Jump to content

Change?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Alright, RTS, I'll answer your question. But if you or anyone else attacks it, you will prove my assertion, so be warned. :p

 

The change that I want to see in this country, and the one I believe that Obama is the more likely of the two to bring, is a focus on the middle income earners.

 

 

I agree with Capitalism as a theory, but it's reached the stage in it's history that there is serious imbalance between the top and the middle. It's a threatening imbalance, IMO.

 

I want to see changes affected in the government that trim the fat. By that, I want to see efficiency in administration of all programs, but entitlement programs in particular. If Obama is serious about no tax increases for the middle class, and his proposals for reducing spending, I believe his platform can work.

 

I want to see a president who shares my belief that there is a human factor in global warming, and puts serious consideration into R&D in that area. Obviously, the reduction of our dependence on foreign oil can significantly impact the global warming issue. So, I think these policies work in tandem.

 

I want to see a focus in domestic policy that favors the "average" American, not CEO's and lobbyists' interests.

 

I want to see a change in healthcare. I share the belief that healthcare is a right of Americans. I don't remember the exact words uttered by Obama last evening, but I agreed with the premise that it's wrong for Americans, as citizens of one of the wealthiest nations to have the number of unisured citizens as we do.

 

I want to see transparency in government spending, which Obama advocates.

 

These are the examples of the change I expect to see.

 

Will he be able to accomplish all within 4 years? Well, there are a lot of factors to consider, not the least of it is the ability of policy makers to work bi-partisanly.

 

In the end, even if all of the goals are not accomplished, if I see significant change in the above being fought for like I believe he will, and I see significant progress, I won't consider his term wasted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, RTS, I'll answer your question. But if you or anyone else attacks it, you will prove my assertion, so be warned. :p

 

The change that I want to see in this country, and the one I believe that Obama is the more likely of the two to bring, is a focus on the middle income earners.

 

 

I agree with Capitalism as a theory, but it's reached the stage in it's history that there is serious imbalance between the top and the middle. It's a threatening imbalance, IMO.

 

I want to see changes affected in the government that trim the fat. By that, I want to see efficiency in administration of all programs, but entitlement programs in particular. If Obama is serious about no tax increases for the middle class, and his proposals for reducing spending, I believe his platform can work.

 

I want to see a president who shares my belief that there is a human factor in global warming, and puts serious consideration into R&D in that area. Obviously, the reduction of our dependence on foreign oil can significantly impact the global warming issue. So, I think these policies work in tandem.

 

I want to see a focus in domestic policy that favors the "average" American, not CEO's and lobbyists' interests.

 

I want to see a change in healthcare. I share the belief that healthcare is a right of Americans. I don't remember the exact words uttered by Obama last evening, but I agreed with the premise that it's wrong for Americans, as citizens of one of the wealthiest nations to have the number of unisured citizens as we do.

 

I want to see transparency in government spending, which Obama advocates.

 

These are the examples of the change I expect to see.

 

Will he be able to accomplish all within 4 years? Well, there are a lot of factors to consider, not the least of it is the ability of policy makers to work bi-partisanly.

 

In the end, even if all of the goals are not accomplished, if I see significant change in the above being fought for like I believe he will, and I see significant progress, I won't consider his term wasted.

 

Nice list and I agree with all of it.

 

I would vote for Obama right now if he would guarantee -

 

National Health Care would not compromise quality health care.

 

He would not cut defense spending.

 

He would not support sub-prime lending(what got our economy to where it is)

 

He would close our borders and get rid of illegals NOW.

 

No more gun laws or bans, but enforce what we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The change Obama is speaking of is what most Americans will have to spend after sending their paper money to Uncle Sam to pay for socialist policies.

 

Obama has nothing to do with the US leaning away from pure capatalism and towards socialism. This buyout is a socialist as it gets, and yes both reps and dems voted for it. It's happening right before our eyes, and yet really nothing is being done to stop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama has nothing to do with the US leaning away from pure capatalism and towards socialism. This buyout is a socialist as it gets, and yes both reps and dems voted for it. It's happening right before our eyes, and yet really nothing is being done to stop it.

 

I agree that the buyout is a bad idea. But you are kidding your self if you think Obama does not want more government control over things that are currently better managed in the private sector. Government run healthcare is near number one on his agenda and it is a terrible idea that will only make the health care system a worse mess than what we currently have. Unfortunately all of us and our kids will be footing that bill too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the buyout is a bad idea. But you are kidding your self if you think Obama does not want more government control over things that are currently better managed in the private sector. Government run healthcare is near number one on his agenda and it is a terrible idea that will only make the health care system a worse mess than what we currently have. Unfortunately all of us and our kids will be footing that bill too.

 

Where did I say Obama doesn't want bigger gov't? The issue I have is that my fellow republicans just let this socialistic buyout happen. And lets not kid ourselves, every time the dems want to take control from the private sector they will just point to this economic mess and say see, we told you guys you can't do it with gov't intervention. This whole thing just flies in the face of capalitism and no one seems to care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama has nothing to do with the US leaning away from pure capatalism and towards socialism. This buyout is a socialist as it gets, and yes both reps and dems voted for it. It's happening right before our eyes, and yet really nothing is being done to stop it.

 

I guess this is the line I was referring to. I agree with you. We should have let these institutions fail and mop up the mess afterward and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama has nothing to do with the US leaning away from pure capatalism and towards socialism. This buyout is a socialist as it gets, and yes both reps and dems voted for it. It's happening right before our eyes, and yet really nothing is being done to stop it.

 

MC you are right that the bail out plan is a step towards socialism, but I can almost guarantee you that you would be out of work within 6 months if the bail out plan had not been approved. I represent commercial and investment banks and know what I am talking about. The situation is worse, much much worse, than many politicians will admit because they don't want to see a run on the banks. Without the bail out plan, the global financial system was going to crash; and soon (actually it almost happened a couple of times in the two weeks before the plan being passed). I'm still not totally convinced it won't crash, but we have a lot better chance of making it through with the plan in place. There is a lot in the plan that stinks, but any one and I mean anyone that gives any politician grief about supporting the plan doesn't know squat about the current state of the financial system in the world. If e mails from Main Street and Joe Lunch Bucket are what caused some politicians to vote against the bail out plan, then Main Street and Joe Lunch Bucket are very ignorant and un-informed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this is the line I was referring to. I agree with you. We should have let these institutions fail and mop up the mess afterward and move on.[/quoteS

 

Sorry Gunner, I have to disagree with you. Sounds great and all, but the pain this country and the world would suffer is far greater than the harm of temporarily dancing with socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MC you are right that the bail out plan is a step towards socialism, but I can almost guarantee you that you would be out of work within 6 months if the bail out plan had not been approved. I represent commercial and investment banks and know what I am talking about. The situation is worse, much much worse, than many politicians will admit because they don't want to see a run on the banks. Without the bail out plan, the global financial system was going to crash; and soon (actually it almost happened a couple of times in the two weeks before the plan being passed). I'm still not totally convinced it won't crash, but we have a lot better chance of making it through with the plan in place. There is a lot in the plan that stinks, but any one and I mean anyone that gives any politician grief about supporting the plan doesn't know squat about the current state of the financial system in the world. If e mails from Main Street and Joe Lunch Bucket are what caused some politicians to vote against the bail out plan, then Main Street and Joe Lunch Bucket are very ignorant and un-informed.

 

I am well aware of what the repercussions may have been had the bailout not passed. My question is when does it stop? Or do we just admit we are in a more socialist environment than capatalist? When do we stop artficially propping up the economy? When do we let the chips fall where they may? If we don't then we are truly in a socialist state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.