Simple question Obamites..........realistically, what do you think Obama can "change" in four years if he is elected, and more importantly, by what means?

__________________

1) The tendency over the past 8 years of the U.S. to engage in aggressive war justified by the doctrine of preemption. How? Stop doing it. He could manage that unilaterally, not even needing the help of Congress.

2) The unexamined idea of "free trade" which, when taking the form of tariff-free trade agreements with countries that don't guarantee workers' rights, results in the loss of jobs to those countries. How? After getting authorization from Congress (it might only require the Senate, I'm not certain), scrap agreements of that kind, pending internal reforms in the countries in question.

3) The exploding federal debt, which I believe to be pursued deliberately for the purpose of transferring wealth from the middle class to the rich. How? Raise taxes and cut spending. He already has plans in place for the first, and ending the war in Iraq alone will go a long way towards the second. Also, #2 above will help by helping the economy, which will generate additional tax revenue.

4) The federal government's refusal to do anything about our dependence on fossil fuels. How? Take action that should have been taken decades ago, by raising fuel-economy standards, phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies, and instead subsidizing the development of alternative energy.

5) Mend the damage the Bush administration has caused to our worldwide reputation and relations with other countries. How? That's possibly the easiest thing of all: be a president who doesn't act like a belligerent, unprincipled numbskull.

Now, in truth, I must admit that a lot of this is guaranteed success not because he's so great, but because he has such a ridiculously easy act to follow.

gotta go but before I do-
#2, so we shut down chinese imports? Uhm okay, sure.
#3 is well kooky.
#5 way overblown and since there have been a number of right of center heads of state elected in the last 4 years, thats not quite accurate.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

As long as they treat their workers the way they do, yes.

Balancing a checkbook is kooky?

The problem with Bush isn't that he's "right of center," it's that he has the diplomatic skill of a bull in a china shop. (Is he "right of center"?)

And I question his analysis (or lack there of) of the ramifications of doing just that.

Again, has he analyzed the ramifications of doing that? I don't see it. I prefer full analyses, but we rarely get those from politicians.

I'll buy the cut spending, but where are the specifics of the areas where he will cut it? Personally, my priorities as a voter are on where those cuts will occur. The war is not one of those areas.

There already is money spent on altenative energy development, so that is not a novel "proposal" as it already exists: Office of Science Program Descriptions

Regardless of who wins, the USA's reputation historically rebounds.

Granted, he is not a popular president.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Question all you like, the thread topic was "what can he change and how?" I answered. Might be interesting, though, if you went into a little specifics about what you think is the downside of ending policies that put us in the same general category as Napoleon, Genghis Khan, or Saddam Hussein.

I don't know if he has personally or not, but enough others have that he'd be duplicating their efforts if he did.

Then don't vote for him, but fortunately you're in a minority there.

I imagine if you look hard enough you can find an odd dollar or two, yes.

It's pretty obvious that more is needed, though, and at the same time less in the way of fossil-fuel subsidies.

Yes, usually about the time a new president takes office, or shortly thereafter -- unless he makes the same mistakes as his predecessor.

And for good reason.

Of course, no committed conservative is going to support Obama, nor should they. That's not their part of the dialogue.

Huh, the title of the thread is "Obama's 'Change'". Where's the how in the title? I saw how he wants to make a change with regards to the war, but I have no confidence in his doing a full analysis of his plan.

Then one can hope he listens to those in the know about the war.

I likely won't. And we won't know if I'm in the minority or not until November.

I don't have to look; I know. There is much more than the odd dollar or two. Please, do look for yourself. The link is there and you can explore the site and the mission of the DOE.

Agreed. And a paradigm of that is when Reagan took office.

I disagree. He has had plenty of goof ups and plenty of successes. One's view on the issues makes for politics.

Probably not, as "conservatives" (commmitted or not) tend to appreciate pragmatism based on complete analyses. [edit] If what you say is the case, then he can lose hope getting of the coveted crossover votes.[/edit]

I'm not an Obamite, but in a word, no. He needs some really long coattails to sweep Congress and I don't think he has the grassroots organization to do that. Of course I don't think McCain or the Hildebeast are going to change things either.

Indeed?

Actually, if you check your DATA, you will find that the annual deficit has been declining sharply in recent years, and is only now worsening in the current recession.

You know of course that the massive tax increases combined with the huge increases in spending that will accompany his giant new government programs (and don't kid yourself - they will cost a fortune) will cripple the economy and in turn, send the debt into the stratosphere?

I understand that left-wing fantasies are appealing and even exciting, but the terrible truth is: they have nothing to do with reality.

It is the absence of reality that is so attractive and so dangerous in regards to Obama's far-left plans.

And all of us will, literally, pay the price of his naive idealism and lack of understanding of the economy.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

I am as far away from being an Obamabot as it possible to be, but I will be presumptous enough to speak up -

Yes, he will change things. He has a far-left congress to work with and they will break the back of the economy and set the clock back to 1935. Our international standing in the financial world will fall sharply and may never come back.

We will be a much weaker nation in terms of military might and preparation - hardly the alternative to neocon policy - but just as dangerous and more deceptive.

Other nations may squeal with joy and and dance in the streets at the prospect of a weak and passive and perhaps pacifist United States, and Obama will be the toast of the world. Very weak presidents are always popular, as we saw with Carter.

But they may not like the isolationism that goes with it.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

I think a change of direction would be sufficient for my satisfaction.

1) - A return to a foreign policy that does not include pre-emptive military engagements or nationbuilding.

2) - A return to some form of governmental fiscal responsibility.

3) - An end to the completely polarized political landscape that has caused complete dysfunction and deadlock on major political progress. This one is perhaps the most tricky... but if he can bring people together as he says, they will likely pass some major legislation in his term.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

1) Amen. The US should keeps its nose out of other countries' business. That means leaving places like Africa and China alone.

2) Again, I agree, but I don't think Obama is the person to do it.

3) This is indeed the hardest of the three. Obama cannot bring people together as he says. He cannot change the entire political landscape. He simply doesn't have the political ability, the allies or the experience.

Good gracious, so Bush was at his worst in his first term, and has gotten slightly better in his second. Will wonders never cease.

Even so, the Bush years have been far worse than the Clinton years in that regard. And so were his fathers, and so were Reagan's. It's a little strange for a guy my age to see the Republicans as the party of fiscal irresponsibility and the Democrats as the ones who balance the budget -- used to be the other way around -- but that's the way things have shaped up in recent decades.

I don't know how many of his "giant new government programs" will ever see daylight or how they will be paid for. I do know that we, as a nation, are in crisis, and people are waking up to that fact. What will be done, is what MUST be done if we are to survive as a nation. Everything else will have to wait.

I know, of course, that the supply-side doctrine that tax increases on the wealthy "cripple the economy" is sheer smoke and mirrors, so no.

RE: 2) I think McCain would be equally or perhaps more adept at bringing fiscal responsibility were it not for his commitment to perpetually throw billions of dollars into Iraq.

RE: 3) I don't think it requires a change to the entire political landscape in order to remove the current deadlock... He only needs to get the congress to cooperate to the degree that they can reach consensus. It's not an entirely unrealistic goal if you have the will to do it. Obama's style is much more conducive to cooperation than Bush's ultimatims, or Hillary's polarization of allegiances.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

So all he needs to do is make everyone agree with him?