www.ditl.org

Okay so I was thinking about the other night when my great uncle, dad, and older brother came up to visit me. Had a really good time since I hadn't seen my great uncle in like 6 years. Well we started talking about politics. My dad and I support Obama but older bro and great uncle don't for the same reason. They feel he would add new expenses on the country. I tried to explain that getting out of Iraq would free up loads of money and putting new taxes on the rich would help too. But they aren't convinced. So that got me thinking perhaps that would be one of Obama's major problems--convincing people that he could afford the Health Care and other programs he has proposed. How does he plan on paying for it?

Oh and far as other family members they're pretty split. Lot of them liked Clinton so I assume they are for Obama now. My mom's still for McCain because he's a 'war hero' which I think has no impact whatsoever on his govenoring skills.

Well, it's not Obama's problem per se - it's the same problem that the GOP brings up whenever a Democrat runs. Shifting the tax burden to the people who should shoulder it makes a lot of sense, but IDK that it will be a huge revenue increase. Leaving Iraq will free up butt-loads of money, but not money that I can see going into other programs; the DoD doesn't give anything up that quickly, and in reality that's money that was spent in deficit in the first place. The truth is, everyon knows that we have to increase governmental income, but nobody wants to pay. When a candidate comes along who is actually honest about the requirement for more revenue, even if everyone knows it's true, that candidate inevitably gets "Mondaled."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080610/ap_ ... veepstakes

sweet. I'm really hoping for General Clark. Only way to out war hero McCain is to get a better war hero

Obama has a couple problems.

For one there is the whole spending lots of money thing. The war is stupid expensive. No question about that. However even with a McCain its a temporary expense. When he spoke about 100 years it was clear he was talking about the sort of presence we have in Japan today. Obamas proposals are permanent extra expenses . He's also spoke about some crazy amounts of aid to Africa. I forget the numbers, but it would be more expensive than the war. He offers no way to pay for this beyond raising taxes (well of course obligatory claims of ending waste and improving efficiancy are made like every other candidate I've even seen that was proposing to run for any office).

His next problem is that the middle class/rural sets don't really believe in his support. He's put some decent stuff down on his webpage, but stuff like his NAFTA claims is generally regarded as smoke and it takes just a couple seconds to whip out a sentence about helping family farms and the middle class. They generally seem to expect that he'll raise taxes in ways that will affect them and shift government spending into urban areas.

Gun control. Something like 40% of Americans own guns. They do not take well to having their right to carry them threatend. Now this is a traditional issue that splits on party lines. However the particulars of indavidual republicans and democrats varies a lot. And Obama has spoken about some bans and actually co sponsered some bills. So its more likely this issue will be more of a factor for him.

Coming off looking weak or like an appeaser. Appeasement has been a dirty word over here since WWII and he's going to have to work to avoid it.

There are also probably some people who don't like the lack of experience. He has a nice set of positions, but lets be clear, I could put together something like the text on his webpage over the course of a week. There are questions about how much of what he proposes he could actually do.

There is also the social security thing. He's pretty much stay the course or spend more. But I think the percentage of US citizens in their 20's and 30's that believe that's viable is miniscule.


Of course he has his strengths and McCain has a lot of issues he could get slammed with. But Obama should be careful about dealing with the above.

I think you'd be surprised by the amount of young people who understand the precarious situation which the SSA finds itself in.

sunnyside wrote: Coming off looking weak or like an appeaser. Appeasement has been a dirty word over here since WWII and he's going to have to work to avoid it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c

gets good about halfway through.

Monroe wrote:sweet. I'm really hoping for General Clark. Only way to out war hero McCain is to get a better war hero

You really want some twerp who nearly started World War Three thanks to panicky micromanagement as VP?

Captain Seafort wrote:
You really want some twerp who nearly started World War Three thanks to panicky micromanagement as VP?

I'm with you, having a VP who was willing to start WWIII over an airport in one of the shitiest countries on Earth is a recipe for disaster. Aren't the Dems supposed to be anti-war?

Cpl Kendall wrote:Aren't the Dems supposed to be anti-war?

That's a reputation I've never quite understood. Looking at the history of the Cold War it started under Truman, and intensified (with the Cuban crisis and deepened involvement in Vietnam) under JFK and Johnson. Conversely Eisenhower's administration negotiated the Korean armistice,and Nixon's was responsible for detente (which ended under Carter). Only Reagan persued a noticeably more hostile line towards the Soviet Union than his Democrat predecessor, and the next Democrat, Clinton, demonstrated a clear willingness to get involved in other people's bickering, at least until the Battle of Mogadishu.

Don't try to look back very far for what a party represents. Blacks used to vote republican if you go back about 50-60 years.

I'd say the parties have only really been their current selves for maybe 30 or so years.

Even so Democrats haven't shown themselves to be unwilling to wage war. Clinton in Kosovo for example. It's just that many of their consituents are old hippies, and some pandering occurs and weak candidates can sometimes make it through the nominating process. The trick is convincing the independents that you have a clue and believe in war when the situation warrants it.

If Obama plays his cards right he could acheive this by focusing on Afganistan and getting Osama. It's the whole cutting a deal with Iran business that particularily threatens his standing with independents.

I think in that arena, Obama is going to have to get in line with the UN. Current sec council thinking is to level sanctions against Iran; going along would not only mark Obama as the first would-be president in a long time to actually give a damn about what the rest of the First World wants, it would also show him to America in a different light from the "appeaser" tag. What I've heard anecdotally, as well, is that moving toward a more multilateral approach (from Bush's "f*** you world, we'll do what we want" philosophy) will help him be seen as trying to prevent a unilateral action based on incorrect intelligence - whether or not the inaccuracy of that intel was possibly known and ignored... (hint, hint.)

Honestly neither candidate has a great choice of VP.

But as far as the money issue goes. I think who ever gets in will have a hard enough time balancing the books let alone spending more money as it is.

Spending isn't the problem - the US has a long history of spending money that it doesn't have.

Mikey wrote:Spending isn't the problem - the US has a long history of spending money that it doesn't have.

Or, rather, spending IS the problem.

Well, actually I suppose thats the stereotypical conservative/Dem financial disagreement. Republicans say spending is the problem, Democrats think the problem is how much the government brings in.

Though Bush hasn't really helped with the spending either. I hope history doesn't remember him well.

sunnyside wrote:
Or, rather, spending IS the problem.

Well, actually I suppose thats the stereotypical conservative/Dem financial disagreement. Republicans say spending is the problem, Democrats think the problem is how much the government brings in.

Though Bush hasn't really helped with the spending either. I hope history doesn't remember him well.

He's already been called the worst president in 100 years and the worst president in history. He doesn't have much further to go unless he becomes Mugabe 2.0 and starts trying to get diesel out of rocks and evicts the farmers.