OK I have been quiet for 6 months since the election on the whole Obama thing. He's not the Anti-Christ, not a Muslim and not a Commie. However he is also not a Messiah or even a perfect president. He has been fixing Americas reputation abroad without going soft in Afghanistan. Hes been making conciliatory noises in the Middle East which have been better received. Europeans generally like him but then they had very distorted view of Bush and a lot of that is by way of reaction. Overall he has been working soft power better.
My issues with this administration are the following:
1) DEFICIT SPENDING - The deficit is very large and some of that is to do with a failure to address some very big sacred cows.
i) Some of the big car companies that are being subsidised should have been permitted to go bust- rather than being given billions which are probably money down the drain in the long run.
ii) Health spending continues to run out of control. Has Obama got what it takes to introduce comprehensive care while cutting costs to sane levels. European health systems are better, lower cost and comprehensive by comparison with 99% of the American system.
2) GAYS AND ABORTION- Obama is a supporter of the gay agenda and is promoting abortion by his policies.
3) NASA - Obama remains noncommittal on some crucial decisions regarding NASA. In the middle of a Financial crisis the temptation is cut back on space programmes e.g. moon bases and manned Mars trips. I believe this may be catastrophic in the long run to Americas image in the world and may help hasten the day when America hands over its leading position to China.
4) ENERGY SELF SUFFICIENCY - With the fall in oil prices (Interesting this should occur just as a president making noises about environmental technologies comes in) there has been a fall off of investment in these new environmental technologies. In the long run I believe American energy self sufficiency is crucial for its leadership position, the health of its economy and as a way of reducing its Middle Eastern entanglements and dependence on Arab oil especially. Obama is not exactly devoting large sums of money to investment in this area as I hoped he would.
__________________ Great and small they rise and fall but the Lord, He is God forever!!! Ein Englander in Deutschland.
I don't know how to respond. We don't get too many rational arguments against Obama around here.
I am also very worried about the deficit spending. I understand he did it in an attempt to stave off an economic catastrophe, but I wonder if we are only delaying it for further down the road.
I could not agree more with #4. We need much more energy independence than we have right now. I loved the Cash for Clunkers program as a way to increase the incentive for people to buy more energy efficient cars. But that's just a very small part of energy efficiency.
As for gays and abortion, we'll never agree so I am not even going to bring it up.
Thanks for the thoughtful OP.
__________________ "So here we are, wallowing in our dysfunction. Governed -- if you listen to the rabble rousers -- by a black nationalist from Kenya smuggled into the United States to kill Sarah Palin's baby. " Bill Moyers.
I don't really understand how you can put forward points 1 and 3 at the same time.
You are concerned about the amount of money being spent just to keep the US economy and health systems working... but you want more money being spent on space exploration because of "image"?
1) DEFICIT SPENDING - The deficit is very large and some of that is to do with a failure to address some very big sacred cows.
i) Some of the big car companies that are being subsidised should have been permitted to go bust- rather than being given billions which are probably money down the drain in the long run.
ii) Health spending continues to run out of control. Has Obama got what it takes to introduce comprehensive care while cutting costs to sane levels. European health systems are better, lower cost and comprehensive by comparison with 99% of the American system.
Deficit spending is a major problem, and Obama certainly isn't cutting back. I'm not convinced, however, that this isn't business as normal, and that any of the candidates available for '08 wouldn't have a massive deficit at this point.
2) GAYS AND ABORTION- Obama is a supporter of the gay agenda and is promoting abortion by his policies.
I don't consider this a problem.
3) NASA - Obama remains noncommittal on some crucial decisions regarding NASA. In the middle of a Financial crisis the temptation is cut back on space programmes e.g. moon bases and manned Mars trips. I believe this may be catastrophic in the long run to Americas image in the world and may help hasten the day when America hands over its leading position to China.
Why is it so important that we be "the best"? We're already not the best in so many areas. What's one more? Maybe if we as a nation spent less time worried about our image like prima donnas, we'd be able to better improve our lot.
4) ENERGY SELF SUFFICIENCY - With the fall in oil prices (Interesting this should occur just as a president making noises about environmental technologies comes in) there has been a fall off of investment in these new environmental technologies. In the long run I believe American energy self sufficiency is crucial for its leadership position, the health of its economy and as a way of reducing its Middle Eastern entanglements and dependence on Arab oil especially. Obama is not exactly devoting large sums of money to investment in this area as I hoped he would.
I agree here - but what can people do without exacerbating point one?
__________________ Busting chops and taking names.
I don't really understand how you can put forward points 1 and 3 at the same time.
You are concerned about the amount of money being spent just to keep the US economy and health systems working... but you want more money being spent on space exploration because of "image"?
I think you should re-examine those priorities.
Actually, if you look at the payoff produced in terms of technological growth resulting from the Apollo program, it's not as big a contradiction as it might appear at first blush.
I find myself in substantial agreement with the OP's assessment...though I'm a bit hazy on precisely what Obama has done to advance the homosexual agenda. Abortion remains legal, of course, because that's what most Americans want, and banning it would simply drive it underground.
I don't agree with you that Obama is a "mixed bag" at all. He is a disaster. One thing he has done right is stop credit card companies from robbing credit card carriers with feeing people to death.
__________________ For the preaching of the cross to them that perish is foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God, 1 Co 1:18.
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God, Benjamin Franklin
Darwinism isn't science but a philosophy without God
Roe vs. Wade - 45 million dead babies and growing **Proverbs 6:16-17 - states that there are seven things that are an abomination to the Lord; one of them is the shedding of innocentblood.
I find myself in substantial agreement with the OP's assessment...though I'm a bit hazy on precisely what Obama has done to advance the homosexual agenda. Abortion remains legal, of course, because that's what most Americans want, and banning it would simply drive it underground.
It is clear Obama is permissive of the individual decision to take an abortion while wanting to reduce the overall numbers of abortions.
Not even Bush was talking about the total abolition of abortion because as you say its what America practically wants right now. But the president has an opportunity to steer the country one way or another and this president has a clear direction.
__________________ Great and small they rise and fall but the Lord, He is God forever!!! Ein Englander in Deutschland.
I don't really understand how you can put forward points 1 and 3 at the same time.
You are concerned about the amount of money being spent just to keep the US economy and health systems working... but you want more money being spent on space exploration because of "image"?
I think you should re-examine those priorities.
NASA is cheap at three times the price in my view and very cheap even then compared to your health service costs for instance.
With estimates of American health costs reaching 15% of your countries GDP (with its higher per capita income) compared to 8-9% in EU countries which provide better and cheaper care to all citizens clearly something needs to be done. If you were to reduce your costs to even European levels then your potential savings could be approaching 6-800 billion dollars a year. Comparing NASA to your health service is not comparing like for like. NASAs budget last year was 17.3 billion dollars
My reasons for supporting space exploration are that I believe its an important long term answer to mankinds energy and mineral requirements. That the effort to get there represents a significant boost to technological skills and capabilties which will have trickle down benefits in innumerable areas of human life.
My preference here is for American LEADERSHIP in this area because space supremacy carries an enormous military advantage e.g. command and control of satellite communications. It comes down to who you want to trust with that power and America is a better alternative to Russia or China in my view. But if you deliberately squander your lead in space to save a few billion dollars in the bad times I fear that you will never recover your lead when you realise your mistake in the good times. Particularly if another power acts proactively to prevent that happening.
Image counts for a lot in international politics and makes more difference than you think. This is a relatively cheap way to boost Americas image in the world and to reap some pretty amazing military, scientific and developmental benefits in the process.
__________________ Great and small they rise and fall but the Lord, He is God forever!!! Ein Englander in Deutschland.
Deficit spending is a major problem, and Obama certainly isn't cutting back. I'm not convinced, however, that this isn't business as normal, and that any of the candidates available for '08 wouldn't have a massive deficit at this point.
There would definitely have been a big growth in the budget deficit and Bush had already launched the necessary and expensive measures to prevent the financial system from seeing total meltdown. The issue is really whether or not it would have been as large a deficit under the republicans than under the democrats. I am inclined to believe that the Republicans are slightly more free market than the democrats and that the principle of capitalist creative destruction would have applied more to companies that really can no longer function in the market place but which are considered too big to fail.
On health care costs I really do not know if the last republican administration would have been any better. They let the problem run out of control to a considerable extent and in doing betrayed the essential essence of what a low tax small government republican party should really be about. Of course health is probably also related to your legal culture and growing levels of obesity and also some really nutty views about a national health service being some kind of communist conspiracy. In my view republicans should be about Christian values, low taxes and small but effective government, about empowering people to live their own lives with their own money in their pockets. This should have meant comprehensive health care and massive reform on the grounds that it cuts taxes and therefore reduces the hold of the state and health companies and insurance firms on individuals lives. Instead big government republicanism in the last administration decreased individual freedoms and choices regarding health by doing nothing to tackle the rising tide of costs. But this administration has come in saying it will do something about it. But I see the same pussyfooting around with doctors and lawyers and the balance sheet still looks catastrophic compared to Europe.
Why is it so important that we be "the best"? We're already not the best in so many areas. What's one more? Maybe if we as a nation spent less time worried about our image like prima donnas, we'd be able to better improve our lot.
NASA - National survival and security might be a good reason here. With the retirement of the space shuttle you would have little capacity to take out a space based weopans platform for instance that directly threatened the USA. Missiles you fired from the ground would take longer to reach their target than missiles fired from it for instance. But also the technical and scientific stimulus is a benefit for a relatively low price tag and there are considerable political benefits to be had to retaining leadership in an area in which you can afford and are capable of retaining it.
__________________ Great and small they rise and fall but the Lord, He is God forever!!! Ein Englander in Deutschland.
Linear Mode
