajramukti on Nov 9, 2008 20:28:53 GMT -5
Now that the election is over what do you guys think? Will Obama enact change? In what way? The economy is the primary issue. So what will stimulate private sector spending? I would think lower taxes would be a factor....Bottom line is money in pocket and that won't happen if taxes are raised. A five percent raise in capital gains taxes... Taxing the rich will not help. The rich, like the poor, pay not taxes. The rich get around it by raising prices on everyone else. This is a free-market society. If my boss's taxes go up on our company, our profits go down. That comes out of our Christmas bonus, which is profit based. Salaries, his and mine, stay the same. What the government will see if taxes go up is their revenue go down. It always happens. The rich will hide their money in other countries, shelter it through loopholes, etc. It will hurt the middle class in the form of raises, bonuses, and opportunities, and it will hurt the lower class in the form of no new jobs. Free trade is OK if it is a two-way street. Competition breeds innovation. But when we pay tariffs to get our goods to countries that send theirs here for free, I mean really, that one is a no-brainer. Plus, lump it in with taxes, it is suddenly much cheaper for CEO to go out of country to manufacture goods that they can import here for free, and pay no income tax on because they are no longer an American company. It is ironic that so many in government decry companies outsourcing production to overseas, when it is our own progressive tax code and one sided free trade that causes it in the first place. More covert ops are needed. More grass roots diplomacy and intelligence are needed. Precision combat is needed, not large scale presence. Education for the young that does not include radical, anti-American/Semitism. Women's rights are needed. Separation of the church from the state is needed. We know from talking to the people on the ground that they want freedom. Their goverments are in the way. Victory is achieved when the region has a shot at long term stability and peace. It would have been interesting if Paul's agenda had been stated by someone who was not such a well-known lunatic. That was Paul's problem. His reputation dis-credits anything he says, right or wrong. About half of them were. The popular vote was pretty close. An electoral college landslide, though. Nobody I know voted for McCain, though. They voted against Obama. That is what I think it comes down to, nationally. People either voted for Obama, or voted against him. McCain just did not have the support of his base. He is already being depicted as the third party candidate who won a major party's primary. Just like John Anderson took the election from Jimmy Carter, and Ross Perot took it from George Bush, some feel that McCain's presence in the race took this one away from conservatism. What I am hearing from the die-hards is "next time he crosses that aisle, he needs to stay there." I think McCain shot his political future in the foot with this election, but, at his age, his career is close to completed anyway. The good news, to me, is in the way our system was set up at the beginning. Our government has been given a mandate by the people, simply, we don't like the way things are. Fix it. Conservatives, led by Newt Gingrich who pulled this off in the 80s, are already coming up with the plan to make that happen and take Congress back at the mid-terms. But Obama is in the driver's seat right now, and has a chance to put this country on the path that a slight majority of the country believes it should be on, and in doing so, also has the opportunity to increase that majority. We shall see. God Bless America! [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by Frater G on Nov 10, 2008 0:28:18 GMT -5
He is not a lunatic, he was painted that way by the corporate media. He got very little air time. Ronald Reagan would have supported him. How can anyone who listens to his message consider him anything but a TRUE conservative? How could anyone sane call him a lunatic?
Obama received four times the corporate funding than McCain what does that tell you about change? Just follow the money. He was the one designated to further the corporate global control. To talk about hope are only words...you have to walk your talk and if a candidate supports bigger government with more control and higher taxes what does that say about liberty? I'm sorry that is not American in any way....it is imperialism. People should remove the rose colored glasses and realize that our new president is the next globalist puppet. And further more peace cannot be achieved by waging war in Afghanistan. I love the optimism of the hippy movement, I grew up with that influence but true hippies would say make love not war. I still cannot justify mass killing, it makes me ill thinking of it. Once again though Americans were hoodwinked.
|
|
|
|
Post by vajramukti on Nov 15, 2008 15:01:21 GMT -5
Exactly, but everyone "knew" he was a lunatic before he ever had a chance to get his points out there. His reputation preceded him, and it was unfortunate. Unfortunately, the optimism of the hippy movement has no backup plan for when we get attacked. Maybe. But we're still America. |
|
Charisma doesn't assure a better future... issues and standards do. Change means reversing the policies that got us here. Ron Paul had addressed those....
Those who wish to join may introduce themselves here.