Obama supporters: where do you differ from your candidate?

Off the top of my head

He supports the starvation of poor people in the third world by supporting subsidies for corn ethanol.
He supports a withdrawal from Iraq, but plans to do two things with them at the same time. He both wants to "bring them home" and "finish the job in Afghanistan" with them. On this point, he is either incometent or knowingly dishonest.
He opposes gay marriage
His campaign rhetoric suggests that he's somewhat hostile to free trade, even though his written program is much more tempered. Maybe it's just rhetoric.
he voted for the renewal of the PATRIOT act, suggesting he's soft on civil liberties.
he supports Affirmative Action, the minimum wage where expanding the EITC would be more efficient, and enhanced CAFE standards where an increase in the fuel tax would be more efficient.
He supports the extension of the Bush tax cuts for people who make less than $250,000 per year. I would prefer a return to Clinton era fiscal responsibility, which would require letting all Bush tax cuts expire.
He supports No Child Left Behind.

I'm supporting Obama not out of enthusiasm, but because he's the least bad deal available -- by a long shot.

0 Replies

Didn't I already address the NCLB thing?

Where's that coming from? I'm surprised that both you and Joefromchicago think that... could be I'm missing something, but his LACK of support for NCLB is part of what I've liked about him. (See what I quoted on the first page...)

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Didn't I already address the NCLB thing?

You did, but I only read Joe's initial post before I answered.

sozobe wrote:

Where's that coming from?

I think it's coming from those parts of your Obama-quotations you have not bolded. Read as a whole, Obama's positions clearly suggest to me that he wants to reform it. Specifically, he wants to fund it adequately and apply technical fixes to its design and implementation.

Joe and I want to ax it.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

But beyond that, the capped income level is also used to calculating the size of someone's retirement check. Raising the cap means that those who are affected will also get larger social security checks when they retire.

... and when, in most cases, Obama is no longer president. I agree raising the cap won't work ecoomically. But it will work politically for Obama if he's elected: His administiration gets the tax benefits, some future administration pays his bill. Kind of like George W. Bush's tax cuts.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Where's that coming from?

I think it's coming from those parts of your Obama-quotations you have not bolded. Read as a whole, Obama's positions clearly suggest to me that he wants to reform it. Specifically, he wants to fund it adequately and apply technical fixes to its design and implementation.

That's how I interpret his position as well.

Thomas wrote:

Joe and I want to ax it.

This unprecedented congruence of our political opinions frightens and confuses me.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

fishin wrote:
But beyond that, the capped income level is also used to calculating the size of someone's retirement check. Raising the cap means that those who are affected will also get larger social security checks when they retire.

... and when, in most cases, Obama is no longer president. I agree raising the cap won't work ecoomically. But it will work politically for Obama if he's elected: His administiration gets the tax benefits, some future administration pays his bill. Kind of like George W. Bush's tax cuts.

Yes well, as long as it works for him... Long term planning be damned. Wink

0 Replies

Re: Obama supporters: where do you differ from your candidat

sozobe wrote:

(He's against re-authorizing NCLB.)

That's axing.

0 Replies

Re: Obama supporters: where do you differ from your candidat

sozobe wrote:

sozobe wrote:
(He's against re-authorizing NCLB.)

That's axing.

He's against re-authorizing NCLB in its present form. But he does intend to fix it, and then presumably pass the fixed version of it. Specifically, here's what he's planning to do about the law:

Quote:

Reform No Child Left Behind: (note: "reform", not "ax". T.) Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them.

He clearly believes (and I think you agree) that NCLB will be okay once the law is fully funded, student achievement is measured with better tests and standards, and school failure is met with a better response.

I think that as a constitutional matter, schooling simply isn't a federal issue. It is an issue for the states. Therefore I think the law should be axed without replacement or attempts to fix it.

0 Replies

OK. I still don't think that's best summarized as "He supports No Child Left Behind." Maybe more like "He wants to reform No Child Left Behind rather than ax it." But I see what you're saying.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

OK. I still don't think that's best summarized as "He supports No Child Left Behind." Maybe more like "He wants to reform No Child Left Behind rather than ax it."

That's fair. Deal.

0 Replies

I'm confused. Why does Obama want to give another round of gov stimulus checks out?

Isn't this the opposite of stimulating the economy? Isn't this just a way to give money to the top? If you give everyone money and they are still have to participate in the same broken system that funnels moeny to the top and traps it there, isn't this just a way to give more money to the top via a long road?

After Bush's checks, I'm not sure why Obama wants to do this? Can someone explain this better to me? Is there something different about this plan?

T
K
O

P.s. - I think that the moeny could be used by individuals to stimulate the economy, but I don't think that most will make the choice to do so. I think most will act in their short term interests instead. I'm still waiting for my check, and I'm not sure what the best way to use it is.

...Perhaps that would make an interesting thread...

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

finn, glad to see you are a Obama supporter although it does suprise me a bit.

You need to lay off of that mescal Good Ole Dys.

(Either that or your Stetson is too tight)

0 Replies

In February 2003, Obama offered to his competitors: If the Democratic Party was to pick him as a nominee, he would strike a deal with the Republican nominee to stay inside the public campaign finance system. Senator McCain accepted the deal. The Obama campaign affirmed that they would "aggressively pursue a deal" with the Republican nominee, and challenged the other Republican candidates to do the same.

Fifteen months later, Obama and McCain are the designated candidates of their respective parties. So what's the result of Obama's aggressive pursuit? This morning, we received the answer: Obama is opting out of the public finance system. There is no indication that McCain ever took back his acceptance of Obama's deal.

I will continue to support Obama as the lesser evil -- for now. But I strongly disagree with him on this deciision.

0 Replies

Here's an issue on which it is easy to disagree with Obama: Statement of Barack Obama supporting Hoyer FISA bill. Glenn Greenwald says it best:

Telling Americans that we have to give up basic constitutional rights -- and allow rampant lawbreaking -- if we want to save ourselves from "the grave threats we face" sounds awfully familiar. He says he will work to remove amnesty from the bill, but once that fails, will vote for the "compromise." Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states.Obama's cave-in on telecom immunity is especially bewildering because: (1) it is directly contrary to his previous position on this issue; and (2) in political terms, it's completely unnecessary. Bill Foster's victory in the IL-14 special congressional election shows that Democratic candidates can win even if they oppose the Bush administration's vision of a limitless war on terror. Indeed, with Bush hovering around 30 percent in popularity polls, staking out a position opposite that of the administration's would seem to be a no-brainer. Why congressional Democrats like Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, and now Obama have taken this craven, cowardly position in favor of presidential law-breaking is, to me, as inexplicable as it is inexcusable.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Obama's cave-in on telecom immunity is especially bewildering ...and now Obama have taken this craven, cowardly position in favor of presidential law-breaking is, to me, as inexplicable as it is inexcusable.

He's a human being and he's a politician. You surely don't have higher expectations for him than for the others, do you?

This is just to be expected from all of them, which is why I'm always mind-boggled at the heat, passion, and interest people have in politics. It's always the same.

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

He's a human being and he's a politician. You surely don't have higher expectations for him than for the others, do you?

No, I have the same expectations for him as I do for all politicians. But then this thread isn't about thwarted expectations, it's about those issues on which Obama supporters disagree with Obama.

0 Replies

Sorry!

0 Replies

Barack Obama: The Peace Candidate? http://www.fff.org/comment/com0806h.asp

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

On health I'm for a one payer system. http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

I'm with you! Cool

0 Replies

Health care is my main disagreement now. I'd be for a single-payer system, but I realise that this is politically unfeasible right now. But Obama's proposal, which lacks even mandates, seems to me the weakest of the solutions offered by the main Democratic primary candidates.

0 Replies

Obama supporters: where do you differ from your candidate?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know