Where Do You "See" This Country Headed?

[Objective Voice]

One thing good about U.S. presidential elections, for every candidate who wins this country goes through some changes.

The Kennedy era brought the country out of a recession and spurred economic growth through innovation and imagination.

The Johnson era, which initially carried forward Pres. Kennedy's ideals on strong economic growth and development, eventually brought on fear and seperatism as the Viet Nam war and Civils Rights took center stage.

The Nixon era began with renewed emphasis on honesty and harmony, but ended in dishonesty and disgrace. However, no one can deny that it was Pres. Nixon's foreign policy initiatives that placed the U.S. back in favor with the world-at-large.

The Ford era was nearly forgettable. Marred by pardoning former Pres. Nixon and growing inflation, there was little to lament concerning Pres. Ford's tenure despite the country's economy rebounding slightly near the end of his term.

The Carter era was positive on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts. His focus on energy control and conservation, peacekeeping initiatives and his strong stance on drawning down the proliferation of strategic/ballistic missiles were overshadowed only by the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

The Reagon era is still receiving much debate (at least in private circles). However, most agree that American confidence was at its zenieth under Pres. Reagon's leadership. Under his tenure, the county was deeply embedded in an "U.S. -vs- Them" mentality with "them" being defeating Communism, particularly within the Soviet Union, at all cost. For the most part, Reagonomics was a good thing. Government spending was significantly reduced, the military was strengthened across all branches, many Americans saw a reduction in their taxes and who can forget the First Lady, Nancy Reagon, and "the war on drugs". Unfortunately, the Reagon presidency became the first to experience global terrorism first-hand. The Iranian Hostage Crisis reached a conclusion at the start of his presidency. Reagan's presidency concluded with the Lebonese hijacking of an American airliner, the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, and the decisive air strikes against Lybia for their terrorist activites in Europe. Nonetheless, despite Pres. Reagon's worldly successes, his presidency was marred in scandal by the Iran-Contra Affair.

The Bush era (George Bush or "Bush-41") was in most respects a continuation of the Reagon era. Pres. Bush's greatest accomplishments were his push to strengthen NATO ties and his swift and decisive move to come to the defense of the small nation of Kuwait against an unprovoked Iraqi invasion.

The Clinton era was perhaps the first presidency to yield a budgetary surplus since the Kennedy era. His emphasis on broadening free trade through programs such as NAFTA opened the door to increased U.S. exports. Alot took place during the Clinton presidency, such as the Internet boom, dealings with global terrorism ("Operation Desert Storm" and the World Trade Center bombing), health care reform, HIV/AIDS prevention (research, education and outreach), and a host of other social services programs. Unfortunately, as with all presidents who bolster good records, the Clinton era was marred in the Monica Lewinski scandal. Still, Pres. Clinton remains the only U.S. president to leave office with an approval rating greater than 50%.

The current presidency, the "W" era, should stand for "win", particularly in the wake of the so-called "global" War on Terror. Unfortunately for Pres. George H. W. Bush, the "W" may very well stand for "W"aste. His foreign policy measures have, by all accounts, been a disaster, the country is still deeply involved in a two-pronged war (one of which remains highly questionable and has cost this country dearly in loss of life and funds in the billions!), the country's economy is in extreme dire straights and the Congress is deeply divided. As hard as I've tried, the only positive I could find concerning G.W.'s presidency is his immediate actions following 9/11 and how the country rallied behind this unprovoked and most devastating attack since Pearl Harbor. Otherwise, his presidency will forever be cast in shadow darker than Nixon, Johnson, Clinton and Reagon's combined!

I've taken the reader along this trip down memory lane to ask one fundamental question:

"Where do you see this country going under Senator Obama or McCain's leadership?"

I would ask of ALL posters to do the following before posting their reply:

1) No sarcastic remarks directly related to either candidate. What I'm looking for is "informed commentary" based on your understanding of each candidate's policy proposals.

2) No bashing posters. Remember where we are - an OPEN forum. You're allowed to express your point of view, just be respectful of one's opinion and each other.

3) Give close consideration as to where this country currently resides within the framework of the foreign and domestic landscape and where you'd like to see it go.

4) Most important: Consider your own life experiences and really think about what you hope to gain and/or believe you stand to lose depending on which candidate wins the presidency.

The reason I've posted this thread is as I've watched reactions from those individuals who are for Sen. McCain, one common theme has emerged: many Republican voters have this premature and/or unwarranted fear that somehow Sen. Obaman's policies will take this country backwards, not forward, and that somehow one's "values" will be treaded upon. Personally, I really don't understand where this mentality is coming from. Therefore, I'm trying to wrap my mind around it, this despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Case in point: The McCain aids and Palin speeches that mirror those of Sen. Clinton's where both camps have used Sen. Obama's middle name in an effort to connect him with radical Islam and terrorism in the minds of would-be voters (i.e., "Hussein" = Muslim = radical Islam = terrorism). This is one example of how a play on our fears distorts and blinds us from looking for truth while also affording openess and fairness to both sides. That's not to say the Sen. Obama is perfect - the Second Coming as some have proclaimed him. He has his faults. But for me, it's a matter of Sen. Obama's policies and his outlook for the future for this country being more in-line with my views than anything else. (Although I would be lying if I said his race didn't also play into him having my vote. Nonetheless, if he were white and proposed these same policies, he'd still get my vote.)

So, give it some thought, folks. And let the debate begin.

 

[veganshawn]

Are you kidding Reganomics wasn't a good thing in any way, I grew up in the 80's and my family and town where victims of this stupid mans policies. The only thing I thank Reagan for is my radical view!

Sorry off topic

If McCain wins I see Americas decent towards fascist tendencies increasing, I think we will invade Iran with in the first year, I think the finical crisis will get worse and I think America will get closer to a second civil war. I think Roe v Wade will be overturned, the war on terror will effect more innocent Americans like myself who have a differing view point then the neo-cons. I think global warming will reach a no turning back effect on the environment, I think people will start thinking hockey is a legitimate sport in other words I think we would be f#$ked

If Obama wins I think depending on the make up of the Congress and Senate will have a decent chance of turning America around, though faced with the horrible job W has done it may take the whole first term to see a difference. I am a little scared of his rhetoric with wanting more troops in Afghanistan, I really hope he can get us out of these wars and start worrying about our country first, fixing our problems before we start play world cop.

I really don't think either party cares about America and both are beholden to their corporate donors, I hope that Obama proves me wrong though. I hope this in keeping how you wanted this thread to go, I tried not to be sarcastic.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Uhm Desert Storm was under Bush I.

 

[Objective Voice]

Uhm Desert Storm was under Bush I.

Thanks for the correction. However, I noticed you didn't provide an input as to the primus of the thread topic. If anyone would have had an opinion I thought it certainly would have been yourself. Take your time...give it some more thought if that's what you need. I'd be interested in your honest, non-bias opinion. I'll provide mine some time after the final presidential debate.

Vegonshawn,

You're is exactly the type of honest input I'm looking for.

Thank you.

 

[BmanMcfly]

If McCain wins I see Americas decent towards fascist tendencies increasing, I think we will invade Iran with in the first year, I think the finical crisis will get worse and I think America will get closer to a second civil war.

Obama, being bought and paid for by the same people that bought and paid for McCain; will see the financial get worse. He has talked about reinstating the draft (which would mean DRASTIC expansion on the 'War on Terror'). The race issue will be used as a divide to bring us closer to a new civil war.

These guys are two heads of the same corrupt coin.

The ONLY way America has a chance (albeit a small one) is to bring in an independant or third party candidate... and to protect his life for long enough to bring about this REAL change.

Cause otherwise the only CHANGE offered by these two candidates is the face we see at the 'addresses to the nation'. They will both say anything to get elected; but their loyalty to the public ends there. Not to mention what's going to happen with the issues like China on the verge of 'owning' america... and Russian posturing to return us to 'cold war' status.... the next 4 years are going to be a huge challenge to everyone.

Edit : In other words; the choice is really would you prefer a d!ck that goes around f@@cking everything possible, or an a$$hole that goes around sh!tting on everything.

 

[DivineComedy]

I would be lying if I said his race didn't also play into him having my vote.

First, the Budget and Impound Control Act of 1974 came after the Nixon surplus and completely removed the final tool of the president to directly fight to have a surplus without a successful veto or a good Congress, so the so-called "Clinton" surplus is Newt's fault.

*****

Second, the Carter era was NEGATIVE on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts, the Carter era was overshadowed by a crisis of confidence and a naive foreign policy:

American Experience | Jimmy Carter | Primary Sources

Before Carter:

"For the first time in a generation, we are not haunted by a major international crisis or by domestic turmoil, and we now have a rare and a priceless opportunity to address persistent problems and burdens which come to us as a nation, quietly and steadily getting worse over the years." (Jimmy Carter, State of the Union Address 1978) State of the Union Address 1978

After Carter:

"This last few months has not been an easy time for any of us. As we meet tonight, it has never been more clear that the state of our Union depends on the state of the world. And tonight, as throughout our own generation, freedom and peace in the world depend on the state of our Union.

The 1980's have been born in turmoil, strife, and change. This is a time of challenge to our interests and our values and it's a time that tests our wisdom and our skills.

At this time in Iran, 50 Americans are still held captive, innocent victims of terrorism and anarchy. Also at this moment, massive Soviet troops are attempting to subjugate the fiercely independent and deeply religious people of Afghanistan. These two acts--one of international terrorism and one of military aggression--present a serious challenge to the United States of America and indeed to all the nations of the world. Together, we will meet these threats to peace." (Jimmy Carter State of the Union Address 1980) State of the Union Address 1980

*****

Third, as for Clinton's foreign policy it was "Operation Desert Fox," and you can find that foreign policy referenced here:

One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq!

Now, as to the Fabian Socialist movement and the Communist one Martin Luther King (admittedly took their money) was associated with, the Obama rise is directly linked more with the Neocommie way than with the Fabian Freeway or Clinton Third Way socialism. Wiki has Obama as Third Way, and it is not backed up by his words or the commies he associates with.

*****

You said:

"many Republican voters have this premature and/or unwarranted fear that somehow Sen. Obaman's policies will take this country backwards, not forward, and that somehow one's "values" will be treaded upon. Personally, I really don't understand where this mentality is coming from. Therefore, I'm trying to wrap my mind around it, this despite all the evidence to the contrary."

There is no evidence to the contrary whatsoever, values must be tread upon if democracy demands my state and the people of the Tenth Amendment translate our concerns into universal values. Your Obamanation democracy demands the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal whore of Babylon values or one value system or party.

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values." (Barack Hussein Obama)

Democracy demands nothing; only a communist who believes in "A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY," or spreading the wealth around, would say democracy demands anything. Democracy demands every state must accept the Digambara at a little league game? Democracy does not demand the Muslim, Christian, or Jew accept the naked whore on the street corner. Just as Democracy does not demand the Libertarian state accept the redistribution of wealth.

Communist Chinese government experiments have proven than economic parity can only come from dictatorship (or a so-called Obamanation "democracy") demanding from each according to their ability to each according to their need.

The problem here is, where "universal values" and "universal change" meet:

YouTube - Barack Obama: 'The Messiah is absolutely speaking'

"The Messiah is absolutely speaking"

Where Do You "See" This Country Headed?

Communist dictatorship with a "Civilian National Security Force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as our military" to keep Obama Posse Comitatus boy in power.

 

[Objective Voice]

It's been 10-days since I started this thread and so far only 3 posters have replied: 1 clearly articulated point of view, 1 spouting rhetoric and the other completely avoiding the subject matter.

C'mon, people. The presidential election is less than 14-days away. And with all the negative views being thrown about in this forum, I'd have thought more people would have chimed in by now.

I'll continue to reserve my opinion until November 3rd (if anyone is interested in knowing what I think). Until then, I'd really like to hear from the conservatives out there WITHOUT the talking points.

 

[Hatuey]

Crackers will be lynched. Niggers will run the country. There'll be more cookouts at the White House. More cousins running through the back and cars screwed up on the drive way. The American flag with be replaced by a tricolor crescent and the new anthem will be Wu-Tang-Clan Ain't Nothing to **** with. Doom, gloom. Etc etc.

--------------------------------------------

That being said I don't think much will change if either Obama or McCain get elected. McCain is a liberal puppet and Obama is a liberal. Sarah Palin is a distraction and Joe Biden is irrelevant for the most part. Liberals win.

 

[DivineComedy]

Crackers will be lynched. Niggers will run the country. There'll be more cookouts at the White House. More cousins running through the back and cars screwed up on the drive way. The American flag with be replaced by a tricolor crescent and the new anthem will be Wu-Tang-Clan Ain't Nothing to **** with. Doom, gloom. Etc etc.

When you put it that way my fears do sound kind of silly.

Whoever the next president is hopefully things will change for the better. Just yelling at them and screaming "socialist" will not get anything fixed.

We have had a hell of a lot higher progressive tax in the past, and it was not the end of the world, just need complexity to make sure the rich get a break for expansion that creates DOMESTIC jobs. Redistribution, and government programs paid for with higher taxes on the owners of the principle means of production, will not in itself create jobs or provide opportunity. Government programs to create jobs, that tax the rich, must do more than Jimmy Cotter Pin's CETA, it must build dams (TVA) or solar panels (not just tax credits), it must build nuclear plants, it must give power to America where the wealth helps all equally and stays here.

Give a man a redistribution handout and feed him for a day, give a man power and knowledge to build and you will feed him for a lifetime.

The cookouts do sound promising. Reminds me of Freda M. Wingard's chicken.

 

[veganshawn]

Wu Tang ain't nothing to f##k with would make a good anthem

RIP Ol Dirty!

 

[Iriemon]

Putting aside quabbles I'd have with your summation of previous presidencies, whoever the new president is faces some extremely tough problems. The Bush administration has been characterized by a free for all spending and tax cutting spree that has left our nation more in debt than any time in the 1950s. We are still bogged down in a mistaken war in Iraq, US is held in greater disdain in the parts of the world were terrorism is bred, and we face a serious economic crisis the depth of which is still unknown.

For a McCain presidency, unless he dramatically reverses his campaign promises, which is possible, I see stagnation. The congress is in all likelihood going to remain in the control of the Democrats. They are not willing to agree with the spending cuts McCain claims he'll achieve to balance the budget, and earmarks don't amount to spit. McCain won't agree to the tax increases needed to increase revenues; Congress won't agree to spending cuts that would be necessary to balance the budget. The results will likely be a continuation of the deficits we've had. The one bright spot is that the Bush tax cuts will expire on their own.

On foreign policy, we can expect a continued significant presence in Iraq. Whether McCain would get us into a war with another nation like Iran is speculative; I think the chances are greater than with an Obama presidency.

On social issues, it is likely that McCain will replace one or two of the liberals with conservatives, dramatically changing the face of the Court. There is a significant likelihood that Row will be overruled; laws that support workers rights, discrimination, equal pay, are likely to be even more curtailed by court decisions by a pro big business court.

An Obama presidency is likely to see a much more dynamic government as Obama will have a friendly part to support his agenda. It will likely be marked by a return to a more progressive tax structure which will produce a better revenue component. However, these additional revenues will probably be offset by an increase in spending. Military spending will possibly (hoepfully) be slowed down, this potential could happen under McCain as well but less likely. It is more likely we will see a significant overhaul to the health care system. We are likely to see more regulation of business including a closing of loopholes. SS reform is also more likely.

Under Obama it is probably likely we will see a greater focus on diplomatic efforts as opposed to threats and posturing. There will be an immediate improvement in the perception of the US worldwide; whether that will last is speculation.

I don't see drastic action on the social front under an Obama presidency, except that the court will maintain is current ideological balance as aging liberal justices are replaced with younger one. The conservative justices are likely to hold out at least thru his first term.

 

[cherokee]

Crackers will be lynched. Niggers will run the country. There'll be more cookouts at the White House. More cousins running through the back and cars screwed up on the drive way. The American flag with be replaced by a tricolor crescent and the new anthem will be Wu-Tang-Clan Ain't Nothing to **** with. Doom, gloom. Etc etc.

--------------------------------------------

That being said I don't think much will change if either Obama or McCain get elected. McCain is a liberal puppet and Obama is a liberal. Sarah Palin is a distraction and Joe Biden is irrelevant for the most part. Liberals win.

Niggers will run the country?
Does that mean fried chicken will cost $500 a bucket?....

 

[jujuman13]

Quote
(As hard as I've tried, the only positive I could find concerning G.W.'s presidency is his immediate actions following 9/11)

Do not forget that on being informed of 9/11 Bush refused to visit the site for 48 hours.

Under Obama, I see a rapid re-distribution of wealth from Caucasian Americans to the pockets of African Americans.
Even though the nearest they have ever been to Africa is watching a film in a Movie house.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Quote
(As hard as I've tried, the only positive I could find concerning G.W.'s presidency is his immediate actions following 9/11)

Do not forget that on being informed of 9/11 Bush refused to visit the site for 48 hours.

Not to mention at the time of the attacks he was reading from an upside-down book...

Even though I'm sure some bush defender will say it was a doctored photo...

Under Obama, I see a rapid re-distribution of wealth from Caucasian Americans to the pockets of African Americans.
.

How exactly would this happen?

 

[Ikari]

I see this country going down the crapper. I think the government has grown well to large and has lost its fear of the People. No longer constrained by the chains of the Constitution, the government has freely and openly engaged in treason against the rights and liberties of the People. Instead choosing a road of big brother behavior. War is peace. I see the political process and being more and more closed off to the forces of the People and more and more controlled by the whim of the aristocracy and status quo. The Republocrats have secured their power against the People and have used it to expand their own intervention into our daily lives. This country is headed down a bad bad road and if we don't do something to solve the problem; it will only lead to slavery or revolution.

 

[Bonnie1988]

Obama wants more war than Bush, reversed to support FISA and domestic spying, Democrats want to edit and control political commentary on television, the economy controlled by government, and talk endlessly of burdens, duties and obligations every person has to government.

Obama never speaks about individual rights, but instead of collective duties towards a centralized controlling government.

I see the country headed more towards a police state now with the force of a personality cult.

 

[Billo_Really]

Obama wants more war than Bush,

What a load of crap!

 

[Billo_Really]

Where do I see this country headed?

Up! I see it heading up!

 

[Bonnie1988]

What a load of crap!

People rage if their master Obama is questioned.

It is Obama who said he will move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan not only to fight the Taliban but also to fight the drug war. Obama who changed to beginning troop removal from Iraq in 16 months with no final deadline and even then only if advised by the generals. Obama who has promised to increase the U.S. military by 100,000 - and Obama claiming he favors pre-emptive strikes into Pakistan without Pakistani permission - and Obama who has no time table for leaving Afghanistan. All this is more war than Bush or McCain.

Rage away, zombie.

_______________________________________

"We are the ones we've been waiting for. A light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack.' I am the one."

 

[Objective Voice]

As promised, the following is my 2-cents worth on the direction I believe most Republicans see this country headed. But before I go into details, I feel it important to state what I believe is driving their rationale:

FEAR!

We've heard the buzz words throughout the Republican campaign since the RNC - domestic terrorist, terrorism, socialism, increased taxation, "spread the wealth", abotion rights, gun rights, freedom of speech, a Democratic majority in Congress...

The McCain camp has thrown everything they can out there in an effort to frighten the American people into believing that if Sen. Obama is elected as this country's next President and with a Democratic majority in Congress, he will usher in this apocolyptic era of out-of-control spending and that your rights will be tread upon in ways never before seen. I'm inclined to totally disagree with such notions as being totally ridiculous! The following are a few reasons why:

Freedom of Speech.

1. The Fairness Doctrine. In it's simpliest form, the Fairness Doctrine "grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate."

Now, here's the part that Republicans have latched onto:

"The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy."

"With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the (Federal Communications) Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine."

What talk radioheads such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would have you believe is that it is a Democratically held Congress would pressure the FCC into reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Frankly, I think it's a good idea because as I listen to talk radio where I live it is majority Republican. Rarely, if ever, do I get to hear what the other side is saying. Understand, it's not that I'd like for the Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated because I'm a Democrat, but rather it's because I would like to hear a much more balanced take on the issues from talk radio on both sides. Instead, what I commonly hear is what the Republican radioheads think and that's it. Now, most people would argue let the Democrats find their own talk radio host, but that's not quite so easy when your state or district is a majority held party, i.e., Alabama (R) or California (D). Whether you believe it or not, people want to hear both sides of the issue, but when talk radio tends to be one sided, I don't think it's fair when they complain that television holds a majority view that runs counters that majority view. In other words, one party hold sway in one broadcast medium, the other goes contrary (, i.e., talk radio = Republican base, television = Democratic base).

2. The Right to Bear Arms. Gun control issues have long been a hot-button topic in nearly every modern day Presidential election, and of course, Democrats are generally at odds with gun legistlation lobbyist. However, the differences have had more to do with the gun industry's desires to get any type of weapon manufactured into the hands of "the people" whereas gun control lestistlation attempts to limit the distribution and access of weapons they deem would place the general public at extreme risk. One only has to look at issues surrounding gang violence and some well know modern day bank robberies to know that the enemy of the 2nd Amendment isn't "we the people". And yet everytime someone argues on behalf of upholding their 2nd Amendment rights, the first question I ask is "where's the militia that's invading you?" And when none presents itself, I then ask, "So, you need that AK47 assault riffle why?"

3. Abortion Rights. This arguement has been ongoing since long before 1900 and I'm sure it will continue for many years to come at least until greater moral fiber is reinstated in our citizens. Still, I believe the abortion issue remains an area where IMO people don't have things quite right. Rowe -vs- Wade wasn't just about whether or not a woman had the right to have an abortion or whether having an abortion was criminal, but rather it was also about not having the woman's right to privacy invaded, as well as her right to pursuit happiness - basically, freedom to choose for herself what she wants done to her body. Rowe-v-Wade basically states that "an abortion was a constitutional right during the first and second trimesters of a pregnancy based on the constitutional right to privacy, but that the state's interest in protecting "potential life" prevailed in the third trimester unless the woman's health was at risk." However, in subsequent rulings, the Supreme Court has rejected the trimester framework altogether in favor of a cutoff at the point of fetal viability. Meaning, that it was left up to OBG-YNs to best determine when the fetus had developed beyond the perceived "point of no return". In other words, in some cases it's a judgement call for some OBG-YNs. Nonetheless, no one should perform an abortion after the third trimester. To that, I think Sen. Obama had it right when queried on this issue in the third Presidential Debate. However, until people's moral compasses are reset and they begin to see other options for choosing life-opportunities for unborn children, I'm afraid abortions will remain the right of the woman to choose what she deems right in her pursuit of liberty and happiness.

4. Supreme Court Justices. The President can nominate up to two Judges for the Supreme Court, but only when there's a vacancy. Right now, I don't see one and there hasn't been any annoucements of any SCJ's plans to retire or resign. So, I think it's safe to say the Judicial Bench is set for the time being. Republicans don't have to worry about any liberal appointments to the Bench. Not to worry, people of the conservative mindset. Our nation's Judicial system will remain in-tact.

5. Taxation. I know many people including myself initially saw in Sen. Obama's tax plan where people who didn't file a federal income tax return could possibly receive a tax credit, but when you listen to the radioheads and not dig into the plan for yourself, it's very easy to be misled. The key to remember concerning Obama's tax credits is "working individuals". If you don't work, you don't earn the credit. Sen. Obama has consistently stated that there are some individuals who are not required to file a federal income tax return because they don't meet the federal minimum level income guidelines, i.e., college students such as my son who works two job (one full-time, one part-time). His overall gross pay for 2007 still fell below federal income guidelines. Yet, because he worked he would be entitled to receive a tax credit under Sen. Obama's tax plan as it was original outlined on his website. Sen. Obama has clarified this aspect of his tax plan on his website, but all along I've always interpreted the tax credits as "working credits". Nonetheless, Republicans view such credits as "welfare". Nevermind that Sen. McCain, under his health care plan, would in effect be doing the exact same thing...only he labels such tax credits as "tax reform".

On the issue of "redistribution of wealth", here again I believe the American people have things backwards. Our nation's ecomony doesn't run off of tax reductions, it runs off of the laws of supply and demand, i.e., "if you build it, they will come". The people need disposable income in order to pay for goods and services. At this present time, such disposable income is in extremely short supply. People are holding tight to their purse-strings. Company's can't produce NOT because they're incapable, but rather because people aren't buying goods and services. The nation's 4th quarter Gross National Produce (GNP) was a strong indicator of that. It's true that tax breaks will help companies pay less expenses toward running their buniess, but I'd have to agree with Sen. Obama in that if you address those areas of financial concern for business, i.e., health care cost and equipment rental, you can help them to reinvest in their business. But to give tax credits just because doesn't do this country's economic system any good. To this, Obama's tax plan makes sense: put dispendable income back in the people's pockets AND provide tax cuts to businesses in those areas where more of their working capital goes towards that hamper their ability to reinvest in business.

6. Socialism. Got news for ya'...there have been aspects of "socialism" in this country for decades. People just don't pay close enough attention to them: Medicaid/Medicare, SSN, IRAs, TVA, Railroadmen's Retirement (and at one point outright ownership of the railroads themselves, as well as the highway system itself when it first began), and now Freddie/Fannie (which is the 2nd time around for the mortgage lending industry, i.e., the S&L scandal of the late 80's. I don't see anywhere in Sen. Obama's plans for this country's future where he plans for the gov't to purchase and/or control any private entities. But the fear is that Democrats cater to social programs so much that a Democratic president, as well as a Democratically controlled Congress will usher in this ere of totalitarian government control with bigger government. That's such a crazy notion! Crazy because every 2 to 6 years, WE THE PEOPLE get to exercise our voting rights all over again in Congress. That's what this means of term limits was meant to do - to act as a means of checks and balances to ensure no branch of government ever got too powerful. But if you listen to the radioheads long enough, you begin to believe that "one in power, always in power", and that's just not true.

I think I've made my point very clearly. It's not common sense or rationale that's keeping people from making informed decisions as to who to elect as our next President. It's FEAR! For once, I'm hoping that those who have thought things through, who have looked at the issues on both sides make the right choice. And that choice is clear...O-BA-MA!

 

[Iriemon]

...

4. Supreme Court Justices. The President can nominate up to two Judges for the Supreme Court, but only when there's a vacancy. Right now, I don't see one and there hasn't been any annoucements of any SCJ's plans to retire or resign. So, I think it's safe to say the Judicial Bench is set for the time being. Republicans don't have to worry about any liberal appointments to the Bench. Not to worry, people of the conservative mindset. Our nation's Judicial system will remain in-tact.

I have to disagree with you on this one. The court is now pretty conservative, with 4 far right and one more moderate (Kennedy). Of the 4 more liberal justices, Stevens is age 88, Ginsburg 75, and Kennedy 71, there is a very good chance that the next president will replace one of these justices, most likely Stevens. Any replaced by a conservative in the mold of Scalia or Thomas will likely spell the end of a right to an abortion, gun control, and further diminishment of workplace rights.

 

[Objective Voice]

I have to disagree with you on this one. The court is now pretty conservative, with 4 far right and one more moderate (Kennedy). Of the 4 more liberal justices, Stevens is age 88, Ginsburg 75, and Kennedy 71, there is a very good chance that the next president will replace one of these justices, most likely Stevens. Any replaced by a conservative in the mold of Scalia or Thomas will likely spell the end of a right to an abortion, gun control, and further diminishment of workplace rights.

I'd forgotten about those two being that old. In that case, Republicans might...might have reason to be concerned, but I have to believe that should Obama win the Presidency he'd nominate Justices who would first and foremost want to uphold the ideals of the Constitution. After all, he does hold a degree in Constitutional Law. If anyone has a keen understanding behind the intent underwhich it was framed it's himself.

 

[obvious Child]

I'd forgotten about those two being that old.

And Souter wanting out.

 

[Billo_Really]

People rage if their master Obama is questioned.

It is Obama who said he will move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan not only to fight the Taliban but also to fight the drug war. Obama who changed to beginning troop removal from Iraq in 16 months with no final deadline and even then only if advised by the generals. Obama who has promised to increase the U.S. military by 100,000 - and Obama claiming he favors pre-emptive strikes into Pakistan without Pakistani permission - and Obama who has no time table for leaving Afghanistan. All this is more war than Bush or McCain.

Rage away, zombie.

_______________________________________

"We are the ones we've been waiting for. A light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack.' I am the one."

Sorry, no rage and no zombie.

These happen to be issues I disagree with Obama on.

 

[conquer]

Us became the greatest nation of the world because its government was present as the essential power to defend human rights and to provide laws protecting human integrity, property and the land belonging to each citizen as a whole.

The falling of Us economy and its influence in the world has started as soon the government was pointed as "a problem" instead of being the equalizer.

Private companies which reject the rules of the government -stricted inspections to control the quality of their products and the protection of the workers- are the ones who instigate over the rest to take a position against their own government.

A strong governrnent is what the next administration must look for, a continuation of the principles of the fathers of the country who's visionary horizon was based in laws as the main establishment from which prosperity should flow.

If Obama try to flirt with the private sector over the interest of the majority of Americans, this country won't have more chances but to fail like any third world country.

Going back to the roots to lift up the vision of the fathers of the country should be the main task of every new president in US. Doing so the people will have enough motivation to rise up the nation from the current falling. This is not the task of an administration alone but to have the administration as the guide for americans to restructure the country everybody as one.

The political and social principles should have never been broken again, and still it is not too late to get back to the former principles.