Obama has been accused of being all "flash" and no substance. I think there's a tinge of racism (if even subconsciously) behind this notion, but generally I understand where it comes from: he's new, he's young, early on, his popularity seemed to come from these souring speeches that were big on generalities but without a lot of meat.
But he has since followed it up with plenty of meat, and what's interesting to me, is that meat basically fleshes out the tag lines from his early campaign.
Basically, you can sum up Obama's plan in his most famous tagline: "Yes We Can". His message and his policies all point toward this phrase. That through institutions, both public and private, a framework can be laid such that the many can lift themselves a little higher, contribute a little more, such that all our benefited. Call it the trickle up economic theory.
His tax plan gives greater tax cuts to the poor and middle class all the way up to those making $250K/year. Because we have a massive debt and massive obligations incurred by past administrations, he imposes tax increases on the very rich. Wealth re-distribution you accuse?
Consider that 1% of the wage earners in America today make 16% of the income, the largest disparity since the 1920's. If you want to fund the government, you have to tax those with the income.
Its not wealth redistribution by the way, there are no give-aways in Obama's plan. The revenue would be used to shore up infrastructure, education, and health care programs that benefit everyone including the rich. Everybody benefits when more people are educated, when more people have access to health care. We all suffer when some of us don't get access to such things.
And good roads and bridges, an education plan targeted at bringing more people into productive work, and a health care plan that will free up people to take greater risks (its harder to leave that big company and its health care benefits to start a business these days)... benefits everyone including the rich.
And its not socialism. Obama believes seriously in the free market, but he also appreciates and understands its limitations, I think we all feel it now with this financial crisis. His plan tends toward solutions where the free market is allowed to work within the confines of a framework that provides some protection for individuals who may be hurt by it. It also strives to enable more people to become bigger players in it. A more dynamic, talented, educated work force is the driving force that makes the free market go.
Reagan's trickle down economy, where you give tax breaks to those with the biggest incomes with the hopes that they will use the extra cash to invest thus spurring on job growth had an ounce of truth to it.
But it makes a ton more sense to work on creating environments where more people are better educated, more people have a greater opportunities to innovate and create.
That has been truly America's contribution to the world, and Obama more so than McCain hopes to continue that tradition.
Its all about trickle up economics. Yes We Can.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Abortion and Obama
I want to get into Barack Obama's speech in more depth, but I loved, loved this portion of it:
We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America’s promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.
And this is the central theme of the Obama's candidacy, to get past all of the divisiveness that turns our country in a never ending war of words, a war that never ends, a war where nothing substantive gets done. Instead his message is to build on common beliefs and common interests, to get at the root of the problems and to find both common cause and compromise.
There has been a lot of slander on Obama's abortion views. It's pretty clear that he stands pretty clearly in the pro-choice camp, but there's been a lot of talk and some controversy that his stance is even more dark and mysterious than this, that he actually supports infaticide. Really? Does that even make sense?
Read the whole thing on fact check that details three bills in question, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
Here's some quotes:
Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.
Regarding the 2003 bill, it did have provisions to protect Roe v. Wade in it and that Obama reportedly voted against it in committee. That's where it gets complicated, and you will need to read it and explain it to me. But I really doubt, no I know, that Obama is not in favor of infaticide in any respect:
What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony.
Nonetheless, I am pro-life, I am against abortion, and I would be somewhat concerned if a presidential candidate actually would support their own family to have an abortion.
In that regard, there's been some controversy over this quote a few months ago:
it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
Now, I am sure Obama would like to rephrase this if given a chance. Look, this whole thing is tricky. I know well and am affected by someone who is raising a child as a single parent, whose father has never been part of the child's life. And the mother is struggling trying to balance it all.
Her son is precious, a gift from God, but life would be so much better for both the mother and the son if the birth happened differently. I think that was Obama's primary point. That we should have a comprehensive approach to teenage pregnancy and sexuality. And surely, you would have to live in a box if you believe that we could solve these problems just by teaching abstinence while the storms of hyper-sexuality swarm in virtually every part of a teenager's life.
But back to Obama, I am sure he respects and cares for life. But with abortion and unwed pregnancies, these issues are complicated, more complicated than most people seem to understand, tied down as we are to our own limited and unique experiences. One quick example, I have a friend who had to file for bankruptcy partially because insurance wouldn't cover a DNC required after she had a miscarriage, denied because the procedure, it was felt, was too close to an abortion.
Having said all of that, the abortion issue is not even all that relevant in regards to a presidential election. A president has absolutely no power to overturn Roe v. Wade. As far as I understand it, this would have to come either through an ammendment to the Constitution by a hyper Congress majority(?) or through a Supreme Court decision, interpreting the Constitution differently than it does now.
Now, some people would then choose a President based solely on how they would select Supreme Court justices. I guess there is something to this argument, but its tricky to know how a president's selections will go. Some of the more liberal justices were selected by Republican presidents. Personally, I am just mainly concerned that qualified, competent and fair thinking justices are nominated, and that a president is not tied down too much to ideology in the selection process. Competence and fair thinking first, ideology last. I love having a balanced court which is something we have now.
And really, tell me again, what has Bush Jr done to limit abortions? Has abortion rates gone up or down during the past eight years? I have no idea because nobody is talking about it, including George W. Bush.
But the bottom line, is that I want a competent, qualified, and effective president. Certainly I'm not going to let the abortion issue hijack my choice.
We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America’s promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.
And this is the central theme of the Obama's candidacy, to get past all of the divisiveness that turns our country in a never ending war of words, a war that never ends, a war where nothing substantive gets done. Instead his message is to build on common beliefs and common interests, to get at the root of the problems and to find both common cause and compromise.
There has been a lot of slander on Obama's abortion views. It's pretty clear that he stands pretty clearly in the pro-choice camp, but there's been a lot of talk and some controversy that his stance is even more dark and mysterious than this, that he actually supports infaticide. Really? Does that even make sense?
Read the whole thing on fact check that details three bills in question, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
Here's some quotes:
Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.
Regarding the 2003 bill, it did have provisions to protect Roe v. Wade in it and that Obama reportedly voted against it in committee. That's where it gets complicated, and you will need to read it and explain it to me. But I really doubt, no I know, that Obama is not in favor of infaticide in any respect:
What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony.
Nonetheless, I am pro-life, I am against abortion, and I would be somewhat concerned if a presidential candidate actually would support their own family to have an abortion.
In that regard, there's been some controversy over this quote a few months ago:
it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
Now, I am sure Obama would like to rephrase this if given a chance. Look, this whole thing is tricky. I know well and am affected by someone who is raising a child as a single parent, whose father has never been part of the child's life. And the mother is struggling trying to balance it all.
Her son is precious, a gift from God, but life would be so much better for both the mother and the son if the birth happened differently. I think that was Obama's primary point. That we should have a comprehensive approach to teenage pregnancy and sexuality. And surely, you would have to live in a box if you believe that we could solve these problems just by teaching abstinence while the storms of hyper-sexuality swarm in virtually every part of a teenager's life.
But back to Obama, I am sure he respects and cares for life. But with abortion and unwed pregnancies, these issues are complicated, more complicated than most people seem to understand, tied down as we are to our own limited and unique experiences. One quick example, I have a friend who had to file for bankruptcy partially because insurance wouldn't cover a DNC required after she had a miscarriage, denied because the procedure, it was felt, was too close to an abortion.
Having said all of that, the abortion issue is not even all that relevant in regards to a presidential election. A president has absolutely no power to overturn Roe v. Wade. As far as I understand it, this would have to come either through an ammendment to the Constitution by a hyper Congress majority(?) or through a Supreme Court decision, interpreting the Constitution differently than it does now.
Now, some people would then choose a President based solely on how they would select Supreme Court justices. I guess there is something to this argument, but its tricky to know how a president's selections will go. Some of the more liberal justices were selected by Republican presidents. Personally, I am just mainly concerned that qualified, competent and fair thinking justices are nominated, and that a president is not tied down too much to ideology in the selection process. Competence and fair thinking first, ideology last. I love having a balanced court which is something we have now.
And really, tell me again, what has Bush Jr done to limit abortions? Has abortion rates gone up or down during the past eight years? I have no idea because nobody is talking about it, including George W. Bush.
But the bottom line, is that I want a competent, qualified, and effective president. Certainly I'm not going to let the abortion issue hijack my choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)