Quote:

 

Oh, and speaking of foreign nations...I would laugh at our problem with Iran uranium enrichment if the situation wasn't serious. It's like watching the US and Iran go at each other like two five-year-old boys on a playground...arguing about a toy. "You can't have that toy!" "Yuh huh I can!" "Nuh uh you can't!" "Yuh huh!" "Nuh uh!" "YUH HUH!" "NUH UH!" It makes you wonder if we ever actually grow up when we become adults.

In any case...I wish the media would quit reporting on this until some actual progress on this matter is made. We've been in this deadlock for like...what? Months?

BlizShadow

Sep 20 2008, 09:37 AM

I personally don't understand how Obama has been categorized as weak simply because he refuses to use the inane take on diplomacy that Bush and McCain do-- "keep steady our destructive and irrelevant course despite the fact that the war is costing nearly everyone at home big time!"

Quote:

 

I don't follow Politics too much but I'm taking two classes that are crazy for the election. I support Obama and I don't really understand why people call him a "socialist".

Quote:

 

...the Bush doctrine that has placed our country in this financial crisis...

Quote:

 

along with a woman who I see as little more than a right-wing wacko with little knowledge about what her possible position entails nor any general clue about politics as a whole.

Quote:

 

They're resorting to obvious lies and distortions such as "Obama will raise taxes for the majority of Americans" or "Obama wants to teach sex-ed to elementary students" and constantly shoving in America's face the evils of radical liberalism when that's not even what has caused our troubles in the first place.

Quote:

 

I also like the fact that when it comes to foreign policies, he is adamant on diplomacy and thought before action, one of the things I believe made America such a brilliant ally and leader for other nations.

Quote:

 

Going further on this point, I also agree with him that since Iraq has not committed any travesty towards us, they were never our concern and we have little business of being over there now.

Quote:

 

It's costing us too much money when we should be focused on rebuilding ourselves.

Quote:

 

These trends demonstrate that defense spending has not been a major source of the fiscal problem confronting America during much of the past four decades.

Yvette

Sep 21 2008, 01:18 AM

Quote:

 

I don't follow Politics too much but I'm taking two classes that are crazy for the election. I support Obama and I don't really understand why people call him a "socialist".

Um... proooobably because he's estimated the second most liberal man in congress at this point, next to Ted Kennedy. Socialism is the idea that the government should be in charge of economic services, and make sure that every need of the citizen is fulfilled, correct? Considering that modern liberalism is essentially the same idea, and that whatever we may like to call Obama, he still supports the sort of massive expansion of the federal government central to this sort of leftism, I really don't see why there should be any qualms with seeing Obama as the socialist candidate. If there's a problem anywhere, it's with seeing McCain, that lesser of two Democrats, as being the classical-liberal candidate.

Quote:

 

...the Bush doctrine that has placed our country in this financial crisis...

I'm not convinced it's fair to say that Bush policies put us in the current financial "crisis." At the end of the last economic quarter, the United States' Gross National Product was still up 3%, concluding a growth trend that has characterized the entirety of the Bush administration. Until very recently, unemployment has also fallen consistently during the last eight years. Besides that, I'm much more certain we can't blame it on conservatism; if you want a real look at what economic turn around, take a look at what the United States did under Reagan. If anything can be blamed, it's the fiscal leftism of social conservatives like Bush Sr.

In the end, however, I think no one president really had much to do with it. Problems, with very little to do with the administration, in the real estate industry seem to be a large culprit. We had experienced a major boom in that area for a very long time, and, as is inevitable in such markets, it couldn't keep growing forever and ever. Eventually, it had to fall, and it has fallen, hard. Since some of the major banks' largest deals are inextricably intertwined real estate, there's been an overall back-step economically for everyone, which has put some banks in danger, which has forced the government to buy them out, which has put a spotlight on the American economy (which, I repeat, actually appears to still be growing as a whole. It's just not growing a tenth as phenomenally as it has been for the past 26 years, 18 of which were Republican years).

Also, a brief note, some will argue that it is the War in Iraq, and all the billions its cost us, that have put us into this recession. There is truth to the billions tagline there--the Iraq War, over its five year span, has cost us around 8.5 billion dollars.

However, when you compare that to the 100 or so trillion dollars that it came out of, you realize that the number is actually very small as a percentage. Little known fact: The current defense expenditure of the United States is lower than at any time in its history since World War II. (see graphs and link at the bottom of my post for source)

As for debt, the United States has always had debt as a percentage of its GNP, and has even been higher than the current debt. I believe the peak was around FDR's administration. In any case, the relationship we share with our debtors is such that our material and monetary produce are great enough that they're reliant for us on trade anyway. They aren't about to go to war because we're in debt to them (a debt which our government makes enough annually to pay off, for the record). Exports do need to rise, and imports do need to fall, but that has less to do with the government and more to do with the United States' wonderful Free Market. Furthermore, the natural checks and balances within that market have already moved such that, as a consequence to the falling dollar, exports as a percentage of trade have risen. Suppose a piano was worth 200 Euros, which were worth 200$s five years ago. However, suppose that piano still costs 200 Euros, but that Euro is now worth 400 dollars. The exporter selling the piano makes a major profit, while those who import heavily suffer from the rising costs of European goods according to the dollar. Exports naturally raise WITHOUT GOVERNMENT COERCION, while imports slag off.

Quote:

 

along with a woman who I see as little more than a right-wing wacko with little knowledge about what her possible position entails nor any general clue about politics as a whole.

Right-wing wacko... This may describe me aptly /= 'Course I should consider my self lucky. Reagan and Thatcher got "Right Wing Fascists," among worse titles.

Again, I'm not sure it's fair to say that Palin doesn't have a clue about the running of a state. She's handled Alaska without failing miserably, correct? She has an 80+% approval rating there, which, even in Alaska, isn't achieved with lip-stick.

Quote:

 

They're resorting to obvious lies and distortions such as "Obama will raise taxes for the majority of Americans" or "Obama wants to teach sex-ed to elementary students" and constantly shoving in America's face the evils of radical liberalism when that's not even what has caused our troubles in the first place.

Well, when you're in favor of universal healthcare, the expansion of social security, to expand the government's role in paying for university level education, and the general expansion of federal responsibility, you have to get the money to run those programs from somewhere. Obama may get those dollars from the top 60% of society, while leaving the taxes of the bottom 40% alone, but he will raise taxes one way or another. The argument that Obama, a Democrat, will raise taxes like a good Democrat should, while McCain, great liberal-republican pretender though he may be, will lower taxes for every economic group (though more dramatically for the higher classes, which can be explained in that most of the taxes levied tax the higher classes to a greater degree to begin with) is perfectly valid.

And if you want to talk about mud-slinging, let's look at all the attention Mrs. Palin's been getting. Her baby has down syndrome, but she didn't have an abortion. Her teenage daughter is pregnant. Pigs with lipstick are still pigs. Palin fired Monegan! ( http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/29/palins-troopergate-beating-msm-distortions-to-the-truth/ )

Then of course there are the threats the Obama campaign makes to TV stations that air ads they don't tend to like. ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2067913/posts?page=150 )

Most McCain ads that I've seen have been entirely true. Have they been biased? Of course; ads are inherently biased since their purpose is to get someone elected. However, apart from the sex-ed ad, which was technically true but exaggerated the facts; it's more than possible to educate kindergardeners in sex without Felix Salten. However, getting to the point, I don't see anything worse in the McCain campaign to what I've seen in the Obama campaign. In fact, I tend to see worse in the Obama campaign--that is, not in the advertisement his supporters create for him, but in the "legal" and financial threats they make to those who air certain ads, and the Ostracization they threaten to heap out on those same companies.

And although you may not think that socialism has anything to do with our problems, that does not mean that those who think it has everything to do with today's problems are immoral morons. The expansion of the government into the economic means of its country is what brought about everything from Fascism to Communism. A planned economy replacing the old Classical Liberal markets of Italy and Germany was one of the major goals of socialism in those nations, which eventually led to National Socialism, which led to the birth of totalitarianism. Communism and Fascism were born from the same socialist seeds, although communism took a much more Marxist bent, while Fascism took a much more nationalistic approach. In my humble opinion, "extreme liberalism," is what has led to the death of more than one democracy, and what will lead to the death of many more. I find a reading of Nobel Prize winner Friedrich Hayek's Road to Serfdom very instructive in this economic philosophy, if you're interested.

An anonymous quote sums it up best:

"Fascism is what happens when one of two illusions end:
A. That [communism] Marxist rule is a workable method of governance
B. That socialism is compatible with free Classical Liberal Society."

The power of the federal government in the economic sphere, something a liberal would do much to expand, is of great concern to a good many people, and not because they're stupid (though they might be wrong).

Quote:

 

I also like the fact that when it comes to foreign policies, he is adamant on diplomacy and thought before action, one of the things I believe made America such a brilliant ally and leader for other nations.

I'm not sure if I agree with the logic that Iran, Russia, China, etc. will listen to us if we just talk to them. While I don't agree with the Iraq War (although I do believe in finishing what we're winning, and what would harm us to leave early), I feel like we're being about as diplomatic with the threats as can really be expected. Even Obama isn't so keen on direct meetings with Ahmadinejad at this point, whilst our involvement in the Russian-Georgian conflict can only be described as diplomatic, whilst we're practically a symbiotic organism with China. We load Palestinian refugee camps with enough money to support its entire population each year (as part of the UN, yes, but as a willing part that contributes most of the dough), while Bush pushes for peace between Israel, Hamas, the PLO, etc. To say that McCain is undiplomatic because he won't meet with a terrorist who won't agree to our terms, and because he doesn't want to pull out of Iraq in the nest year (btw, it should be noted that Obama's pullout timeline fairly nearly matches Bush's at this point) doesn't seem quite fair.

And our willingness for "diplomacy" made us more than a little late to both of the most critical wars of the twentieth century. How did waiting for Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor while London was under attack long before then make us a brilliant ally?

Quote:

 

Going further on this point, I also agree with him that since Iraq has not committed any travesty towards us, they were never our concern and we have little business of being over there now.

I don't agree with the ideas behind the first Iraq War, but we now have a responsibility to the people of Iraq, whom we've rescued from bloody tyranny, to keep them out of that tyranny. Two years ago, it was our business to clear up the violence and instability that plagued the country, so that future Iraqis could enjoy the freedoms we in the US take for granted. Now, with the military on a clear path to victory, and with the Iraqi government more and more on its feet, I'd say we've about finished that responsibility. Again, Bush's and Obama's pull-out time lines look very similar at this point.

Quote:

 

It's costing us too much money when we should be focused on rebuilding ourselves.

A. We haven't collapsed yet. We were still growing the last economic quarter.

B. The five year war has cost us less than 1% of our GNP for the total GNP of those five years. The current defense spending is lower than any since WWII.


source: Wall Street Journal: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009124

Supporting article from the Washington Times:

Quote:

 

These trends demonstrate that defense spending has not been a major source of the fiscal problem confronting America during much of the past four decades.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2007/feb/04/20070204-101330-1829r/

Bottom line, I don't really support McCain (or Hilary, or Huckabee). I just oppose Obama more, for his willingness to expand the state, sell our sovereignty to International Bureaucracy (though even McCain may do that =w=;;), and his unwillingness to see places like Cuba, Iran, et al for what they are.