Is Obama really proposing anything new?

[rupa 2]

O.k. Obama supporters, have at er. Prove me wrong, but most of what His royal majesty would propose has already been done, and it never workd the first time, so why does he think it's going to work now and not send things into a further tailspin?

People need jobs, companies need to keep their money so they can employ more people and sell more goods. Raise taxes on businesses, companies fire more people, move to other countries with less taxes, and people with no jobs drive the government debt even further and the socialist monster keeps growing . People, this is to me what Obama seems to be proposing, but for those of you who think not, care to enlighten me?

I'm also from a slightly more socialist country, and know what it's like to give 35% of my paycheque to the government and get a kick in the teeth in return. Free healthcare is not free, you pay more for it with your taxes than you would out of your own pocket, and spreading the wealth does not generate a productive working class. i.e. does giving a teenager 20$ and telling him it would be nice if he chose to mow the lawn, get the lawn mowed? Unless he is an exceptional kid, the grass will be knee high before it gets cut. But don't give him anything and say he can earn the 20$ by mowing the lawn, there's a much greater chance that the lawn will get mowed. That's how America was built. By giving opportunities to people to earn their wealth. People need that motivation to work or they'll just suck the system dry. Human nature is that of "if some one is going to just give it to me, than why should I try." Is Obama really going to build a stronger more productive nation??? I'm thinking no.

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/...eternal-return/

Enthusiasm for Obama among the scribbling classes–journalists, academics, most beneficiaries of tertiary education, and, ex officio, “community organizers†of all descriptions–puts me in mind of Friedrich Nietzsche’s idea of the Eternal Return. Nietzsche wanted to come up with the world’s most difficult idea–difficult in the moral or emotional sense. Nietzsche wanted to affirm the the world, but he wanted to be sure he wasn’t sentimentalizing it. Hence the idea of the eternal recurrence: if he could say Yes to a world in which everything returned over and over again–every horror, every boredom, every stupidity–then he would know he had achieved his goal.

As a piece of philosophy, I think the idea of the eternal return of the same is a pretty silly idea, but as a metaphor for human folly it has its uses. If the pundits are to be believed, the American people are just about to elect as President a man who espouses in concentrated form just about every bad, discredited, and exploded social and economic idea of the last fifty years.

For example, as has been pointed out by many commentators, what people call Obama’s “tax plan†is really a tax and welfare plan. Far from granting a tax cut on “95 percent†of taxpayers, as he claims, it will raise a whole suite of taxes:

– marginal tax rates

– estate taxes

– taxes on dividends

– capital gains taxes

And that is before breakfast. Just wait till Obama, together with a Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Henry Reid, really get going.

But the tax portion of the Obama Plan to Redistribute Money is only the first step. A second and in some ways even more worrisome portion regards the welfare side of the equation. Note well: it’s not just that Obama plans to cut taxes for people he thinks do not make enough money; he also wants to send them some money from folks whom he thinks make too much money. Yes, that’s right: the IRS will be in the business of issuing as well as collecting checks, not just for refunds, as has been their practice, but as a means of redistributing your money to those that Obama thinks deserve it more.

In other words, Obama plans to resuscitate the welfare policies of the Great Society, but by stealth. It will be the same thing–the dole–but it will be called a “tax credit,†which has a more emollient sound than “relief,†“public charity,†“the dole.â€

What I find depressing about this–as, indeed, about the whole Obama juggernaut–is the extent to which it represents a return of bad ideas that have already been tried time and again, have failed and made people poorer and less stalwart, and yet seem poised to make a sorry comeback once again. I’ve written about the “déjà-vu-all-over-again†phenomenon before in this space. Bill Ayers? Haven’t we done that? Jeremiah Wright? Haven’t we done that, too? Haven’t we tried Obama’s “soak the rich,†anti-business economic policies? Haven’t we tried his “can’t-we-all-just-get-along†foreign policy? Don’t we know that economics is about the creation rather than the redistribution of wealth, and that low taxes and strategies that encourage productivity and investment are best calculated to make the entire society, including the less fortunate, more prosperous? Don’t we know where appeasement and capitulation get us in foreign affairs? Don’t we remember Jimmy Carter? Haven’t we learned anything?

The whole thing puts me in mind not only of Nietzsche but also of that advertising slogan: In Life, Experience Is the Great Teacher; In Scotch, Teacher’s Is the Great Experience. The problem, of course, is that experience has been a bad tutor indeed, which is why one wants to reach the Teach.

Still, I do not despair. I’m on record saying that I thought McCain would win by a landslide. Of course, that was before the economy suddenly said good by to $3 trillion, a fact that bizarrely counts for Obama–â€bizarre†since it was the policies of his party that precipitated this economic dégringolade. Nevertheless, were I Obama, I’d hesitate before thinking about how to furnish the Oval Office.

People tell me that all the ducks are lining up in a row for Obama. To which I say: “Fine. But are the voters?†A few months ago I said I didn’t think Hillary would get the nomination. Everyone looked at me sadly and said, “Poor chump, don’t you see it’s inevitable?†Like so many things, it was inevitable until it didn’t happen. That’s one reason I dislike this constant recourse to polls–weekly, daily, hourly polls, polls, polls. But “RealClearPolitics/Gallup/Zogby/Rasmussen says . . .†Meaning what? That voting is a superfluous exercise? “Oh no, you must vote, but really the polls say . . .†I say, forget the polls: just vote. You might be surprised!

Edited October 28, 2008 by rupa

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

It works in Cuba.... look at those lucky suckers...... driving classic cars as a daily driver.

[Ban Hammer 12,879]

this is gonna be interesting.

[NickD 202]

Now, only if you can convince long standing republicans that switched from McCain to Obama to agree with you.

Edited October 28, 2008 by NickD

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Who said new? The word Obama has been using is 'change'...and that one should be self explanatory by now.

[Ban Hammer 12,879]

Who said new? The word Obama has been using is 'change'...and that one should be self explanatory by now.

[rupa 2]

Now, only if you can convince long standing republicans that switched from McCain to Obama to agree with you.

Hmmmmm.....I think they were not true republicans, but rather spotlight chasers. It's too bad politics is a popularity game, there is too much at stake. Unless they had good reason for changing their convictions, I say good riddance, but I've yet to hear or understand their argument.

[rupa 2]

Who said new? The word Obama has been using is 'change'...and that one should be self explanatory by now.

O.k. I see your point, He says "Change!!!" and change he will be delivering, but change without forsight, careful estimation of the consequences, common sense and some aknowledgement of how his policies have failed in past administrations, is down right foolish. Convince me that he will not repeat the same mistakes that this great country has had to learn from in the past. Where is the foundation to his "Change", show me how it adds up to a better life for all Americans. The numbers don't add up, history has proven it. Do you really want to be a socialist nation?

Edited October 28, 2008 by rupa

[Sprailenes 47]

Oh noez not the "S" word!

[sly_wolf 199]

O.k. Obama supporters, have at er. Prove me wrong, but most of what His royal majesty would propose has already been done, and it never workd the first time, so why does he think it's going to work now and not send things into a further tailspin?

People need jobs, companies need to keep their money so they can employ more people and sell more goods. Raise taxes on businesses, companies fire more people, move to other countries with less taxes, and people with no jobs drive the government debt even further and the socialist monster keeps growing . People, this is to me what Obama seems to be proposing, but for those of you who think not, care to enlighten me?

I'm also from a slightly more socialist country, and know what it's like to give 35% of my paycheque to the government and get a kick in the teeth in return. Free healthcare is not free, you pay more for it with your taxes than you would out of your own pocket, and spreading the wealth does not generate a productive working class. i.e. does giving a teenager 20$ and telling him it would be nice if he chose to mow the lawn, get the lawn mowed? Unless he is an exceptional kid, the grass will be knee high before it gets cut. But don't give him anything and say he can earn the 20$ by mowing the lawn, there's a much greater chance that the lawn will get mowed. That's how America was built. By giving opportunities to people to earn their wealth. People need that motivation to work or they'll just suck the system dry. Human nature is that of "if some one is going to just give it to me, than why should I try." Is Obama really going to build a stronger more productive nation??? I'm thinking no.

I have to say your examples are flawed. For example ... yes I agree health care is not free in Canada, but I never heard of anyone going bankrupt or being denied insurance due to previous health conditions.

Sly

[Sprailenes 47]

O.k. Obama supporters, have at er. Prove me wrong, but most of what His royal majesty would propose has already been done, and it never workd the first time, so why does he think it's going to work now and not send things into a further tailspin?

People need jobs, companies need to keep their money so they can employ more people and sell more goods. Raise taxes on businesses, companies fire more people, move to other countries with less taxes, and people with no jobs drive the government debt even further and the socialist monster keeps growing . People, this is to me what Obama seems to be proposing, but for those of you who think not, care to enlighten me?

I'm also from a slightly more socialist country, and know what it's like to give 35% of my paycheque to the government and get a kick in the teeth in return. Free healthcare is not free, you pay more for it with your taxes than you would out of your own pocket, and spreading the wealth does not generate a productive working class. i.e. does giving a teenager 20$ and telling him it would be nice if he chose to mow the lawn, get the lawn mowed? Unless he is an exceptional kid, the grass will be knee high before it gets cut. But don't give him anything and say he can earn the 20$ by mowing the lawn, there's a much greater chance that the lawn will get mowed. That's how America was built. By giving opportunities to people to earn their wealth. People need that motivation to work or they'll just suck the system dry. Human nature is that of "if some one is going to just give it to me, than why should I try." Is Obama really going to build a stronger more productive nation??? I'm thinking no.

I have to say your examples are flawed. For example ... yes I agree health care is not free in Canada, but I never heard of anyone going bankrupt or being denied insurance due to previous health conditions.

Sly

Exactly!

[Sprailenes 47]

My husband paid $385.00 for me to be on his healthcare plan through work. Luckily my office now provides me with great insurance. But still, 385.00 a month? Please! I didn't pay 385.00 a month in Canada in taxes that's for sure.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Sprailenes

[sly_wolf 199]

My husband paid $385.00 for me to be on his healthcare plan through work. Luckily my office now provides me with great insurance. But still, 385.00 a month? Please! I didn't pay 385.00 a month in Canada in taxes that's for sure.

Yes, I think Obama's plan offers a more humane approach versus the alternative. Healthcare should available to all people without question.

Sly

[Sprailenes 47]

I agree, I agree that everyone deserves a slice of the pie when it comes to healthcare. I don't mind paying the extra taxes either if it means that healthcare is available to everyone.

[peejay 327]

Who said new? The word Obama has been using is 'change'...and that one should be self explanatory by now.

Change in and of itself is not always benefitial. Especially radical change.

Obama is nothing new, but it is a change back to failed policies of the past.

If McCain = Bush

Then Obama = Ted Kennedy

IMO Obama is way closer to Kennedy than McCain is to Bush. I'm not a huge fan of McCain, but my memories of the Kennedy wing of the Democratic party makes me want to avoid that like the plague. No thanks...lets not go there again.

Edited October 28, 2008 by peejay