US General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Remove all ads!

This is an interesting piece on the current fuss about the "S word" - I think you may be interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/matthewprice/2008/10/here_comes_the_s_word.html

What is it about the concept of "socialism" in this country?

McCain continues to talk about Obama "spreading the wealth", which I understand as a political tactic might be effective, but the snide way in which some of his supporters shout "SOCIALIST!" after McCain mentions Obama's name is fascinating.

Earlier today, outside the latest McCain rally near Pittsburgh, there was a group of young Obama supporters waving their posters and chanting their candidate's name. A McCain supporter walking past shouted "Communists!" to the joy of the other McCain followers.

Why?

This isn't an attack against McCain, or Republicans.

I'm just interested in why a country that prides itself on openness, that believes in freedom of speech, that has always generated new and fresh ideas of its own, can (in general, and I know I'm close to stereotyping here) be so fearful of such an idea...


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


Edit: I came upon an article about a McCain interview that, well, didn't improve my opinion of McCain and his campaign much - McCain says enemies won't test him .

Now, it basically is a rehash of the old experience argument with some of the "crisis" rhetoric, courtesy of Joe Biden (who apparently either wasn't thinking or was taken wildly out of context). In effect, "enemies" might be more aggressive during an Obama presidency as Obama might be perceived as weak and inexperienced. IMO this is rather arguable - while McCain's age might not be a politicall correct issue, it is a weakness in itself for a man who might have to display physical and mental endurance in times of crisis, doubly so when their VP is not exactly the epitome of experience herself. But, well, that is somewhat expectable - and he made a legitimate argument that one could debate upon.

What irked me more was that McCain said people might consider Obama unreliable because of his mistakes. I know he has made that point before, especially about the surge in Iraq, but this completely blew me out of the water:

"He was wrong when he said Georgia should show restraint. He was wrong when he said he would sit down across the table from Ahmadinejad, Chavez and the Castro brothers. He was wrong about those. So I can understand why the American people might be concerned."

So THAT was the "mistake" on Georgia that McCain blamed Obama about? Urging the Georgians to show restraint when dealing with Russia - a neighbor with economical, political and military resources many times theirs, headed by a stable government and a leadership eager to expand their influence - is a mistake? Oh, luckily that Georgia didn't commit it, then - attacking positions of Russian peacekeepers certainly showed they didn't have excessive restraint. Then there was that matter of a short conflict that resulted in a swift and rather humiliating outcome for Georgia, and incidentally all but guaranteed the independence of Southern Ossetia - the region Tbilissi tried to bring back under the fold. The US, despite its relatively close ties to Georgia, did little to help, and the Georgian case for NATO membership was quite likely weakened*. Yeah, it couldn't go any better for the Georgians - imagine if they had actually listened to Obama! He made a mistake, McCain proclaimed - and in doing so, imo at least, boldly ignored both basic prudency and, for crying out loud, reality. Good Lord, does it take a prophet to guess the outcome of such a conflict?

Oh, and of course, the old moment about talking to the Castros or Chavez. Nevermind that US presidents talked to their Soviet counterparts time and again - right until the USSR collapsed. Nevermind how well Bush's policy towards those states worked. Nevermind that when the US did decide to negotiate with such countries it tended to be favorable for the US. Would China be financing the US deficit if Nixon hadn't met Mao - a greater tyrant than Castro, Chavez and Ahmadinejad combined? But no, talking to Chavez or the Castros is a mistake, period - regardless of what the possible outcome of such a meeting might be. Much of the foreign policy achievements of Nixon and Reagan - the high points of their respective presidentships - came from talking to leaders of hostile states. Good grief, and he is supposed to be the foreign policy expert of the two?

*: this is mostly an educated guess, but I doubt most NATO members would be willing to be dragged into a confrontation with Russia because of someone in Tbilisi and his nationalistic views.

 

Socialist is one of the nicer things they've been shouting.

 

Ragusa:

Yes, any kind of taxation that doesn't result in the government giving money to certain people. If the government hires groups to perform duties, such as policing, military action, infrastructure construction, etc., it isn't wealth distribution as the term is used in socialism. The original idea of taxation was to raise necesary funds for the government to work. Nowadays, though, much of that money is being given back to people through various programs. There's welfare, medicare, medicaid, and I don't know how many of the financial aids to various businesses are tax breaks and how many are giving money. Tax breaks (refusing to tax a particular group as much) isn't wealth redistribution, but giving them money (grants for programs that the government doesn't benefit from) is.

Chandos:

If it is really giving money and not just less taxation, then yes, it is socialism.

LKD, I largely agree. To some degree this stuff works, but too much is harmful to the economy and produces a dependant caste of the poor with a sense of entitlement. The idea is to find a balance between the two.

Aldeth:

 

I'm not sure what you mean with that last sentence. If money gets from group A to group B due to state policy, the state is doing income redistribution. That the second group does something to get these money is not so important in this regard - though afaik in any society, whenever a group gets money it gets it for something. It may be active services now or in the past or other obligations, but money is never given for free. The net effect was income redistribution, but the people who got richer did so by being "hired" by the state. Whether it is as part of a police/army recruitment, major state-funded (or subsidized) construction projects, or even a subsidized farming market, these people are recompensed for a service.

Also, I'm not sure how you think the terms was "used in socialism", but iirc in socialism everyone is presumed to be working anyway, so they do get services from the state for something in return. After all, large employed force paying taxes is a necessary condition for any welfare program. And if we are talking about socialism as applied in communist states, I doubt that many people - least of all the regular people - were given money just like that. Communism boasted full employment (however effective the workforce was) and lasting unemployment (or, as iirc it was also called, social parasitism), was a crime that would be punished with prison.

 

Shaman, I consider there to be a difference between the government hiring people (government jobs) and the government giving aid (welfare). The first is capitolistic wealth redistribution (which is unavoidable in just about any economy, even a socialistic one). You do a job and you get paid for it. If it's the government paying, so be it. The second is the worst possible kind of socialism, and is usually intentionally taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor just because they're poor. They don't need to be working for some programs, they don't need to be trying to improve their lot for just about any programs, and as a result, many of them don't. You're right in calling this social parasitism. I wish we would punish it (by removing the aid in question).

I think the most effective method of helping the poor would be to provide mmoderate-, but by no means well-paying jobs that are intellectually easy (manual labor types, clerical for those who can't do manual labor) that require little to no training but offer on-the-job training for more complex jobs. The idea is that these jobs are just enough for them to get by, by no means comfortably, but enough. The discomfort should provide motivation for these people to try to find better jobs (improving their lot) while also providing them with a mechanism to do wo (on-the-job training). It would probably require even more investment in the poor than we have right now (pay + materials + supervision + training), but I think it would effectively limit the number of people that actually need it in the long run.

 

Ideally, welfare checks are supposed to support people in the intermediate period between 2 jobs. After all, it's hard to guarantee someone a job, and many working class people do not have the financial reserves to go around. It's easy to say that people should save, but in practice it is all but impossible for many people due to low or inconstant income. Thus, welfare payments form a kind of a public insurance - you put money when you can, and you use it when you need it. In general, I myself support lifelong support of people only if they were rendered unable to continue work due to work accidents - whether a soldier being wounded in combat or a factory worker being injured (not due to his/her fault) in the work process. I don't know exactly how it works in the US but here you are only eligible for welfare for a certain period after you leave work (you also need to have worked at least one year) or if you qualify for a pension (due to age, disability, or other reasons). In theory, I find this system quite decent; in practice, there are quite few bugs that need to be taken care of. Still, the people who manage to eke out an existence primarily on welfare, as far as I know, manage only that - to survive. And if they choose to have a color TV over good clothes for their children, they are not much better off (though imo it could be limited, maybe by providing a part of the subsidy in food stamps or something similar). The idea that you can go anywhere on welfare is imo just a myth; it is imo easier to become rich through begging than through (state) welfare.

I'm not so sure about your second paragraph, though. There are always better-paid and worse-paid jobs, but I believe that as no work is dishonorable (except that which is illegal), no work should leave you poor if you do it conscientiously and devote yourself to it. Unfortunately, that happens all too often. Yet we need lawyers, and we need garbage truck drivers; we need hairdressers and we need translators. Thus, I do not think we should aim to have poorly-paid jobs that we fill out with the least qualified and motivated members of society. Rather, I would like to see a system that rewards those who are good even at menial/unskilled jobs (possibly via some mix of seniority/competence bonuses), and provide the rest with an easy way to look for something else*. As iirc the Japanese say, there is no such thing as an incompetent person; there is a person at the wrong job. Sure, everyony could do paper-pushing, but if you are actually good at it, you save a lot of people a lot of trouble, and you deserve to be paid well for it. We are, as the saying goes, all in this together.

*: however, usually looking for something else means you may have to be unemployed for a while. Hence imo the idea that some kind of support should exist for those who earnestly try to find a job.

Edit: back to the candidates. I saw that there are news of possible US attacks on insurgents (supposedly) on Syrian and Pakistani soil. While this could be just normal proceedings if the US army had verifiable news of anything happening there, I was interested by the possible political implications alluded to in a CNN broadcast. Given the relative lull (though possibly ending) in Iraq, attacks outside it - on two countries that could do much to help or harm the US cause in Iraq, should they wish - might be kicking a hornet's nest, and with them happening so shortly I wonder if it is not part of a coordinated policy. After all, it's not too likely that such activities only occur now, so why haven't there been more cases before? Yes, so I may be getting overly suspicious, but perhaps Biden's inopportune comment about Obama getting a crisis on his hands might have been quite prophetic.

 

Shaman, my point is that at least some of the poor (I don't know statistics, but I suspect many) live off of government aid one way or another and simply refuse to do better. There are many reports of people doing a job just long enough to qualify for the next round of welfare (I think it needs two months of work or something here, not sure), doing something stupid to get fired, and then living off of welfare for the next X period of time. My idea would be to stop providing these people with welfare, but replace welfare for those that really need it with simple jobs that anyone could do (so no one can claim their lack of education is holding them back, etc.) while only providing enough pay for them to live without being comfortable. This at the same time provides them with enough aid to continue living, but also enough motivation to seek a better job (for those that currently live off of welfare). These jobs would expect that many of their people would be actively seeking jobs elsewhere and would probably expect high turnover rates. The point is that this should be a launching point into independant living for those that have lost this or have never had it. Some of these jobs may be come-as-you-are daily pay manual labor, which would even allow the homeless to earn some income.

Back to the candidates:
Are the attacks on Syrian and Pakistani soil politically motivated? Not likely but I won't rule it out. Could it be a last ditch effort to return the focus to foreign policy (McCain's strongpoint)? Maybe. Could it be a last ditch effort to saddle the new pres. (presumed to be Obama) with a major crisis to tar his image? I would expect them to wait for the election to be finalized first. Could it just be reliable, actionable intelligence being used as it was intended? High probability, but again no guarantee.

More on the candidates, or more Obama, it seems now a radio broadcast from 2001 has surfaced in which Obama claims the Civil Rights movement and the Supreme Court didn't do enough in not considering wealth redistribution (probably from rich white folks to poor black folks, considering the context) and they should move on to the legislature and executive branch to get it done. More 'spreading the wealth around'?

On top of that, new accusations concerning Obama's citizenship:
Claims he was actually born in Kenya, whether reliable or not, are mute because his mother was a US citizen, so he was considered a natural-born US citizen eligible for the presidency. Now, however, evidence suggesting he was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro, his step father, in Indonesia (when his name was changed to Barry Soetoro) means he would have been given Indonesian citizenship. Unfortunately, Indonesia does not allow dual-citizenship (and I don't think the US does, either) so he would no longer be a US citizen of any kind. Since he was a minor at the time, if the adoption actually happened, he would have had the right to petition the US State Department to recognize him as a natural-born citizen when he turned 21. There is no evidence that he ever did, nor that he ever filed for new US Citizenship.

The image in question is here: http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-indonesian/
and other places. It's a copy of the application for schooling in Indonesia (at a Roman Catholic school) where his legal name is listed as Barry Soetoro, his citizenship as Indonesia, and his religion as Islam. This was reported by the AP in Indonesia, so I doubt it's a fraud, but it's also far from legal proof of adoption. Apparently, though, it was then and is now very hard to register a non-citizen for public schooling in Indonesia (which Barack did attend). Mean something? Maybe. I'd like to hear a court ruling on the case challenging Obama's right to run as a citizen that's currently in federal courts. If this all is true, it means not only can't he run for President, he can't be a US Senator and is actually an illegal alien elligible for deportation. Like I said, I'd like to hear a ruling from the courts. Preferably before the election.

 

Here you go:

Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Obama citizenship

 

What a crock, NOG. IF you can't beat 'em through demcratic means, trump-up some "backdoor" charges through the courts to have the guy discredited on a bunch of meaningless accusations via internet blogging. I'll tell you to your faces, you guys are shameless. What a disgrace.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

 

Taken wildly out of context, and already debunked. Here. What he was actually arguing against was relying solely on the courts to implement broad changes in social policy. In other words, he's arguing against "activist judges." A conservative position.

As for your obsession with Obama's nationality, you're really getting into Area-51 territory, NOG. For Pete's sake, the election is a week away and Obama has been a candidate for nearly 2 years. If there was even an ounce of dirt in Obama's nationality, do you really and truly think he'd still be in this race? You honestly think it wouldn't have become a major issue by now? With the army of keyboard commandos on the case and the millions spent on oppo research trying to discredit him? Serious question.

I've asked before, and now I'm really curious...where do you get your news from? I only ask because we seem to spend a great deal of time correcting your misinformation...

 

The interview you posted DR is even more reason to dislike obama. It shows a long term pattern of (as he puts it in his own words) wanting a redistribution of wealth.

from the article

This is more marxist than anything i've seen him say recently. Just how does he figure that he has any right to take wealth from anyone & give it to another?
Neither i or anyone in my family ever owned slaves so how can he justify punishing us for something someone else did?

Just look at DR Ira Carruthers, who is a member of Obama’s African American Religious Leadership Committee. She is also an outspoken advocate for slave reparations.
Just look at her ties to N'COBRA(National Coalition Of Blacks for Reparations in America)
She wrote "The Church and Reparations―An African American Perspective", which was distributed at the 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.
The conference was considered so extreme that the U.S. delegation, led by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, walked out.

N'COBRA is also the group that has also included a panel discussion of “Post-Traumatic Slavery Syndrome.(PTSD)” at their conferences.
Which is described as one of the Psycho-Racial Spiritual Diseases of Americanized Africans (PRSDAA). The speaker, a psychologist, said that black-on-black violence could even be attributed to undiagnosed PRSDAAs.

Really, blacks have psycho-racial spiritual diseases? WTHeck

You like to talk bad about palin for what her daughter's better half did yet more & more troubling mentors & friends of obama keep coming up.
You try to just sweep them away like they don't matter. Sorry but they do matter to a lot of people, as you are judged by the company you keep & his choices are very disturbing.

 

Ok, in order:
Splunge, thanks for the link. I'm kind of disapointed that it was tossed out on 'lack of standing' (who does have standing, then?) rather than a problem with the case itself.

Chandos:
The crock is you calling me that when your only link is to something that I myself said was moot (sorry, wrote mute, meant moot). Even the other things I did link I admitted were far from definitive.

DR:
Thanks for the link to ABC. I can't seem to listen to the whole thing (what's a .ram file anyway? It brings me to Realplayer, but I have that and it won't play) but the ABC quotes do paint it in a slightly different light. I'd like to hear the whole thing because I don't trust ABC anymore (I don't really trust CNN, which is where I got both the content and feel of my post on the subject, but oh well).

As for my 'area-51'-ness, well, this probably wouldn't be an issue if the mainstream media would actually cover this stuff. The number of passes Obama and Biden have gotten from the media is amazing. My bit on his radio address actually came from CNN (I think most of you somewhat respect it, I was surprised to see it on there). The Indonesian document was from an AP report (supposed to be pretty trustworty, I guess). As for the probability that it would be brought up before, it was, by Clinton, and killed by the media and the courts (it was held in legal limbo by the courts until recently, it seems). This isn't new, it's potentially scandalous (much less has been jumped on for McCain and Palin), but they won't touch it, even when there's due cause. As to why McCain wouldn't have brought it up, I don't know, but I'm almost convinced he's trying to loose. I've seen about 10 golden shots McCain could have taken at Obama, and I'm sure he's got good enough advisors to do better than that for himself, but he's barely there. Still, many of the polls are between a dead heat and a statistical tie (within the margin of error), with only some out there polls by NY Times and the like giving Obama +14 and more. Anyway, we'll see.

 

I think barney frank is trying to help mccain
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/10/25/221119/65
"In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.
The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner, he said."

And also

"I know it is great news for some, as for them defense industry is the favorite evil bogeyman that is the root cause of everything from Iraq war to proverty in inner cities. On the flip side, things from Internet development to advanced aircraft materials owe their existence primarily to the defense spending.

American military currently is fighting in two war theaters. Both Obama and McCain agree on the fact that the military needs to expand with more warfighters. The logistical needs also include large scale replenishment of equipment, aircraft, rotorcraft, carriers et al which are suffering huge wear and tear and losses from the two Wars. A 25% budget cut would have devastating effect in military readiness in the next years. Pentagon budget from 2010 is under scrutiny right now, and Frank's statement doesn't bore well for its future.

I cannot fathom why Barney Frank ten days before the election will make this great revelation. I know this diary will not be popular here, but I can tell you his statement fit squarely right with the anti military stereotype of the Democratic party. This will not go well in several corners of America."

And frank ended the interview by stating
"Also, he said, "we'll increase the federal share of medical care so states won't have to lay off people." Unemployment insurance benefits won't increase, he said, but the period of collecting them will, and eligibility requirements might be relaxed.

And, ultimately, there will be tax increases on the upper brackets. "We'll have to raise taxes ultimately. Not now, but eventually," he said"

If he thinks he can do all this without raising taxes ACROSS the board he is delusional.

 

NOG - I guess I'm wondering why you posted all this "less than definitive" info. You said you would like to see a "definitive ruliing from the court," and now you have one. If you are retracing your comments, than great. Most of us figured the story of was "crock," as I remarked.

Both Charlie Cook and Chuck Todd have put Obama in a clear lead, moving both Colorado and Virginia into the Obama Blue. That gives Obama 286 electoral advantage to Mac's 163. IF the election were held today. A lot can still happen between now and 8 days, but it's pretty much over for Mac. Like I said, it's not over till it's over, but most polls show Obama clearly in the lead atm.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

 

@NOG,

But they have covered this stuff, though. The stories about Obama's birth certificate were trotted out and debunked over a year ago. The Wright fiasco exploded, was extensively covered by the media, and consequently dealt with in what I thought was a very prudent manner by Obama almost a year ago. Obama supposedly being a Muslim was extensively trotted out by the media and just as extensively debunked several times over the last year and a half.

But let's leave that aside for a minute. Let's say he is technically a Kenyan by some obscure citizenship technicality, and the heads of the department of immigration are too dumb to realize this. So what? Does that mean his having been born in America and been raised IN America BY Americans ceases to mean anything? Let's say he is a Muslim. Unless you're a racist or a religious fanatic, so what? If you can tell me why his specific policy positions are going to be bad for this country, I'm all ears. But all you're doing is giving exaggerated importance to trivial issues in what appears to be the hope that Obama will be disqualified, rather than defeated fairly. It completely ignores the reason John McCain is losing: Republicans cannot make an affirmative case for their being given power for 4 more years. All they can do is fearmonger and try to give people reasons NOT to vote for Obama. Reasons that obviously aren't very convincing, if the polls are any indication.

As much as you believe the media is in the tank for liberals, I assure you, they are in the tank for controversy far more. If any of these stories you're concerned about passed the evidentiary smell test, Obama would be stumping for Hillary Clinton in front of a Hooters in Scranton right now. What passes do you think they've been given? Especially Joe Biden?

@ martaug,

Since I seem to be the lucky recipient of a free pass from your ignore list, I guess I'll respond.

I've never heard of Dr. Iva Carruthers before, but I did do a little research on her. She's an academic who's written on a number of subjects dealing with black America. I wouldn't necessarily call her a radical, but she may well be - I only devoted about 15 minutes to the pursuit (including the views of her detractors). If what you say about her views on reparations are true, then I don't like her either. Even still, I don't really care about her. The AARLC is an honorary advisory group. They have no real hand in shaping policy of any kind. Members of the Obama administration will meet with them a few times a year so the group can voice concerns coming from America's black religious community and the social charity programs they run. They may recommend policy based on this feedback or recommend government support to one faith-based charity or another, but that's about it. That she's on this committee is not a sign that Obama agrees with her on much of anything, as he regularly surrounds himself with people he disagrees with on policy (a trait I find essential in a modern leader), but rather that she's a recognized academic and theologian in black America - which neither you or I will ever fully understand the complexities of. You can exaggerate her importance and the importance of the AARLC if you must, but Obama has no history of advocating extreme racial positions himself and is very popular with non-blacks precisely for that reason. He makes Jesse Jackson look like the jackass that he is.

As for Obama's troubling "mentors," again, you can exaggerate the significance of people he barely associated with if you want to. But guilt by association arguments only resonate with people who are already determined to hate the person in question anyway. What politician on earth doesn't have troubling people in their sphere of influence if you look hard enough? John McCain is a close personal friend of G. Gordon Liddy, one of the Watergate conspirators (and is also unrepentant, like Bill Ayers). Does that mean McCain should be disqualified for the Presidency because he pals around with convicted traitors? No, because G. Gordon Liddy isn't going to appear on a ballot. John McCain is. If Liddy were going to be in his cabinet, that'd be a different story. But you're right, these things do matter to a lot of people, as does the 9/11 truther nonsense, the existence of UFOs and a literal belief in Noah's Ark. I don't really care if they do, it's a free country - but that does not make them correct, rational or credible.

As for the "redistributive" quote, Obama was having an academic discussion about the merits of court decisions as they apply to civil rights. Discussing the fact of "redistribution of wealth" in our society, which happens in any Democracy, is not the same thing as advocating it. When you were in the military and you received military pay, ate in the mess hall and fired a weapon you did not buy yourself, you were the recipient of "redistribution of wealth." So obviously the idea in and of itself is not a bad thing. If you want to make an argument for why taxing and spending is bad, great - but the quote you cite doesn't even mention wealth, but "redistributive change," which is not the same thing. It means that government money is going to go to certain programs anyway, some helpful, some harmful. Redistributive change is the idea that if you believe your program needs government support, you need to advocate for it - and that means "redistributing" it from another program if necessary, since government money obviously doesn't go to every group that asks for it, there's only so much to go around. Obama is arguing that going through the courts to FORCE this change (aka judicial activism) is an ineffective way to accomplish this, and this is a point conservative scholars have been arguing for decades. Highlighting one sentence out of context with the word "distributive" in it does not make Obama a socialist, it just means that you, like the people in McCain's campaign, are looking for a reason to call him one.

But by all means, keep insisting that Ayers and Wright and Osama are all Obama's best buddies, that he's a radical racist and a Marxist. It's been all the McCain campaign could talk about for the last 3 weeks. Not why McCain/Palin = Good, but why Obama/Biden = omg!. Has it gained them a single new vote or endorsement they'd be proud of? No. In fact, they've been steadily losing support, especially from the Independents that McCain used to enjoy the most support from. Nobody cares about these argument because they lack relevance and merit, despite how devotedly "some people" care about them. I'm not trying to sweep anything away, believe me - this kind of irrational partisan lunacy is what got W down to 25% approval and what cost people like Rick Santorum their careers. I hope Republicans trot out the same arguments 4 years from now, too - they'll lose, again. I don't wish for Conservatives to continue NOT learning the lessons of the last 8 years, but it looks like some people are doubling down anyway. It's a path to irrelevance. I hope you've been dropping breadcrumbs.

 

I can not understand how any American can be ok with your military spending. Whether you are waging two war or not it is obscene. I couldn't remember if the US spent as much as the rest of the world combined or twice as much as the rest of the world combined so I did a quick google and I am just giving you the wiki hit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

How could anyone argue for such military spending? I do not get it, Americans complain about lack of funding for education, poor health care, poor everything and you do not want to pay more taxes. Fine, you do not have to, if you cut spending to just spend twice as much as the European Union combined you would have $100 billion or so to spend somewhere else. For what do you need all those weapons? There must be some immense wastage going on in that huge military organisation.

My main point was of course, I can't understand how anyone, American or otherwise could argue against cutting military spending. You could cut and cut and cut and still big the biggest, baddest kid in the block. Oh and if the US military budged isn't state controlled redistribution of wealth I don't know what is.

 

Joacqin, the US spends about 5% of the GDP on the Dept of Defense. We don't even make it in the top 20 countries for expenditure by GDP percentage.
Here is a good link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretionary_spending
You will notice that we spend more on Health Care, Education & Pensions than on defense.

United States Federal, State,
and Local Government Spending
Fiscal Year 2006..........Function Amount(billion).. PercentGDP
Overall government spending
Federal, State, Local....$4,704.1........................36.1
Spending by major government function
Pensions....................$747.1............................5.7
Health Care................$783.8............................6.0
Education..................$786.8.............................6.0
Defense.....................$622.2.............................4.8
Welfare.....................$411.4.............................3.2
Interest.....................$312.3.............................2.4

So what's the problem with our defense expenditure ?

(edit) Sorry just looked up sweden's GDP & we(the US) spend almost as much just on interest payments. That kinda puts thing in perspective.

 

Joacqin, you have to understand a little about US history and psychology. The military is like a big expensive safety blanket for us (with really sharp edges) because, in the past, some really bad things happened when we didn't have a very good one (Pearl Harbor, War of 1812, most of the Revolutionary War). Lets face it, we've been taught (mostly by Europe, though some by others) that no one is going to listen to us about anything, even things that directly effect us, unless we can point some really big guns at them and tell them to. Honestly, all things considered, I think the US has been fairly restrained in both the spending on and use of the military. After all, we haven't tried to take over France recently, have we?

DR:
They ran a few stories on the birth certificate which, as I said, is a non-issue. I haven't seen anything on his living in Indonesia. The issue here is that he wasn't raised in America by Americans (at least, not a good portion). Yes, he spend a number of very formative years in Indonesia being raised by an Indonesian, but that doesn't mean much to me. If I saw enough to trust, I'd trust him. The issue here is that it may be a disqualifying issue, and you all asking the conservatives to ignore it because it isn't certain is like asking the US to ignore the real possibility that the Chinesse gynmists were underage in the Olympics. These things need to be resolved conclusively, one way or the other, not ignored.

the Wright fiasco was covered pretty well by the media, but I don't agree that it was ever really dealt with by Obama. He said he never heard those things said when he was in the pews. He never heard it from 20 years of preaching from a pastor he called a spiritual mentor? This kind of stuff wasn't a new development in his preaching style, nor was it something other members of the church called unusual. This means to me one of two things. One, he's lying about Rev. Wright being a spiritual mentor and close personal friend so that he can seem to have religious connections. Ok, but he made a really bad choice about who to lie about. Two, he's lying about never having heard it. This would mean he had heard it, tollerated it for ~20 years, and quite possibly even agreed with it. Other things that he's said across the campaign trail hint that his may be the case. This has never been resolved. And please, no one dare give me the line about 'Why can't you just take his word for it?' I swear, I've heard that at least a dozen times from Obama supporters and every time it makes me thing they're brains must be at the dry cleaners at the moment. When was the last time you took a politician's word for anything?

Obama having once been a muslim has extensive circumstantial evidence that I've never heard talked about by the media. All I've heard are their reports on his repeated claims to have never been such. It doesn't matter, though, because that's not an issue at all. Another possible lie, but that would be one I'd understand 100%.

If you want to talk about issues, and how McCain can do a better job, I'd be happy to talk about the economy, foreign policy, energy, immigration, etc. The problem is, on all these things, you probably think the very things I'm complaining about are what make Obama great. That's the problem here, the real issues are pretty simple. Obama is a liberal democrat (no insult there) while McCain is a semi-conservative (OK, not really sure where he is anymore) republican. Liberal democrats will side with Obama on the issues and conservative republicans will side with McCain. The independants, on the other hand, will probably need some other items to decide it by.

By the by, I do think past associations are an article of concern as they are a very good indicator of at least who you were. Obama's relationship with Wright was close and personal, by his own claims, until just a few months ago (ok, what, 5, 6, 8?)

 

I'm not suggesting you ignore it, I'm suggesting you aren't using your head. The government is extremely thorough in its background checks for government employees, and quadruply so for the highest government job of all. If this were a disqualifying issue, he would have been disqualified over a year ago.

OBAMA WAS NEVER A MUSLIM. Not for 5 minutes, not for 5 years, NEVER. No lie, no coverup. My god, what is it with you?

As for your stuff about Wright, I understand your concerns but you've offered nothing substantive. He could possibly be lying. He's asking you to take his word for it. You're more determined to believe the worst than is really warranted. Wright was a close figure in Obama's life but that doesn't really mean anything unless Obama shares those positions, and he very clearly does not (again - he wouldn't have any support from non-blacks otherwise). My aunt and uncle are enormous racists, my former boss cheated on his wife multiple times, my former best friend was the administrative assistant to the madam of an escort service run by the mob, and my former neighbor was a drug dealer and the manager for a rapper named South Park Mexican who went to jail for oinking a 12 year old. If you judged me solely on that criteria, as you are doing to Obama, I'd look like the devil. These are all people who certainly have redeeming qualities aside from their negatives, but my associations with them are just that, associations. They don't make me a racist, a womanizer, a whoremonger or a child molester, or certainly a sympathizer for any. They say nothing about me except in the most superficial terms. I don't disown people in my life just because other people might have a problem with something they do. I realize there is a different standard for politicians, I'm not naive - but that's why these things need specifically to be put into perspective.

Besides - while I agree that Wright said some incendiary things to make a point that I too abhor, and he probably is a bit of a racist, he also did a hell of a lot of good for the people of Chicago. He isn't some crazy evil man, he's a black religious leader speaking in front of black people in a black area, frustrated like many people are about the plight of black Americans. You're reading far more into Wright's comments than necessary, and understandably so - you're as white as I am, and like most whities we don't quite get black culture. That still doesn't make him the devil. It makes him a jackass, and yes, Obama has severed all ties with the man - that's good enough for me. He would have had a very minimal influence in an Obama administration anyway.

 

Martaug did you see the countries that spent more of their GDP on military? North Korea is in top then most of the other countries are small nations with big nasty neighbours or other various dictatorships.

NOG, come on, the US has never ever been really threathened since the revolutionary war. Not if you compare to what has befallen other countries, a fleet base wiped out the worst thing that has happened? Come on, you can have your guns and they have been used for good on several occasions but very very rarely if ever in self defence.

China with a population one and a half again as big as the US is spending 10% of what the US does, what are you afraid of? It is not like you can fight terrorists with carrier task forces or nukes.

Anyhoo, this is slightly off-topic, I as an outsider can't understand why military spending isn't a bigger issue in the states and why anyone who even hints that maybe it would be a good idea to cut back a little is shouted down, frozen out and seen as a traitor.