PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Specifics for Economic Change



BAMAPHIN 22
09-11-2008, 08:05 PM
There has been a lot of talk about Obama being the agent of change, but many are asking the question, “What, exactly, does he intend to change?” His speeches are a virtual cornucopia of promises that a better life awaits us all under an Obama administration, but how will he deliver? Let’s examine some of his specific proposals relating to the economy from his web site and ask ourselves how these proposals will make our lives better.


http://spinwardslanding.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamas-specifics-for-economic-change.html

Dolphins9954
09-11-2008, 08:48 PM
Even more evidence that no "change" is coming. Obama talks a good game with a script and teleprompters. But the reality is that he can't pay for it. Not without putting our country into even more debt and raising taxes. And not just on the rich. His 95% tax cut is nothing but an illusion. Because the fact remains that you can't cut taxes and expand government and spending. Not without adding a huge amount of debt. Obama would have to raise taxes on everyone to pay for his plans. And even that wouldn't be enough.

Clipse
09-12-2008, 07:30 AM
Even more evidence that no "change" is coming. Obama talks a good game with a script and teleprompters. But the reality is that he can't pay for it. Not without putting our country into even more debt and raising taxes. And not just on the rich. His 95% tax cut is nothing but an illusion. Because the fact remains that you can't cut taxes and expand government and spending. Not without adding a huge amount of debt. Obama would have to raise taxes on everyone to pay for his plans. And even that wouldn't be enough.
Absolutely correct. Obama talks a big game, but his bark is worse than his bite, he won't be able to pull through with his promises of tax cuts. With all the things he wants to do while in office, it would be impossible to cut taxes, hell it would be impossible not to raise taxes.

poornate
09-12-2008, 08:44 AM
This is simple guys.... the United States accounts for about half of the globe's spending on military... if that is cut back, which i believe any fiscally responsible president will choose to do, then stimulating programs for domestic issues will be funded...


Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

— James Madison, 1795

LouPhinFan
09-12-2008, 09:26 AM
This is simple guys.... the United States accounts for about half of the globe's spending on military... if that is cut back, which i believe any fiscally responsible president will choose to do, then stimulating programs for domestic issues will be funded...

Yeah that's how Clinton was able to look so good. Shred military spending, ignore threats to the US, and tada you've got a good looking budget. Sure national security will suffer, but who in this world would be stupid enough to attack the US anyway...oh yeah...:(

FinFatale
09-12-2008, 09:33 AM
Yeah that's how Clinton was able to look so good. Shred military spending, ignore threats to the US, and tada you've got a good looking budget. Sure national security will suffer, but who in this world would be stupid enough to attack the US anyway...oh yeah...:(

good post! It's not like we as a country can " afford " to cut back on military spending. Senator Obama and Senator McCain do agree on one thing..........afganistan needs more troops.......more war.....means more spending and I can tell you this.........I personally will go without whatever I need to to ensure that my heros in the military fighting for MY safety and freedoms WILL and CAN have what they NEED and our national security is protected................

BlueFin
09-12-2008, 09:37 AM
Yeah that's how Clinton was able to look so good. Shred military spending, ignore threats to the US, and tada you've got a good looking budget. Sure national security will suffer, but who in this world would be stupid enough to attack the US anyway...oh yeah...:(

Exactly, and look what we got for it? Bush having to clean up Clinton's mess and getting blamed for it.

Clinton so decimated our military that respect was lost for this country, we were humiliated in Somalia, and all thru the 90's we saw attacks on US targets, to include the World Trade center bombing, the USS Cole, Embassys etc etc etc........

This laid the groundwork for the ever more bold 911 attack, its funny how after this attack we have suffered none of these attacks to speak of.

But, at least we'd get more government welfare programs right?

BlueFin
09-12-2008, 09:40 AM
I was listening to Obama speak with Bill O'Reilly, and he said something that struck me as funny, he is constantly talking about he is going bring change to this country, but in this interview he admits change has to happen by the people, not him.

Dolphins9954
09-12-2008, 09:41 AM
This is simple guys.... the United States accounts for about half of the globe's spending on military... if that is cut back, which i believe any fiscally responsible president will choose to do, then stimulating programs for domestic issues will be funded...


I agree that cutting our military empire would be a good start. We have over 700 military bases around the world. Do we really need that? The problem with your agruement is. That's not what Obama plans to do. He will not end the war in Iraq. His own plan calls for at least 50,000 troops to remain in Iraq. He wants to send more troops to Afghanistan. He said he would attack Pakistan. And he also said that war with Iran is an option.
The fact remains Obama will leave us with a ton of debt and war. The same can also be said about Mccain as well. There really isn't a difference between the two candidates when it comes to foriegn policy and war.

poornate
09-12-2008, 09:57 AM
Yeah that's how Clinton was able to look so good. Shred military spending, ignore threats to the US, and tada you've got a good looking budget. Sure national security will suffer, but who in this world would be stupid enough to attack the US anyway...oh yeah...:(

When our military budget is larger than the 18 nations directly behind us combined, I don't think those cuts under Clinton were to substantial... Our military needs to be downsized... there is no sense in the investment in so many outdated hardware programs... We are still the world's greatest military if we are cut in HALF... Why do we fund, at last estimate, a military that eats up 46% of the world's spending on war... and that doesn't account for intelligence, either war we are in, or secret operatives and operations... It also doesn't include homeland Security.... I am NOT THAT AFRAID... it is ridiculous that some of that money is not diverted to improving our nation...

FinFatale
09-12-2008, 11:01 AM
War time is war time. It effects our ecomony. That is just what it does. At least, like those that suffered during wartimes before us, lost loved ones, food rationed etc.......well, I just think many in this country take too much for granted or precieve too much as some sort of right of some sort. If everything is just a right then why work.......why bother to excel to benefit your children or their future......???? why then......we just kick back and say.......give it to me, it's my right.........I don't get it...........anyway....wish me luck..I am off to the Hard Rock where I've listened to people gripping about not being able to afford health insurance while they spill money into the slot machines and smoked cigarettes for hours while sipping on their favorite brewski......not that they shouldn't be allowed to do that it's their coin.....but if one figures they can afford to go and take chances with it...............well anyway..........I feel lucky!!!!!!!!!!!! lol

LouPhinFan
09-12-2008, 11:06 AM
When our military budget is larger than the 18 nations directly behind us combined, I don't think those cuts under Clinton were to substantial... Our military needs to be downsized... there is no sense in the investment in so many outdated hardware programs... We are still the world's greatest military if we are cut in HALF... Why do we fund, at last estimate, a military that eats up 46% of the world's spending on war... and that doesn't account for intelligence, either war we are in, or secret operatives and operations... It also doesn't include homeland Security.... I am NOT THAT AFRAID... it is ridiculous that some of that money is not diverted to improving our nation...

I'm not saying that military spending shouldn't be cut at all. There definately should be a review of Pentagon programs and contracts. The ones that are pork or have not delivered need to be cut. But you can't gut the military like Clinton did in the current world climate. The military needs to be scaled back, but not to the point that we're impotent.

MDFINFAN
09-12-2008, 11:54 AM
Absolutely correct. Obama talks a big game, but his bark is worse than his bite, he won't be able to pull through with his promises of tax cuts. With all the things he wants to do while in office, it would be impossible to cut taxes, hell it would be impossible not to raise taxes.


You guys need to visit independent sites for verify both canidates claims, all show McCain's plan would cost us the most..and that's a fact.. if McCain can cut taxes for the rich, then Obama can cut them for the middle class..except he says he would tax the rich more to pay for it, how does McCain plan to pay for his tax cuts?

MDFINFAN
09-12-2008, 11:57 AM
Yeah that's how Clinton was able to look so good. Shred military spending, ignore threats to the US, and tada you've got a good looking budget. Sure national security will suffer, but who in this world would be stupid enough to attack the US anyway...oh yeah...:(

Uhh, the military draw down started at the end of Regan, went through Bush1 and Clinton inherited it...it was suppose to be a part of the cold war ending divident... short lesson, you guys got to start remembering history..it's a shame that we're repeat our mistakes.

BlueFin
09-12-2008, 12:09 PM
Uhh, the military draw down started at the end of Regan, went through Bush1 and Clinton inherited it...it was suppose to be a part of the cold war ending divident... short lesson, you guys got to start remembering history..it's a shame that we're repeat our mistakes.

We covered this before, you were shown that Clinton accelerated the reductions beyond anything Reagan or Bush proposed, or did you forget?