Obama Policies

Here are some of Obama's policies taken from the post I did on the birth certificate thread:

1. increase taxes on everybody making over $95,000
2. impose higher taxes on oil companies
3. nationalize health care
4. immediate withdrawal from Iraq
5. unconditional meetings with Iran, Cuba, N. Korea, Syria, and Hamas
6. $50 billion in increased aid to Africa
7. elimination of all U.S. nuclear weapons
8. immediately stop funding new U.S. weapon systems
9. eliminate all space-based anti-missile weapons
10. Reduce carbon emissions to 80% of 1990 levels.

Feel free to discuss...

1. increase taxes on everybody making over $95,000

Sure, increase taxes on his own income then. It won't happen, hollow promise here.

2. impose higher taxes on oil companies

OPEC is an international suite of Oil companies that produce supplies. If he taxes Oil companies, they will simply hike a price increase onto users. The Oil companies are in control, not Obama.

3. nationalize health care

Pay for poor Mexican Illiegals (they'll be legal after the North American Union is in place). Mexico has an overwhelming poor population with hygene issues. US citizens would have to cover them too, once the NAU is formed. Not too mention, good Doctors will not want to become Government employees. They will form their own clinics regardless.

4. immediate withdrawal from Iraq

Immediate withdrawl would be disasterous. Iran would get control and use Iraq to help take over the entire ME for Allah and radical Islam.

5. unconditional meetings with Iran, Cuba, N. Korea, Syria, and Hamas

Very dumb, shows you how naieve Obama is. He will only get used, right along with US taxpayers. North Korea should be a lesson.

6. $50 billion in increased aid to Africa

It is NOT the US responsibility to aid Obama's birth and family continent. Let the rich actors and acctresses that bytch about the US not providing support. Let them use their million$ per yr. incomes to help poor Africa. Don't shift this responsibility onto US middleclass.

7. elimination of all U.S. nuclear weapons

Sure, reduce ours while China, Iran, NK, Pakistan and other countries continue to develope their programs. Publicly stating dismantle and reduction is one thing, but actually continuing is what happens and is another. For every public Nuclear program, there is an equal and opposite secret Nuclear program.

Obama would be wasting US taxpayer$ on getting these other countries to publicly agree to reduction etc., but in reality of course will continue developement, and using US Taxpayer$ money to do just that (e.g. North Korea).

8. immediately stop funding new U.S. weapon systems

Put the US Navy, troops and otherwise in further harms way when countries like China, Russia and Iran are doing massive reasearch and developement in the military sector? What an idiot.

9. eliminate all space-based anti-missile weapons

Truely stupid. China is working on Laser-based space weapondry as we speak to knock out US military satellites. Without satellites, the US is blind as a Bat.

10. Reduce carbon emissions to 80% of 1990 levels.

Sure, Obama's Carbon tax. - silly to even make an assumption that this can and would be done.


[edit on 11-6-2008 by jetxnet]

reply to post by jamie83

First Jamie, thanks for accepting my challenge in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I believe I can argue at length for implementing each and every one of these items. I guess that makes me a liberal. That is to say, I am motivated out of a sense of generosity. (I've always regarded the word "liberal" as synonymous with "generous", and the word "conservative" to be synonymous with the word "thrifty", both of which are good qualities, but incompatible with each other.)

Here is my liberal take on this. Let me quickly state my positions, and I will discuss each of these in later detail, as required.

#1. Increase taxes on everybody making over $95,000

I would like to see what kind of increase we are talking about. If we are talking about closing some tax loopholes, or very modest increases, I will accept that with no problem. It is a matter of degree. I don't want to see more tax reductions for the wealthy.

#2. Impose higher taxes on oil companies

Let's tax certain types of revenues and profits. I think this might help lower gasoline costs, in the long run, by promoting serious R&D. (Yeah -- that can work, if done correctly.) I would like to know more. I don't think we are talking major new taxes on an industry we are currently giving millions of dollars in tax credits to right now.

#3. Nationalize health care.

Our current system is pretty bad right now. Maybe we can show the rest of the world how to do this correctly. Things can't get much worse, so I would like to see what options are available. Yes, this might negatively affect certain aspects of health care, such as highly exotic treatments that the richest people are getting right now. (See item #1.)

#4. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Bingo. Good idea. We already won that war more than six years ago. What are we still doing there? We committed a major blunder in going to Iraq and need to get our "maintenance" troops out as soon as possible, concentrate on covert operations. I would disagree if we were talking about giving up the war in Afghanistan, or the war in terror. But $8 billion a month -- for Iraqi democracy? This is reason enough to vote for Obama.

#5. Unconditional meetings with Iran, Cuba, N. Korea, Syria, and Hamas

Meet with them. Just don't make any deals that are losing propositions. Frankly, I would like to know what the leaders of these countries have to say to us face-to-face, rather than the dubious accusations we currently are hearing in the press and administration. After talking with them, we can decide what to do next.

#6. Increase aid to Africa by $50 billion.

By all means, lets try to get things straight in that continent. It is better than funding Iraq for another half-a-year. Africa is in desperate shape. Maybe I am too liberal for you, but I can acutely empathize with their pain, and think we can actually help them out, if we are careful. Here, we see a direct conflict with thriftiness (conservatism) and generosity (liberalism).

#7. Eliminate all U.S. nuclear weapons.

Great idea. We don't need nuclear weapons. Conventional weapons work just fine for us. Having nuclear weapons won't prevent a nuclear attack against the USA, nor help us if such an attack occurs. Okay – keep 10 nuclear weapons in some Air Force base (you know we will do that, regardless of what we say in public.) But get rid of the other 49,990 (or whatever) weapons of mass destruction. You cannot convince me that we need this type of destructive power stockpiled.

#8. Immediately stop funding new U.S. weapon systems

Great idea. Let's stop development of some of these weapon systems, and end this ridiculous drain for useless gold-plated projects of speculative value. I would like to completely re-assess our current spending on all military projects. I think we need more body armor, and less gold-plated simulation software.

#9. Eliminate all space-based anti-missile weapons

Do we really need these? What are we trying to achieve with space-based weaponry? (See #8)

#10. Reduce carbon emissions to 80% of 1990 levels, putting the U.S. back to the dark ages.

Well – I don't want to go back to the dark ages. Who is really interested in that? Do we have some politician saying they want to go back to the dark ages? I'm not voting for that person, I assure you. However, humanity is dumping a whole lot of unnecessary carbon into the atmosphere. You must not live in Los Angeles (or Beijing) or you would appreciate how annoying all that indiscriminant pollution really is.

#

So there you go. Let's debate any point at length, or all of them. I will check back to see what you have to say. Be as firm as you want in making your posts (I can take it.).

I will be pleased to respond to anyone, regardless of what they say.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by Buck Division]

reply to post by jetxnet

You make a lot of points, Jetxnet, but I think they are either refutable, or they are dependent on large and arguable assumptions. (Making assumptions is kind of necessary, since we are talking about future events. I think we may spend a lot of time debating these assumptions. We will see. )

Is there a particular point you would like to discuss, by number?

What argument do you think it would be easiest for you to win, in the above list?

#

Let me select point #3 in the list: Nationalize health care.

Pay for poor Mexican Illegals. Mexico has an overwhelming poor population with hygene issues. US citizens would have to cover them too, once the NAU is formed. Not too mention, good Doctors will not want to become Government employees. They will form their own clinics regardless.

My assumption is that, if we nationalize health care, we will treat these illegals to some limited extent, and then deport them. It would be seriously wrong to provide persistent medical treatment to illegal aliens, so we agree on that. I don't think that Congress is going to let that happen -- that is my assumption.

If we start moving down that path of spending vast amounts on healthcare for illegal aliens, I will protest it at that time, and so will the vast number of Americans, so I believe.

As for Doctors not wanting to become Government employees -- there might be a few that break away (and I assume that will be permitted) but the majority of Doctors will follow the easy money, as they always seem to do.

I don't like Medical Doctors that much. I believe a main reason for their huge compensations is that the AMA has limited competition in this field. If you are going to limit the supply of Doctors, you should be able to regulate them to the absolute maximum. I don't want to paint all Doctors as bad. But there is something way out of control here -- ask any nurse.

Look -- the main point I want to make is that the demand for high-end medicine is completely inelastic -- that is to say most people will pay any amount of money -- all of their savings and more -- to get well (or prolong their life a bit) if they are very sick. Families are being destroyed by this. The Government can fix this, and it should.

As with everything here, it depends upon whether the national healthcare plan is executed correctly. I'm optimistic that it will be a big improvement to the way things are operating now. We should be able to learn from the mistakes of other countries, and implement a proper healthcare plan.

Originally posted by Buck Division
First, thanks Jamie for accepting my challenge from this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I believe I can argue at length for implementing each and every one of these items. I guess that makes me a liberal. That is to say, I am motivated out of a sense of generosity. (I've always regarded the word "liberal" as synonymous with "generous", and the word "conservative" to be synonymous with the word "thrifty", both of which are good qualities, but incompatible with each other.)

Here is my liberal take on this. Let me quickly state my positions on this, and I will discuss each of these in later detail, as required.

You're welcome!

I'm too tired to address these point by point tonight, but I'd like to make a comment.

I am generous also. VERY generous!

That said, it is NOT generosity to have the government force me at gun point to give my hard earned money to them so they can give it out to whom they want instead of letting me use or spend it as I see fit.

I.e., forcing people to be "generous" is counter to every freedom and right that the U.S. was founded upon. At some point the U.S. Federal government went from protecting the borders to redistributing wealth from a centralized government. Taxing people to pay for roads is great. Taking my money to give to my neighbor isn't so great. This is what Obama wants to do with his plan to match 50% of savings for people earning under $75,000.

Anyway, I'll get back to the other points later.

I would request this thread stays on topic and does not deteriorate into insults and personal attacks.

Originally posted by jamie83
I'm too tired to address these point by point tonight, but I'd like to make a comment. I am generous also. VERY generous! That said, it is NOT generosity to have the government force me at gun point to give my hard earned money to them so they can give it out to whom they want instead of letting me use or spend it as I see fit. Forcing people to be "generous" is counter to every freedom and right that the U.S. was founded upon.

Liberalism and Conservatism -- everybody practices both of these political philosophies. Everyone is generous, and thrifty, to some extent. The question really is when are these qualities exercised, and under what circumstances? That is where we disagree.

It is past midnight, and I am also getting tired. I'll post a response early tomorrow my time -- it is really addressing the first item on your list: taxation, and I have a lot to say about that.

Be assured, I'll be arguing for higher and fairer graduated taxation, amazingly enough.

Check back tomorrow afternoon, I should have something here, ready for you.

Edit: It is late, fixed some punctuation and grammar.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by Buck Division]

Yesterday, I thought that engaging in an extended and prolonged debate would be really cool. But this morning I am faced with a lot of unexpected work and don't see how I can spend much more time on ATS, at least for the next few days.

So let me just make some sweeping statements and closing arguments. You can have the last word.

#

What originally got me into this discussion was that list you posted. Honestly, I read through your entire list, thinking yes, yes, yes – all those items seemed like GOOD ideas to me. So when I found out you were holding them up as an example of BAD ideas, I was really surprised and amazed. It was one of those funny and revealing moments in life, when you experience an immediate reversal of what you believed.

Why did that happen? How could you and I have such radically different ideas about the same list?

I think it has to do with the way you and I are assessing risks differently.

If you compare Jetxnet's comments with mine, you can see that Jetxnet is assuming a bad outcome for each one of these list items, whereas I am assuming a good outcome. It is the conservative viewpoint, versus a liberal viewpoint. Conservatism, in addition to meaning "thrifty", also means "risk adverse" (as in a "conservative investment strategy", for example.)

So you perceive higher taxes as just more wasteful spending, possibly damaging to the economy. You see negotiating with contrary heads of states as foolhardy. You withdrawal from Iraq as inevitably followed by rapid radicalization of the Middle East. You assess ALL these actions as risky and dangerous. I see the opposite – moderate risk with high possibility of return.

Of course, you need to be thrifty, and generous, and cautious, and a risk taker all at the appropriate time. Without any liberalism, you end up with a miserly and stingy society that is paralyzed by risk-aversion. Without conservatism, you end up with a spendthrift and reckless society that quickly goes bankrupt.

Both liberalism and conservatism are different ways to handle the fact that the future is unknown, and anything can happen. The funny thing is -- if Obama is elected -- we will definitely know at some point who was right and who was wrong. Time will tell.

#

I said I would discuss higher taxes -- I will do that before ending.

It is presumptuous of me to say this Jamie, but I'm going to guess: it is not that you mind paying taxes, but that you have zero faith in government to spend those taxes wisely. I bet that you would feel better about paying your taxes, and tax increases, if you really thought your taxes were being invested wisely in America's future.

I say this, because you understand sacrifice. You believe in the need to continue a presence in Iraq. In that way, you are definitely generous. Money is nothing compared to the worth of a human life, and yet you and I both agree and understand that many American soldiers have had to pay more than just money to keep this country free and moving forward.

In that light, the argument about paying a few dollars more in taxes, for a few years, to get our country straight, doesn't seem significant. I believe that we can spend tax revenue wisely. I think the risk that this money is squandered is low, and a small enough price to pay given what others have sacrificed.

#

Really, I appreciate the opportunity to outline my positions earlier in this thread, so you and I accomplished that, without messing up your other thread. I'm sure we will continue this discussion in some later threads. I have got to go for now.

Keep posting

reply to post by jamie83


Alrighty my friend, I am back on with you. And here comes my big question that I'm sure you are sick of.

Sources?

Please. Please provide a link to a legitimate sight claiming this stuff. I can see some of them but not all.

It's kind of like the pledge of allegience thing. I posted a thread giving actual video proof of him doing this. That right there puts a dent in one of the big LIES about this man.

So, here is my challenge. I am providing an actual VIDEO of him pledging alliegence to our flag with his hand over his heart. I just ask that you are courteous enough to do the same for us.

I actually like your posts because you do have some good arguments. I just don't like disinfo or lies being spread.

Obama giving the pledge thread

reply to post by jamie83


Very well put. I agree that it sucks that the government would force us to give up any hard earned money.

Let me ask you this: How do you expect to pay for the multiple wars we are waging on foreign soil right now? Borrow it from the interest happy federal reserve? Where has that gotten us? Well, I'll tell you. It has gotten us from 6 trillion in debt to over 9 trillion. And do you honestly believe that you aren't paying for that?

You see, the republicans are against raising taxes yet their actions create a massive amount of debt. The democrats are for taxing the crap out of everyone but the debt doesn't go up as much and even actually decreases at times. Either way you WILL pay.

It's just that one way is taking a much higher price than the money we have to pay each year in federal taxes. It's taking the precious blood of our own and that of the innocents in those foreign lands.

i]reply to post by jamie83


Now I will actually address each point you make even if I don't believe/know they are legit.

1. increase taxes on everybody making over $95,000

First off, this is NOT the way to go. Why should someone making more money pay a larger pecentage in tax? I mean, we are already doing this with the federal tax brackets. Why increase it even more? Personally we need to eliminate the federal reserve and IRS and go to a flat tax. This will remove any anger that people who make less will have and it will stifle the ever growing government. Right now it is so bloated that it is ready to pop. I fear the day that happens.

2. impose higher taxes on oil companies

This is the wrong way to go about punishing those companies that are taking advantage of their product and the importance it has to the world. However, isn't this a 'democratic' view and not just Obama? Just thought I would make that point. He almost has to think this way.

3. nationalize health care

Although I understand the reasoning behind this I just can't see it being a good move. What they need to focus on is removing the health insurance business from the profit making side of things and push them into non-profit positions. Profit and healthcare simply do not mix. That is proven. However, a national health care system has also been shown to not work. What they need to do is focus on the people that are profiting from the business just like with the oil industry.

4. immediate withdrawal from Iraq

Oops. This one I know for sure to be false. He has NEVER stated he would institute immediate withdrawal from Iraq. He has stated that he would begin the process in order to have our troops out within 6 to 18 months. There is nothing immediate about that timeline. This is a farce that is being perpetuated by the republicans in order to spread fear among the ignorant. I use the term 'ignorant' not as a slam but as the word is intended. Most people who believe this have not actually researched the reasons we are in Iraq in the first place. That is another subject of course so I will leave it at that. People hear the term 'immediate' and get scared because it implies that we are quiting.

5. unconditional meetings with Iran, Cuba, N. Korea, Syria, and Hamas

Ding number 2. He has NEVER said anything about unconditional meetings with ANY of those nations. He has stated over and over and over that he does not want to remove the prospect of meetings with the leaders of these nations because he feels that diplomacy is the way to go. Again, this is a lie that is being spread around to try and 'scare' the ignorant into angry reactions.

6. $50 billion in increased aid to Africa

Sources? I don't want to research this one just yet. I know I will but I want to give my point to this one first. Why not? Is this bad because the majority of Africa is made up of black people? Or is it because you don't want any money going out to nations and continents that truly need it for providing better living environments for their people? I don't understand why this is an issue at all. If it is then maybe you should research where billions upon billions of dollars go each year and to what countries during the republican administrations. You see, this is a weak argument against Obama. Personally, I think that Africa is one of the neediest continents on this planet. I also believe that the US would be well received for helping the peoples of the nations of Africa.

7. elimination of all U.S. nuclear weapons

Again, source. But, to answer it, I don't see how this is bad....IF THE OTHER NATIONS AGREE TO DO THE SAME. You see, I am against having them but I am also against not having them if other nations do. Are you sure that this is more of a 'stopping production of nuclear weapons' over actually eliminating them? Just want to make sure. That's why I would like the actual source.

8. immediately stop funding new U.S. weapon systems

Bad idea. If it is true. Because other nations won't stop funding their new systems. I just hope we can evolve into not needing weapons anymore one day. It won't happen in mine or my children's lifetimes. I know that. We are still a bit to savage for that.

9. eliminate all space-based anti-missile weapons

I won't say it. Okay, I will. Source? However, the elimination of space based anti-missile weapons is odd. I thought that system wasn't working. Then again, we get other stories saying it does. I don't know what to believe. But eliminating a defense, if it is legitimate and there are people out there that have shown they will use missiles (haven't seen any other than the U.S. for many decades now....oh, and Israil). I'm talking of the ICBMs. Not the tiny ones.

10. Reduce carbon emissions to 80% of 1990 levels.

Sour....ah, forget it. You know what I mean. First off, is it even possible? I don't think so. Secondly, is it really a bad idea if there is technology out there that would accomplish this and keep our productivity and lifestyles to where they are now. Actually, to make them better. Well, I believe that there is this technology (and have seen some interesting things but cannot and will not elaborate on that, sorry. Take it for what it is. Just a statement.)

Anyway, I don't know if I actually buy the global warming reasons but I do know that there are some funky ass storms taking place.

Hope you don't take offense to anything in my response.

The video of Obama pledging an end to nuclear weapons is quite common. If you haven't seen it yet darious click here.
www.youtube.com...

It is another one of Obama's naive wishful thinking type policies, the kind that could potentially cause great damage to America and the world.

You know, he actually said seek a global ban on the production of fissile material. Ofcouse, this was a technical error on his part. What that actually means is no more nuclear power/fuel!

reply to post by jamie83


I would be glad to respond if there were sources where I could look to see exactly what the policies are.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by jamie83

 

I would be glad to respond if there were sources where I could look to see exactly what the policies are.

These policies were off the top of my head, but based on what I saw in his one video and from his web site. The CO2 policy is right from his site, and the defense polices are right from the video.

He announced today that the payroll tax proposal kicks in at $250,000 instead of $95,000.

Finally -- weekend is here, and I have had a chance to read your post in detail.

I have to say, it is such a pleasure just to get a solid policy discussion going, that I don't want to say any more -- other than this is the type of argumentation that I find very persuasive, and it is great to finally see some real rational discussion about this.

It is not a sexy topic, like birth certificates and lapel pins. But it is very solid, and important.

I told you earlier you could have the final word, so that is all I am going to say on this thread, except -- Good work, Jamie!