Barack Obama and the illusion of change

[Parson]

Originally Posted by TK-421

Manarion, I hope that there is indeed more substance than gloss to Obama as I too like him very much. If he wins, I hope also he will bring real change whatever that may be. The ruling classes, CNN, Fox and others may not allow him too bring such changes however.

At the present time I would say the real problem achieving any substantive change in the US government is the extreme partisanship of the parties. Neither side is willing to let the other have any kind of a victory so the net result is that very little change happens. The Status Quo is about the best that our politics will allow at this point.

IMO the media does a lot of damage in the USA but in general it could be said that they are for changes, because that's what makes news either for good or ill.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Emu

Hmmm to strong I shall think better of what I say next time. I shall change my wording. There are a sicnificant amount of people preventing Obama from his goal. Is that better?

Definitely, Emu. (Well, you're new here, so you may not have had time to take on board that while we do have many heated arguments, we don't like to sink to real abuse.)

In the terms you've now used, you're probably correct: American politics (and the UK's, for that matter) often revolves about stopping a party or a politician rather than voting to do something more positive.

[Connavar]

I dont see why the article in the opening post is acting like what Obama is doing is new.

Everyone who knows the history of US pres elections knows its always about promising the mythical change. Making sure people choose your image before your politics.

If he/she becomes a good pres depends on if there is an actual change behind all the utopian change promises many popular candidates like Obama promise.


Thats why i think and many seem to think Obama actually has a chance, he has learned from history of Kennedy,Clinton about to promise your way in to the white house.

[kaelcarp]

One issue in the US is that prosperity breeds conservatism in regards to upsetting the status quo. If people are generally okay with how things are, they will seek to keep things as they are rather than risk changing things for the worse. Americans in general have somehow managed to be lulled into a sense of general satisfaction with how their everyday lives are (even if there are some fears about security and such), so any radical change is seen by most people as more of a threat than anything. The US is prosperous if nothing else, and that has led to complacency in a lot of areas.

[Emu]

What I find quite intersting is that Hilaray is going to try anything to get ahead. The US is run by business Obama would change that Hilaray won't. She was saying that Obama's word of change was hollow and usless. WHy would anyone sink that low? This really proves that the US goverment is corrupt.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by kaelcarp

One issue in the US is that prosperity breeds conservatism in regards to upsetting the status quo. If people are generally okay with how things are, they will seek to keep things as they are rather than risk changing things for the worse. Americans in general have somehow managed to be lulled into a sense of general satisfaction with how their everyday lives are (even if there are some fears about security and such), so any radical change is seen by most people as more of a threat than anything. The US is prosperous if nothing else, and that has led to complacency in a lot of areas.

Kaelcarp, observing from the other side of the Atlantic, I get the impression that Americans suspect that the prosperity is coming to an end, or is at least threatened. Is that not the case? It seems to be so in the UK.

[Wiglaf]

My problem is that I don't want to be a pet of the federal government's; I am a man, not a cocker spaniel.
Programs to help Americans in need are geared toward maintenance not providing the means to attain the ability to take care of themselves.

On the conservative side, I believe in increasing supply by increasing capital. However, the laborforce and its productivity are capital, you need a strong dollar (supply siders typically believe in the gold standard), deficit spending affects demand more than supply and causes inflation, and elimination of capital gains can produce a bubble if there is no proper management. I like small government and low taxes but, the candidates seem incapable of understanding the underlying principles. Without this understanding, you are highly leveraged in an investment bubble that can burst at anytime.

No one in either party seems to be willing to invest in factories, infrastructure, and worker training in order to improve productivity and, as an eventual result, supply.

[kaelcarp]

Originally Posted by mosaix

Kaelcarp, observing from the other side of the Atlantic, I get the impression that Americans suspect that the prosperity is coming to an end, or is at least threatened. Is that not the case? It seems to be so in the UK.

To a degree. It's kind of a relative thing.

Yes, there is a feeling that a recession is coming on and belts will need to be tightened a bit. But there is not the feeling of real danger that would make people kind of wake up and look to actually change things. The political system here has become incredibly corrupt as those in power have learned over the last 200+ years how to manipulate it to their advantage. I think it needs a somewhat extensive overhaul, including major campaign finance reform. It is set up to favor stability, which was good for a young country, but the US isn't really young anymore. It needs a bit of a shot in the arm.

Not that I advocate putting anyone in danger. I don't. Obviously, given how quickly Americans went back to sleep after 9/11, it would take something awfully terrible to shake people out of their complacency. I'd rather deal with the complacency than deal with that, frankly. I don't want to see a Great Depression II, and I certainly don't want to see a lot of people die (I was in the World Trade Center when it was hit by the first plane, so I've seen enough of that). On the other hand, unless the country does something to rescue itself, I think it will follow the same path previous empires have followed. That's a little scarier to think of in this day and age, though.

[Wiglaf]

Our status as the superpower is slipping both economically and militarily. However, after a celebratory glass of champagne, the democrats will offer us government subsidized self help programs so that we can still feel that I'm OK, you're OK. The current crop of republicans will make sure that those that invest in foreign markets can enjoy their gains.
Investment in improving our capabilities allowing us to perform to our potential is discouraged.

Too bad I have no representation in the House. My rep is in prison and has been replaced with a liberal republican carpetbagger who defeated a Massachusetts backed democrat. (I live in a strongly conservative California district)

[MontyCircus]

Well, Obama just crushed Clinton. So it looks like we'll all soon find out what will happen when he's elected. I think the world will rejoice.

[Wiglaf]

Originally Posted by montycircus

Well, Obama just crushed Clinton. So it looks like we'll all soon find out what will happen when he's elected. I think the world will rejoice.

When? Last I checked they were tied for delegates. Also the supradelegates whose votes will replace the stripped delegates from early primary states seem to be leaning toward Clinton. Also California was last polled leaning toward Clinton.

I only hope that if Clinton wins the primary, it helps the Republicans. Some of Obama's ideas about education tax credits and other things don't sound too bad. Still, he is a Democrat; you give big government included no matter what is promised and if a Democrat promises a good idea, they won't actually do it.

We need to fund university expansion including evening, weekend, and distance learning; cut the corporate tax rate; make the initial investment into 529 accounts tax deductable; allow expensing of capital expenditures; a R&D tax credit; elimination of capital gains tax; and adjustment of remaining taxes and spending to reach a balanced budget.

[MontyCircus]

Originally Posted by Wiglaf

When? Last I checked they were tied for delegates.

Obama crushed Clinton in the South Carolina primary. Results were:

55% Obama
27% Clinton
18% Edwards

Total delegates to date are:

63 Obama
48 Clinton
26 Edwards

Apparently the "magic number" to win the nomination is 2025 delegates, so it's not exactly a decided race. But when you're doubling the votes of your nearest rival, well you could do worse.

[Wiglaf]

Originally Posted by montycircus

Obama crushed Clinton in the South Carolina primary. Results were:

55% Obama
27% Clinton
18% Edwards

Total delegates to date are:

63 Obama
48 Clinton
26 Edwards

Apparently the "magic number" to win the nomination is 2025 delegates, so it's not exactly a decided race. But when you're doubling the votes of your nearest rival, well you could do worse.

Does that include not technically decided yet Iowa delegates? Are Michigan's delegates ommitted as they don't count?

[Weasel Soup]

Basically, here's my 2 cents. I had a very long post earlier that I deleted, loaded with specifics et al.

If Clinton wins the primary, there will be no change because the center and the right do not like her so we will have a Republican president. If a Republican is elected, with the entrenchment of their folks, nothing will change.

A third party candidate will not beat either the democratic or republican candidates unfortunately.

So the only current option for change of any amount is Obama. And frankly with the current administration change is needed.

[MontyCircus]

Originally Posted by Wiglaf

Does that include not technically decided yet Iowa delegates? Are Michigan's delegates ommitted as they don't count?

Do you mean superdelegates? No they aren't included in those numbers. Including pledged-so-far superdelegates, Clinton is actually still ahead. But if Obama can duplicate what he did in South Carolina...

And yes, Democrats received no delegates from Michigan.