Change - What Does it Mean?

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
When you hear that Obama wants "change", what does that mean to you? What kind of expectations do you have for his presidency? What would represent "change" to you?

I hear so many people saying that Barack Obama doesn't represent change, because he isn't 100% different than other politicians. And I wonder what they expect. Do they expect everything he does to be 100% changed from anything in the past? In other words, do they expect a candidate who doesn't have ANYTHING in common with other candidates or politicians? Simply because he's running on a platform of change?

I think that's kind of unrealistic and I'm not at all sure that I would want to have 100% change all at one time. It makes for unstable, unpredictable and unreliable results.

Anyone who has ever made a New Year's resolution to change something (for example to lose weight and exercise) knows that if they wake up on January first and work out for an hour and go on a strict diet, pretty soon, they are going to feel deprived and those old habits are going to win over, and change will not occur. When a person makes a sudden, drastic change about multiple things in their lifestyle, it's not going to be lasting change.

Change is best made in incremental steps. Merriam Webster has this to say about change:

1: the act, process, or result of changing: as a: alteration .. a change in the weather.. b: transformation ..a time of vast social change.. ..going through changes..

Change is a process. A transformation. Something that we go through. It begins with steps toward a goal. Trying to arrive at the goal without taking the steps is a SURE path to failure.

I think Barack Obama’s campaign of change is the beginning of that process. We have to start somewhere. Pardon my use of a simile (or metaphor – I don’t know the difference). But the journey this country has been on is like a ship whose Captain has completely lost his compass. We have to change the direction of the ship and we need someone whose compass is intact and on hand. We need to turn this bitch around and CHANGE direction.

But that’s not going to happen with one quick jerk of the helm. It’s going to be a process. It’s going to take lots of steps. But it begins with the first step. And that is to get a Captain whose desire it is to turn the ship around in the first place. I don’t want to hand the helm over to someone who is just going to take over and keep on heading for the dark caves and dangerous waters ahead.

And if people want everything to change at once, I’m not comfortable with that. We’re all likely to be thrown from the ship! LOL

So, I’m sorry to ramble on, but I would really like to know what you think about this whole change thing. Is it possible? What are the first steps? Do you expect or want immediate and drastic change or would you rather see a few steps in the “right direction”? What are those steps?

Thanks for reading and thanks for your consideration.


[edit on 20-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]




posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I think people say that Obama isn't running on a platform of change because everything he stands for and promises to do are things that the Democratic Party have been standing for and promising for years and years. I can't think off the top of my head of anything that he is promising to do that hasn't previously been promised.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Does "change" mean rolling over on FISA and war-funding?


I am so disappointed.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I think you've hit on something.

Obama became popular because people wanted a change from the status quo, which was represented by Bush and Clinton.

The irony is that Obama's nebulous "change" campaign is going to be his undoing. What happened is that Obama allowed each individual to fill in the blanks in their own mind about what change meant to them. Now when the rubber meets the road, and Obama actually is forced to take a stand on issues, he's going to burst the bubbles that people had in their imagination.

There's an expression that lies have short legs. So do empty platitudes. I used to think Obama was sincere when he said he was different and was committed to a different kind of politics. Not anymore. In my mind he's worse than a typical politician because he became popular by claiming he wasn't one. By now, we know that was a lie.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


Wow. Congrats Jaime, you just described every politician that ever walked this planet.


In what ways does Obama want change?


Change is a tax code that rewards work instead of wealth by cutting taxes for middle-class families, and senior citizens, and struggling homeowners; a tax code that rewards businesses that create good jobs here in America instead of the corporations that ship them overseas. That’s what change is.

Change is a health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it; that brings down premiums for every family who needs it; that stops insurance companies from discriminating and denying coverage to those who need it most.

Change is an energy policy that doesn’t rely on buddying up to the Saudi Royal Family and then begging them for oil – an energy policy that puts a price on pollution and makes the oil companies invest their record profits in clean, renewable sources of energy that will create five million new jobs and leave our children a safer planet. That’s what change is.

Change is giving every child a world-class education by recruiting an army of new teachers with better pay and more support; by promising four years of tuition to any American willing to serve their community and their country; by realizing that the best education starts with parents who turn off the TV, and take away the video games, and read to our children once in awhile.

Change is ending a war that we never should’ve started and finishing a war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that we never should’ve ignored. Change is facing the threats of the twenty-first century not with bluster, or fear-mongering, or tough talk, but with tough diplomacy, and strong alliances, and confidence in the ideals that have made this nation the last, best hope of Earth. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy.
Source


Want to know the difference between Obama, and all of his predesessors? (spelling)

If elected, he'll have a democratic congress to back him.

Its hard to get things accomplished without a majority in your corner.




I want to point out that last passage

Change is ending a war that we never should’ve started and finishing a war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that we never should’ve ignored. Change is facing the threats of the twenty-first century not with bluster, or fear-mongering, or tough talk, but with tough diplomacy, and strong alliances, and confidence in the ideals that have made this nation the last, best hope of Earth. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy.


You see, most people critisize Obama for this thought...
But they dont take time to evaluate what he's saying.
Why do you think other nations oppose us?
We are the laughing stock of the world.
Who has our backs in the global eye?
Nobody.

Improve diplomacy, and you take away any incentive for any nation to defy american demands. Who's going to Defy an America that the world looks up to - once again?

Which defier is going to have a platform to stand on when the entire lawful world is in America's corner?

Tanks and Bombs arent the answer when diplomatic relations are the problem.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by jamie83
 


Wow. Congrats Jaime, you just described every politician that ever walked this planet.


EXACTLY! Except Obama has built his entire identity on the premise that he is DIFFERENT than every politician on the planet. When more and more people begin realizing this, their "hopes" are going to burst.



Want to know the difference between Obama, and all of his predesessors? (spelling)

If elected, he'll have a democratic congress to back him.

Its hard to get things accomplished without a majority in your corner.


This is the biggest reason that we will all be better off if McCain wins. If McCain wins both sides will be forced to work towards compromises and moderate solutions. McCain has shown repeatedly that he's willing to compromise and work with Democrats.

If Obama was really the great uniter he says he is, it wouldn't matter if the Congress was Democrat or not. If Obama requires a Democratic congress to push his programs through, then what do we need him for? The Congress could pass the same legislation with any Democratic POTUS. It's not like Obama has presented any revolutionary policy ideas.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
I am so disappointed.


I am, too. And I'm going to wait to see what he has to say about it before making my final judgment.


Originally posted by jamie83
What happened is that Obama allowed each individual to fill in the blanks in their own mind about what change meant to them. Now when the rubber meets the road, and Obama actually is forced to take a stand on issues, he's going to burst the bubbles that people had in their imagination.


Excellent point! Excellent! I agree with you that people all have their own idea of what he means. That's why I asked this question. And just as I'm surprised and disappointed at his intention to support the FISA thing, I wonder how many more times people can be disappointed and still support him...

But, like I said, I want to hear more.

Great input!



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I see

oh, and i suppose the Maverick McCain is gong to unite a political system that Bush couldnt unite?

Republicans had their chance for 8 years, and things suck.
explain to me why gasoline was $1.50 a gallon at the beginning of Bush's term, but is $4.00 a gallon today ( Source )


Thats what....166% increase in 8 years?
Name me one other commodity that increased as much. Just one.

McCain has shown his true colors.
He's loyal to big business and big business only.

His loyalties and connections with Bear Stearns
his lust for the demise of poor people

its really just dispicable.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
One thing I'm realizing as I think about this is that there is no one candidate with whom I agree on everything, so no matter WHO gets elected, there are going to be some issues that I really disagree with. I'm going to have disappointments and disagreements. Even if Ron Paul got elected, I disagree with him on some major stuff, so it's not going to be all roses and sunshine with anyone. And so I ask who appears to agree most with me on the subjects that are most important to me? And that's Obama.

Obama has some opinions I agree with and some I don't. So, this FISA thing might just be something we disagree on. And I have to ask how important it is to me. And the answer is even though it's important, the Constitution is VERY important, I have to ask myself whose hands would I trust the Constitution in more? Ron Paul is the clear answer. And if I thought there was ANY way on Earth he'd get elected, I would write him in.

But I don't think it's possible. So I have to decide, do I vote for the person I really want to be in there, knowing that it won't happen? Or do I vote for the one who has a chance of being elected that aligns most closely with what I want? And I think that's a decision each of us has to make.

McCain is a known. There will be no change with him. We will stay in Iraq, gas prices will continue to rise, we will likely go to war with Iran (because that's what they want) and the world will hate us more and more because McCain will just be the next silly little puppet with the same puppetmasters.

But even if Obama steers the ship a little to the left and we miss the big rock right in front of us, it will be change I can live with. I'm willing to be disappointed at times, because I KNOW none of them agrees with me 100%.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Excellent point! Excellent! I agree with you that people all have their own idea of what he means. That's why I asked this question. And just as I'm surprised and disappointed at his intention to support the FISA thing, I wonder how many more times people can be disappointed and still support him...

But, like I said, I want to hear more.

Great input!


Thanks!

It's an old trick/technique used by salesmen and marketers. Push the right emotional buttons and then let the mark fill in the blanks with their own optimistic imaginations. This is the basis for what they call "buyer's remorse."

The reality never matches the fantasy.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 

That all sounds great in theory, but the reality of the situation is that all these changes require large amounts of time, money, and congressional support.

I doubt he could muster the support needed to lower taxes for the middle class while shifting the burden onto large corporation. There are simply too many corrupt politicians that are on the corporate dole for that to ever happen.

Healthcare for everyone is a hollow dream. Unless you institute a national healthcare system, premiums will continue to remain out of the average American's reach. Why not regulate the healthcare industry instead?

An energy policy that doesn't rely on oil would be nice, but we should have been working on renewable energy sources about 20 to 30 years ago. Any changes effected now will not be felt for a decade or better. In the meantime we will still require fossil fuels. Changes like this don't happen over night.

A world class education system would be terrific, but who's going to pay for this army of educators? I'll tell you who, the American taxpayer will.

Ending the War would be a big plus to our economy, but I don't think it will happen during one term in office. Obama has said that himself.

Anyone expecting major changes from Obama, or any other candidate for that matter, has alot of disappointment coming their way.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
What needs to change is who the leadership of our country is beholden to. Right now, it seems to me that is the global corporate fascist elite under the guise of "special interest lobbies". Lobbying and earmarks have turned our political process into a farce never intended by the founding fathers.

Our leadership needs to come around to serving the needs of the people at large, also providing opportunity to the many instead of just lining the pockets of the few. I think Barack knows that, and is using that sentiment to drive his campaign. But will he deliver? Can he change the culture of corruption in DC? Will he even really try?

The cynic in me says that if he is elected the only thing that will change is which of the few get to line their pockets the most. The realist in me says he is our best hope for the many to get some much needed relief from the unbearable status quo.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by LLoyd45
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 

That all sounds great in theory, but the reality of the situation is that all these changes require large amounts of time, money, and congressional support.
Nobody ever said it wouldnt take time, money, and congressional support. But a democratic president, with a democratic congress is more apt to apply change than anything else.




I doubt he could muster the support needed to lower taxes for the middle class while shifting the burden onto large corporation. There are simply too many corrupt politicians that are on the corporate dole for that to ever happen.
I agree it would be difficult. But democratic congress + democratic president = results. It can be done. Nobody ever said it would be easy.



Healthcare for everyone is a hollow dream. Unless you institute a national healthcare system, premiums will continue to remain out of the average American's reach. Why not regulate the healthcare industry instead?
i TOTALLY agree. But, taxpayer funded healthcare is 100 times better than what we have now. I agree with you that its not *the* answer, but its a helluva lot better than what we got now.




An energy policy that doesn't rely on oil would be nice, but we should have been working on renewable energy sources about 20 to 30 years ago. Any changes effected now will not be felt for a decade or better. In the meantime we will still require fossil fuels. Changes like this don't happen over night.

How many times in the past 40 years has there been a democratic combination of president+congress in power at the same time? republicans stand for conservatism - IE : Sticking to the old ways. Of course they wont change. I agree, we should have been doing these things all along. But with contentment comes lathergy. There was never a demand for cheap gasoline like there is today. With demand comes technology to meet that demand. Look for a change to happen regardless of who runs this country.



A world class education system would be terrific, but who's going to pay for this army of educators? I'll tell you who, the American taxpayer will.

I'd rather my tax dollars go towards a better education, than an expanded welfare system to support uneducated, lazy, degenerates.



Ending the War would be a big plus to our economy, but I don't think it will happen during one term in office. Obama has said that himself.

I agree, wont happen during one term in office.
Bush's two terms
+
Obama's one term = 3 terms of office.
I think big changes can be made. Obama wants to go finish the job in afghanistan instead of wasting time in Iraq.



Anyone expecting major changes from Obama, or any other candidate for that matter, has alot of disappointment coming their way.



well, i guess time will reveal who is right and who is wrong. If you base your vote off of "well, obama wont deliver what he says he will"

then you should never vote again for the rest of your life. Because nay a politician has ever delivered 100% of their promises.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Lot of good points, here. BH hit it, I think, with the recognition that change is going to have to come slowly so we don't break any more than we have to.

When I contemplate change in relation to the political scene, the way I define 'change' is that we as a country start doing something different than what we have been.

We need to do something different. During the Bush era, this country has openly embraced torture, wars of aggression, adoption of police state tactics domestically and high-level corporate and government corruption that is staggering.

All in the name of fear and 'terrorism'.

We need to change the US back into a country worthy of pride. Lately, we have not behaved as such.

I do not by any stretch of imagination support 100% of Obama's policies, nor do I oppose 100% of McCain's.

But when I look at the two, I see with McCain as President no discernible change in the way this country behaves. Ironic that in 2000 I would have seriously considered McCain. Now, no.

Given an honest election, which I do not consider likely, as that is as corrupt as everything else the Bush Admin has touched, we will probably have a Democratic Congress and President next time around. Assuming no 'incident' that requires 'temporary' suspension of the election 'just for the duration of the emergency'.

How much Obama can do to improve matters is an open question:

1- How sincere is he? I don't know. But I believe he is more sincere about it than McCain is.

2- Will Congress pull its collective head from its fundament and start doing the real work that needs done? Not likely.

3- Will Obama be able to inspire Congress? Maybe... see 1.

I don't expect a huge change from Obama. For one thing, we have a long way to go to get back to where we were pre-Bush before we can hope to actually net improve our civilization, and I'm not sure anyone is focusing on the right issues. For example, we need to de-politicise everything - the Justice Dept., CIA, FBI, SCOTUS. We need to stop acting like an Empire and start acting like a Republic. And I'm not sure that worrying too much about health care or gay weddings is that effective right now.

Nevertheless, and in spite of not agreeing with Obama 100%, I do support him. He is our best hope, feeble as it may be, for a change for the better.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I want to thank Jamie for keeping it objective and civil, even though he could have gone on a tear about our disillusionment. I think all of the posts have been really thoughtful. Thanks BH for a great OP and something meaningful to think about.

How much to we want change? What are willing willing to do / compromise to get it?

I still don't think we should lose our civil liberties to achieve it.

Don't let me down Barry.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
The irony is that Obama's nebulous "change" campaign is going to be his undoing. What happened is that Obama allowed each individual to fill in the blanks in their own mind about what change meant to them. Now when the rubber meets the road, and Obama actually is forced to take a stand on issues, he's going to burst the bubbles that people had in their imagination.

Well, not so fast. You think just because he has "claims" that he is different that he won't live up to them, right?

Then how do you explain this?

Obama's In Control: No More Lobbyist Contributions To Democratic Party

Obama is the first politician to call for not accepting contributions from lobbyists, one because he knows that is what the people want, and second because he can. He has been able to raise enough campaign contributions from individuals more than anyone in the past.

He is a different kind of politician, but I also don't expect him to change the world overnight. The damage that has been done to our country is immense. All I ask is that we go in a direction that is more toward setting an example of a great country, rather than try to force others into being what we would like them to be.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


How do you explain this.


But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

source

When he decided to fore go public funding is when he told the Democrats to quit accepting money from lobbyist.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 03:41 AM
link   
It means a great word for marketing. That's about it.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
It means whatever you Obama fanatics want it to mean.





new topics
top topics
 
3

log in

join