Obama Policy: Fiscal

2008 Presidential Candidate Platform Discussion

"The cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and states of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on ... If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we'd see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies." - Barack Obama, Speech in the U.S. Senate, March 13, 2006

www.barackobama.com...


Presented for critical discussion and analysis by ATS members under the spirit of the new guidelines announced in This Thread.

And his solution? Is to cut taxes for the lower 90% and raise them on the top 10%. But last I checked, if you take an extra dollar from 100million people, it is more money then taking 1 dollar from 10million people.

Oh sure he says he'll end Iraq but then he'll dump that money into national healthcare or something else to waste money.

I dont consider National Healthcare to be a "waste" of money. I dont think millions of other Americans who suffer from a lack of it would either. I had to watch my friend at work risk losing his leg due to severe infection from some bite, because if he did not wait to go pay for the doctor he would have bene out of a home. And he does not have a vehicle either, so that is a bit difficult IMO.

In any case, I was watching the breakdown of both candidates Tax Plans on CNN earlier, and how it plays into the National Debt during the next decade. After this bailout, McCains plan would bring the debt to approximately 18~ trillion dollars, and Obamas would bring it up to 15~ trillion dollars, a difference of 3 trillion dollars. I would say that is a competetive edge when it coems to their financial plans.

Now I did hear McCain advocate he would cut defense budget, which is necessary if one would know where it can be cut. I do have high hopes that Obama will do likewise, just as Bill clinton did during his term. Now granted, this was probably a result of post-cold war disarmament, but for the most part it helped.

Obviously we have two ongoing confluicts, however I believe if we remove our troops from street the street level in Iraq and allow them to begin maintaining order in their own cities. This will allow us to reduce the cost of such a heavy presence, and give the Iraqis the relief from contstant daily oversight of a foreign occupier. This does not mean we will remove our bases, on the contrary Iraq does need us their to assist with any presence outside of the urban area, or to assist in the event of a build-up of rebel forces offensive.

The other major area either candidate should definetly consider as far as cutting the defense budget is removing a significant number of our European bases. They are unnecessary. Europe has its own Union now, and all the nations (outside of the newest Eastern Bloc nations) have a more then capable military to defend their borders. There is no Russian threat of invading Europe. American bases have no business there.

So all in all, you have to remember it takes taxes to run a nation. If there were no taxes, there would not be a nation. Most of us regular folk will still get noticeable tax relief, albeit it is likely to be temporary. But if we do not begin to seek any new sources of revenue, we will be unable to escape this financial debacle.

Dyepes, what you say is definitely not lost on me. The fact is the U.S. is no longer financially capable of supporting its imperial ambitions. Having an international military presence isn't quite feasible when you are no longer a major power, which will be the case in the next few decades. A U.S. presence won't be tolerated for much longer. Europe, even Africa, is capable of defending itself. Though that is probably not the reason why we have bases in those regions of the world anyway.

I think it's time to approach reality. U.S. imperialism is coming to an end; its militaristic and ideological influence is no longer a powerful, world-shaping force. Its political sphere of influence is waning, as is evident in this past year's events, with Russia not afraid to assert its territorial claim on ethnic Georgian provinces, its brazen opposition to a missile defense shield in Poland; Venezuela is not afraid to invite the presence of foreign military powers, not to mention European ones, something so implicitly forbidden by the U.S. Monroe Doctrine. South America is now beginning to take its own shape politically... North Korea just restarted a nuclear reactor capable of producing weapons grade uranium just months after it agreed (or more probably was forced) to halt its program.

The thing with history and the world is that everything really is cyclic. Most will say that we learn from our mistakes. However, our "mistakes" are human in nature, and many will never cease to repeat themselves. In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq, declaring they were liberating an oppressed people under a dictatorial regime. In 1883, just over a hundred years ago, Africa was being divided under the guise of liberating “those ignorant millions from their horrid ways” (Conrad, Heart of Darkness), an extension of European philanthropy if you will.

Old politics never die. It's time for Obama, a President that will engage in genuine discussion with America's most politically estranged nations, without any precondition as to the extent of the meaning of those discussions for either party.

The world is changing. We have to accept that there will always be change, and we need to muster the humility and audacity to deal with those changes. Barack Obama is a keen observer of the world around him, and he will instigate the change we need by at first admitting the U.S. will soon have to face decisions as to determining their political place in the world, and having the humility to address those concerns. The first step, and this is where he differs from the past eight years of foreign policy, is a recognition of growing foreign powers, which the Bush administration has made many to believe pose an imminent threat to the safety of America itself. That idea could not be further from the truth. Open dialogue is the only way to go when you are no longer in a position to place sanctions on every country that opposes your way of thinking. Or rather, if those countries no longer feel threatened, as is becoming a trend over the past year or so. But more importantly, open dialogue is key in addressing the causes of contention between nations that would otherwise never be revealed, for the sake of political impunity, or political contrivance. All nonsense.

I think this will really be a time of intellectual and spiritual growth for the American people. This century will be the first in over two hundred years where the country will not be financially or militarily superior, where Western ideology will not be the forerunner to political power, where people from all over the world will no longer emigrate to find sanctuary on the North American continent, for an expectation that their own countries soon prosper.

[edit on 30-9-2008 by cognoscente]