"Obama? What Change?"

How do you know the chalk was left by conservatives?  Like I said in the Obama vandalism thread, there are a lot of political positions on both the right and the left that aren't into Obama.

Then lets talk about Obama and people's disagreement with him.

I would be very interested to see what are some other points of view on this issue. I am one who voted for Obama, and I believe in much of his message and goals for our country. However I feel that it is my obligation as a voter and a member of this society to critically think and analysis his message. I often times get very frustrated by the fact that we are in a community that is overly supportive of one side, and more than just that I think we are so used to that and we don’t strive to create an atmosphere where people that have different ideas are able to share them. I know that I am guilty of this but I have become more self aware of this and would like to see a place where we could grow in our own ideas by letting all sides be heard. So I am not sure how I want to state my ideas and believes, and I feel like it’s not needed at this time because I think they are much like that of a majority of the community, so however selfish it may sound I would like to see what some other ideas are so that I can develop as an informed citizen.

A great majority of this kind of incendiary gibberish is actually the work of Western's Libertarian lunatic sect. There's a solid contingency of articulate, well-spoken students of that political persuasion who shouldn't be lumped in with the antics of those individuals, but they've traditionally pandered to the lowest common denominator when it comes to provoking "responses" from the student body.

For example, a Logic class in 2005 that I was sitting in was disrupted by two Larouchies who were posing as students. They began by asking what sounded like sensible questions, but quickly degenerated into standing and screaming about how the political status quo was a joke, and how Democrats and Republicans were just two types of the same sheep. It was disturbing and distressing, but that was the whole point; to provoke an angry response from a large group of people who'd remember the incident and no doubt share it with their friends.

So, without casting heady aspersions, I'm hesitant to jump to the conclusion that the recent anti-Obama vandalism and this chalk nonsense is actually the work of some hateful conservative splinter group looking to vent their rage. It seems just as likely that it's the same nutters trying to stir up a hornet's nest by trying to egg on the existing political divisions within Western's student community. It certainly follows the MO that they've established since I came to the University.

i saw the chalk marks today too. first off, i dont quite understand why people took to his "message" so well. He wants to turn America into a socialist country. Sorry, but i live in a country where you work to get yours, and the next person has to do the same! do what you need to so you can get yours. dont rely on the government or other people to get you out, depend on yourself. But you are right...most people up here are crazy liberals who do not want to even consider the oher side. I know that I do the same at times, but i am also trying to be more aware of this. I just do not understand why people in this  country voted for a man who wants to turn us into "redistributionists" and take away our right to bear arms. sorry, he will never get my support. the only thing he will get from me is my tax dollars because he'd going to drive taxes through the roof!

Are we living in the same country?  You assume everyone has equal opportunity in the United States.  The vast majority of rich people in the United States were born into wealthy families and don't even work (they live off investments and property), and most poor people work very hard, but because of the way the economy is set up it's very difficult for them to become wealthy.

I wish Obama was a socialist, but you have nothing to worry about Douglac4.  Obama is committed to saving capitalism. Anyone, including McCain, who accuses Obama of being a socialist doesn't understand what socialism is.  Socialism is workers controlling the means of production.  That'd be pretty rad, but it'll happen by the people's doing, not Obama's.

Let's avoid calling people crazy or lunatics for their political beliefs.  It stigmatizes people with mental illness.

It would be hard for Obama to turn America into a socialist country, given that America has been socialist in everything but name for decades now.  Social security, water use/agriculture subsidies, regular massive government bailouts of large industries every few years (the airlines, the auto industry, the banking industry) should be enough evidence for most people to realize that America isn't a "dont rely on the government" type of place; America is just as socialist as any country in Europe, and I don't see how anyone can say that America is a land of self determination, devoid of government influence.

But are there not realms where the government should have the authority to control?
Things like environmental control, public transportation (Where would our self-determining cities be without our highways and mass transit systems?), distribution of utilities, ect?

Otherwise we see a tragedy of the commons, where any single powerful person can destroy every other's ability to live their lives in whichever manner they choose?

The question is not to have government control; governments exist for the reason of managing public commons and ensuring equality (whether through socialism or egalitarian capitalism). The question is where to draw the line so that the government, made of human beings with their own agendas, does not take advantage of the power the citizens have decided to give them.

It is true that Obama is not a socialist however he plans to turn our country in that direction, it seems harmless now but it puts us just a skip hop and a jump away from becoming a socialist nation. America was founded on the idea of capitalism and that ideal should be embraced rather than pushed aside.

The purpose of a government should not be to support its people, it is to guide them and provide basic services. (Education, roads, police, firefighters, etc.)

I am of the opinion that our government has plenty of money and needs to learn to use it better. None of this paying 50$ for a hammer, paying 1.1 million to fix an overpass, etc.

One solution to this is to put the work out to someone else, so that competing entities can make sure we are not overpaying with our tax dollars. The phrase ‘fat government contract’ should not exist.

One of the scariest things about Obama's policies is his changes for the taxation of small businesses. If I were to own a business that became successful and made me a lot of money (lets say over 150,000), I would be providing jobs to many people and helping stimulate our economy. The way it is now about 25-30% of my income would go to the government. With Obama in office, my taxes would nearly double and I would be suddenly be paying nearly half (46% I think) of the money I earn directly to the government. Does that seem right? The government should reward people such as this, not punish them. (this is essentially what Joe the plumber was talking about.)

If five people go out to pick berries in a field and one man gets four times as many as any one of the others because he busted his ass does not mean he needs to share, he worked hard and should be able to reap the rewards he has EARNED.

And universal healthcare?

Buy some insurance and take responsibility for yourself rather than sit and hope the government will come pay your medical bills with my tax dollars.
 

Well your solution to the healthcare problem seems practical, it only makes sense for children to "take responsibility" and pay for their own healthcare, even if their parents can't afford it.  Apparently only the rich should be able to afford healthcare?

Embrace a system that relies on endless unsustainable expansion with no regard for the environment or the third world people living on less than a dollar a day so I can live it up in luxury at my university?  I'll pass.  America was also founded on slavery, exploitation of poor working immigrants, and genocide of natives and occupation of their land (I believe I'm occuping stolen Lummi land right now).  I don't want to embrace that, either, but the colonial elite that greated the United States government didn't have the interests of those folks in mind.

The purpose of government is also to protect the interests of the wealthy and suppress dissent.

I am happy to share because I value community, not competition.  What are the elderly, disabled, or pregnant supposed to do in your hypothetical situation?  Starve because they didn't work hard enough?  If we're talking berries, a huge crop in Whatcom County, they're picked largely by migrant laborers, economic refugees from NAFTA (which destroys their livelihoods) who DO work their asses off.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Obama is not a socialist.  I'm on the far left (I'm a social anarchist, which is also known as a libertarian socialist--socialist without government), and I find Obama is a moderate capitalist.  I'm frustrated with seeing my vision for social justice treated like it's facist.  I recommend a discussion on Democracy Now from last month: McCain Campaign Calls Obama a "Socialist"--But Why is That a Smear?

Mr. Snub,
If you are in a situation where you cannot afford 80$ a month for insurance you should not be a parent. Yes there is bad luck and special circumstances that may temporarily prevent paying for insurance but at some point the parent needs to take responsibility and do what it takes to support their child. The bottom line is that the world is a sink or swim place.bvHowever, I do believe that the government should support those who cannot support themselves i.e. children, the disabled, etc.
 

Ariel,
Sorry I need to rephrase what I said earlier; the idea of capitalism might not be what the country was founded on (it should certainly not ever be put in the same boat as genocide and slavery) but the reason America has become the successful and powerful nation it is today is capitalism.

To say that the purpose of government is to protect the interests of the wealthy is a very ignorant statement: That may be what goes on here and may be a classic example of what often happens, but the purpose of an ideal government has nothing to do with protecting the assets of a select few.

The part about picking berries was an analogy and has nothing to do with migrant workers. It would be better applied to several people who take different paths in life. So let us try again. Say two people who went to the same high school chose different paths. One person works hard, incurring huge debt and working while going to school to eventually graduate from medical school. The other does not like school and drops out their sophomore year of high school. Ten years down the line the person who is a doctor deserves to make a lot of money because they took risks and bettered themselves. The other person who is still working at McDonalds and makes minimum wage should not be entitled to the doctors money, they had the same opportunity to push them self and to become a success.

It is true that there are places where this is harder and work is hard to find. People are welcome to move. This is a free country. There are minimum wages and agencies that can help you get a job and there is always work somewhere. It is possible to move to an area with more work and to obtain an education and get a better job. I have several friends who moved here with nothing and have worked hard to become successful contributing members of society.

And everyone is happy to share. To refer back to the Joe the plumber debate, people with high incomes do share; they give 27% of their income to the government. To ask them to give nearly half is not fair. Suddenly it will take a doctor 20% longer to pay off his tuition debt, it will make it that much longer till he can support his family in the way he dreamed of for years while suffering through school. Like I said before, the government already has plenty of money without raising taxes.
 

Do you have anything to back up these numbers? It is my understanding that Obama intends to restore the tax rates that existed during the Clinton administration. If you ran a small business and were single, you would need to be making about $200,000 in profits before you would see any increase in your taxes under the Obama plan. If you were married, that number would be $250,000 in income. If you were making more money than that, the marginal rate would be higher -- that is, the rate for everything made over that limit would be higher. However, all of your earnings under that limit would remain at the very same tax rate. You'd have to making more than $370,000 per year before Obama's plan begins to tax you at a rate approaching 50% (only a 12 to 14% increase from today) -- and that 50% applies only to the earnings above that amount.

See: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html

And: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23491.html

Question back at you: Why is it more appropriate to percieve these taxes as punishment rather than as an investment in the infrastructure that allows individuals to be so wildly successful?

jf

Those most recent chalk markings you speak of were very vague and non-informative.   Although i don't know which part of the political spectrum they came from, i think they were just trying to criticize obama's political platform of bringing change to this country.  Obama used the word "change" so much it was like he hypnotized the country into believe he is really going to bring big change.  He said it so much, people thought and still think he's going to be a revolutionary.  Obama will be just like any other president.  He is more dedicated to corporate interests than he is to the interests of the American people.  Granted, i think he will do some good things for the country on a small scale, but on the big issues, he is far from a revolutoinary. 

My biggest quarrel with Obama: He is a war-monger.  People do not understand that.  They think he's going to get the troops out of iraq right away.  Actually he plans on keeping 60,000 troops in iraq and just shifting the rest into Afghanistan, and then he's going to get us into more trouble in Pakistan.  Our country is developing a permanent pesence in the Middle East.  Obama does not understand that this so-called War on Terror is unwinnable with military strength.  It's foolish to think we can just kill everyone who hates us, every "terrorist".  It's a flawed philosophy.  And this war isn't really about terrorism, anyway.  Like everything else in this country, it's about money.  Corporations are making huge profits as a result of the war.  American soldiers are dying, iraqi and afghani civilians are dying.  Soldiers who survive come back with PTSD, and there are 18 suicides a day from veterans of this war.  It's completely insane to keep fighting.  

My second biggest quarrel with Obama:  His environmental record.  Obama supports "clean coal" technology.  Clean coal is a huge sham.  Sure, they scrub the coal a little bit to reduce SO2 emissions other pollutants, but what they don't talk about is the extraction process.  Strip-mining and mountaintop removal extract coal from beneath the Earth's surface.  It completely destroys ecosystems and also brings to the surface extremely toxic compounds that are harmful to humans.  Why do you think clean coal is being pushed so much recently.  Maybe because the U.S. is sitting on top of 27 % of all coal in the world?  Coal unextracted and unused means less profits for big corporations.   Aside from "clean coal", Obama supports offshore drilling.  Offshore drilling for oil is extremely dangerous and polluting.  Although i haven't done as much research on it, i can tell you even when done the right way, offshore drilling is polluting.  He also supports nuclear power.

 Keep in mind, John McCain and George Bush also support increased military strength in middle east, clean coal, offshore drilling, and nuclear power plants.  So where is this change obama promised the country?

In regards to chalking, did you happen to see the chalking that happened last month?  The chalk promoting Ralph Nader and other third-parties?  That wasn't vague at all.

I don't think that's true at all.  Agree or disagree with Obama's intentions, but he's been very up-front and public with his plans to shift troops over to Afganistan.

Keep in mind -- "the war on terrorism" is just a name President Bush has used for our actions in Iraq & Afghanistan.  It's like any political issue -- you give it a name that captures an image you want people to have in their head when they think about it.  Like "no child left behind", which most educators would argue isn't what it sounds like, or "the patriot act" which carries the implication that the act is supported by patriots (and also, if you don't support it, you must not be a patriot).  And the list goes on.  It's all about marketing issues.  Next time you see a girl in a bikini advertsing a brand of beer, well... you get the idea.  Give us something we like the looks of, or the sound of, and then associate it with a political issue we really don't know or even care that much about, and a lot of us will vote for it -- the political marketers count on that.

As for keeping troops in the middle east, it's really not about a war on terror any more - not in the way we were thinking about it in 2001 anyway.  The major related issues now for any new president to inherit are more aligned with stability and rebuilding -- it's a hostil area, we've forcefully removed the only form of structure and order they had.  If we pull-out now, one fear is that the Queda-supporting Talliban will take Afghanistan back under it's control, and that nuclear-ambitious Iran will take-over Iraq.  There are more concerns than just that, but it seems to me that "just pull out the troops" is too high-contrast an answer for this very grey and unfocused problem.

I think the first order of business for our incoming president will be to define what exactly our goals and concerns are in these two areas.  And then it's up to the rest of us to think about that -- really think about it / cut through all the political marketing and get right to the issues -- and then do our civic duty by discussing and developing these ideas in the forums we have access to, not the least of which would be those that include our elected officials.  If we put our energy there, instead of hating or dispariging the parties we don't belong to, or, heaven forbid, unthoughtfully parroting the names and name-calling that partisans are marketing to us, we might -- just maybe :-) -- have a chance at a better future.

As for 

...we might be a little more patient with Obama there...he's not president yet.  Or maybe you're thinking his intentions look just like Bush's...  I think that's really not the case - I mean, I've heard Nader's "republicans are just like democrats" speech back when he ran last time, and though a lot of the points he made are really good ones, it would hardly be fair to say Obama is just another Bush.  You can check out CNN (news for democrats) or FOX (news for republicans), both of which are obsessed with the changes Obama plans to make.  (CNN is hopefull, FOX is fearful, but it's all about the same changes -- go figure).

- dave

I am not a president of a country. Neither are any of you. None of us have ever been a president, nor do any of us currently qualify.

It is reckless and pointless to dispute something that cannot be decided yet-- even Obama is yet to be President. He does have plans for change. He is recieving the country at a time and situation when many presidents, and perhaps even ANY president would have difficulty solving all of our petty little problems, let alone our huge ones. The biggest, best thing for us to do right now is not to cat-fight over what individual got elected as President, but to instead get involved if it matters that much. He cannot remove our right to bear arms, that would simply be unconstitutional. He knows that raising taxes to a ridiculous amount would hurt people, and I'm sure he will take that into account. He knows that the economy needs to be stimulated. He knows that a large majority of us Americans do not appreciate the petty war "we" have waged. He is human and he had to sit through the last eight years like the rest of us. He has watched the Clinton administration, and the previous Bush administration. He knows more about what has gone on in politics, first hand, than any of us do.

The worst thing we could do for President-Elect Obama is to not have faith that he is human and has empathy like the rest of us and understanding of politics more than most of us. To belittle him down to an inhuman piece of gossip would not only deprive us of the chance to start off fresh, it would also skew our view of what is actually going on. Not to mention it is uncomfortable and unhealthy to stress so much about something that you cannot change for the time being. 4 years is not enough to declare the loss of the United States, if that's what you're worried about. Neither was 8. Many of us have a newfound hope and interest invested in politics, and it's important to be active in our system. If you are not active in the system, you have little right to complain about what those who are active are doing. We cannot have a stagnant system.

It is irresponsible and childish, what some people have done in response to this election, but it is a given that if someone can do it, someone probably will somewhere. People are just that various. It happens, and we who do not step over that line or who have already overcome that line must tolerate or help those who are still playing with that line without childish retorts or retaliations. Fighting fire with fire, unfortunately, does not actually work in most any case.

We're college students. We're here at college learning how to learn. Discussing is great, disputing and questioning are all part of the learning process, but being rational, or even, dare I say it, logical, is also part of the learning process and if we are to become successful and learned people we need to use many processes to analyze and discover. It is important to know that reality is only objective to those that do not see others' opinions. It is also important to know that what has happened in the past has repeated itself and will do so again in some form or another-- people learn and change and evolve, but there must be repeat mistakes for new generations because without them the world would be boring.

Basically, don't fight with subjective, irrational arguments that do not have a base in fact (aka name calling, smearing, assumptions, fears that have not been given factual evidence), and do not expect that you know what will happen in the future, you can only speculate, and it is impossible to know all the details. Humans are that incredibly dynamic.

I believe that Bush had a chance to and wanted to make the United States a better place and I believe that he failed to meet most of the Americans' standards of "better" over the course of his 8 years. I believe that Mr.Obama has the same chance, but with perhaps a new perspective as his father was not a president before him and he comes from a very different background than any president before him. I believe that Mr.Obama has a large following and thus a very good reason to live up to his expectations of change, and for the better, and I believe that if he fails to satisfy the American people, those of us who are freshmen will get to choose in their senior year, the new president. Those of us who are in our senior year will choose the next president perhaps from a job abroad or from a nice little home with a family and a full-time job, or maybe even from a disheveled hovel in an alley. But we will chose. We will chose because we can. And if we don't, then we cannot fully call ourselves American.

John- it turns out i was ill informed and had my numbers wrong.

But as far as what I do not like about Obama and his policies here is an essay I wrote for my english class:

Most people would agree that America is one of the world’s leaders. Many consider us “the greatest nation in the world” though the purpose of my essay is not to make that claim. Instead I would like to explore the question why? What is it that has made America so special and able to succeed to the level that it has? The answer is simple: capitalism. The competitive nature of capitalism has created a place where people are driven to better themselves and thereby also driven to better our nation. With capitalism as our driving economic foundation we can never become complacent and our growth and expansion of knowledge will never stop. Capitalism is what has preserved America’s position as a world power and can continue to secure it long into the future. To turn away we would likely follow the path of ancient China who was a world power until they became complacent and stopped trying to expand and progress.

One of the largest problems inherent to capitalism are the waves of economic good and bad times. Looking back through America’s history we have hit such low points on numerous occasions; the great depression, the recessions of the 1970’s, 1980’s 1990’s and that of 2001. We have hit low points and the country has suffered as people lost their jobs, had their homes foreclosed and had to deal with rising prices. No matter how bad it was each time, we have thus far managed to recover and push out of the hole and progress to another high point. And each time we recovered and climbed to an economic high, it is because we stuck by the concept of capitalism. Until now. In our current economic woes for the first time in American history we are preparing to change the basic foundation of our economy and embrace (what is at least partially) a new system.

Our new President Elect Barack Obama is bringing some radical new ideas to the oval office almost Socialist in nature. Reviewing his policies on his website we can see the changes he plans to bring. First look at his plans for taxes; “Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase.” Just like Robin Hood he is going to take from the rich to give to the poor. Those who have high incomes because they are in a position where they are creating jobs and stimulating our economy are having their taxes drastically heightened. Those who work for minimum wage and do not make much are not only having their taxes lowered, there are going to get such large tax refunds that they are actually getting paid to live here. Let me reiterate that: some people, specifically those who have worked hardest to become successful contributing members of society will be paying a significant portion of their income to the government while those who have not worked as hard and have become complacent working for minimum wage after dropping out of high school or choosing not to attend university are being paid to live here. Does this sound like something you want to be happening in your country?

His healthcare policy also represents a pretty drastic change for America. Instead of the capitalist way it is working now with private companies selling insurance and people being responsible for their own wellbeing, healthcare will be nationalized and employers will be required to provide insurance for their workers. Healthcare will become a function and responsibility of the government as well as an inherent right of each American citizen. (Another aspect of this to consider: providing healthcare for employees will cause the overhead on many businesses skyrocket and a considerable number of people will lose their jobs.)

Obama is by no means a socialist. He is of course a democrat but he is using that to get his foot in the door. He is getting America to pivot on one foot to face a new direction; this puts us just a hop skip and a jump away from changing a few more policies and becoming a socialist nation. But why now? Why are we suddenly embracing these new concepts? What does this say about what we as a nation have become? Back when America was still in its infancy those who were having a tough time could get a covered wagon and head west. Once there they had nothing and would either survive or not survive. People had to rely on themselves: they knew they had to put their heads down and work hard to make it and that is exactly what they did. Nothing about the world would listen to excuses about where they were from or excuse about how they had been raised. (A brief side note; I do not want to sound insensitive and am not saying that the government should not support those who cannot support themselves. The government should help the old, young, disabled and the addicted)

The opportunity for change is not so different today. It is not unheard of for someone to pick up and move to a new area, either because of a lack of jobs, lack of opportunity to move up, or a lack of educational opportunities. I have several friends who moved to Bellingham with nothing, because their hometown was crowded economically devoid of opportunity and now hold good jobs that the people they left behind in their hometowns are envious of. This is not happening as much as it should. Rather than “heading west” and helping themselves, people are embracing the disadvantages they face as excuses and choosing to put their hands out and tighten their belts, praying for the government to take care of them. Are Americans (or the majority, as 67% voted for Obama) becoming lazy and complacent? It seems like this might be the case as more and more people choose not to help themselves.

However, for the sake of our country and the future that is in store as American citizens I certainly hope this is not the case. A more optimistic and much likelier alternative explanation is still quite bleak:

Obama purchased his presidency. No he did not bribe anyone and he is certainly not dishonest. He bribed America like one would bribe a child with candy. He capitalized on the fact that we were (are) down economically by offering us too many treats to refuse. As a low income adult I was very tempted by the same policies that persuaded most of my friends to vote for Obama. Not having to pay for insurance? Getting paid to live here? I love the idea of getting a fat check every year and to be perfectly honest I almost voted for Obama for those specific reasons. But when I really thought it through, I couldn’t bring myself to do it. I plan to continue my education and eventually start my own business. I plan to eventually make enough money that I will be providing jobs, stimulating the economy and hopefully be sitting in the top income bracket. Though saving on my insurance and getting a government check each year now would be nice in the short term, it would not be right for me to depend on the hard work of others to support myself.

Regardless of the reasons and my beliefs, Obama was elected and is going to take office January 21st 2009. If he is true to his word he is going to implement these policies and America will make the aforementioned pivot. What changes will this bring and what does this mean America’s future role in the world markets will become? Only time will tell.
 

irwinj3 -

Thanks for sharing your essay. I agree with you that America is great. And, that capitalism has been a significant contribution to its greatness. However, I do take issue with a few other generalizations that you've made.

For one, you say that Obama bought the election by offering Americans freebies such as insurance or an income just by living here. I don't think the exit polling (or any other data) justifies that position. Clearly the economy was the most significant issue on the minds of the voters. And, most voters felt that Obama would respond to the economic crisis better than McCain. CBS News reported: "Obama got two-thirds of the votes of people who said that the nation's economy was poor, and almost 60 percent of voters who were worried that the economy would affect them and their families." He beat McCain substantially (52% to 46%) from those who make more than $200,000. He also beat McCain by those who have money invested in the stock market. These latter groups should not be expecting to get freebies from an Obama administration. Yet, they preferred Obama to McCain.

Sources:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/05/politics/main4572555.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1

jf

irwinj3, if you haven't turned you essay in yet, you should define some of your terms, such as socialism.  You also offer some observations without analysis, such as what Obama's health care plan is.

I'm not sure what your assignment is, but you may also want to bring in outside sources and address more counter-arguments.  My own critique: I've found it's a myth that people who work minimum wage jobs are lazy or have equal opportunity.  They may come from a poor family, have gone to a poor school, been tracked into vocational-tech classes instead of college prep, or denied promotions due to their race or class. Sure, some poor folks are lazy and make poor choices, but so are some rich people, too... poor people are just more likely to be punished for it and get less second chances.  (For example, rich folks may be addicted to legal prescriptions.) 

The system relies on poor people and the myth of meritocracy, the belief everyone has an equal chance to succeed.  A token few do make it, then we can say, "look, see, that poor person went to college!" to hide that the odds are against poor folks while middle and owning-class people are prepped to inherit their parents success.  I'm from a working class family (the first to go to college)and world of universities and stock markets are like a second-language that I had to learn.   I haven't had the same opportunities that someone who got into an ivy league school because their family made a donation to the school.

I also want to add that capitialism also depends on endless expansion and consumption at the expense of the poor and "third-world" that work in sweat-shops and import our waste.  It isn't sustainable if we stay on this planet.

I hate to jump in to this, as I promissed not to take sides, but I have several things I would like to bring people's attention to.

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/04/has-middle-americas-wages...

The median income of every household has not been increasing within the United States for over forty years.

Compare this to our GDP:

http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=149

Which has been consistently and steadily increasing.

Where has the income gone?

These hard working business owners have been replacing worker's wages with their own, a practice not seen since the gilded age.

http://agonist.org/files/active/0/top%20decile%20try%202.jpg from  http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/saez/w8467.pdf

(There are some other very good graphs in that article, starting page 60).

People vote Obama because people have a deep, sinking feeling that something is terribly wrong with the way they're living in the world today. Even a catch phrase such as "Change" is sufficient.

I don't believe that people are being irrational, selfish, or weak by electing a (socialist) president. I think people are depressed, fearful, and angry.

People are wondering, "What's wrong with me? Why do I hate my 40-hour/week job so much?"

Without ever stopping and wondering if stress, depression, and hatred is just simply a natural response to an unnatural state of being.

When, of course, the patriot act has allowed the executive branch to neglect its responsibilities, and enjoy the conversations of average citizens.

http://images.chron.com/blogs/txpotomac/budget_deficit_or_surplus.jpg

While there are definitely "wrong" ways of governing, in terms of reduced government regulation; fiscal responsibility; and ability for the average citizen to accomplish the American dream, each vital fundamentals of the Republican party, there has been a large departure from what was once a grand old party.

Obama won't change anything. His pick for treasury was federal reserve president and the fed caused the very crisis we are in now.

IF you want change. End the drug war. End the prison industrial complex. Tax on a local level. Abolish the income tax.

If you want universal health care you need to have funding and we don't have that right now.

Dave,

     First and foremost, i strongly suggest you watch/read other media sources besides CNN and Fox.  They're both biased in some of the same ways and in their own ways.  If you don't know about it, democracynow.org is great.  It's real news.

And I'm not saying that Obama is just another Bush.  Pretty much anyone could be a better president than Bush.  But like i mentioned earlier, they share many characteristics: 700 billion dollars of taxpeyer money to bail out of wall street banks, who take the money then turn around and use it for purposes it wasn't intended for (but God forbid we use government money for universal healthcare, right?); Increased war in the middle east;  A sub-par environmental policy.

Granted, I don't think he's going to try to impose christian beliefs on the country like Bush has done.  that's why i said, Obama's not all bad.  But on the big issues, he is bad.

And in regards to "...we might be a little more patient with Obama there...he's not president yet" ...Well, he was elected into office on these campaign promises and issues.  We can't expect Obama to take office and say "just kidding guys!  that whole thing about escalating war in the middle east?  i was just kidding.  And actually, we're going to have an energy policy that doesn't destroy the environment.  I was just saying all that stuff about increased clean coal use so the fossil fuel industry would help me get elected into office.  We showed them, huh?  Because NOW that i'm president, i'm going to listen to the demands of the American people, not giant corporations."  He's going to keep looking out for corporate interests.  Don't pull a Michael Moore on us (A reference to an interview with him on Democracy Now on 10/31/08).

-Jesse

in the form of more gun con control no doubt. the AWB (which was a piece of legislation based on aesthetics) wil be renewed most likely, there will probably be another ban on high capacity magazines, and there is a chance that the EPA may cause ammunition prices to skyrocket by banning the use of lead. By the way, I am not some hardcore right wing guy who is crazy about guns, I actually consider myself quite liberal, its just that I am very passionate (perhaps the wrong word to use) about my 2nd amendment rights.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner, liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote." - Ben Franklin

While i'm skeptical about the validity the 2nd amendment has in current times, i also feel it's important if used for the right reasons.  The 2nd amendment right was included because it was thought that if citizens were armed, the government would know better than to oppress them.  The fact that citizens have guns hasn't stopped any recent administration from doing whatever the hell they want though.

And though i feel the 2nd amendment is important, i'm also an environmentalist and don't think the banning of lead in ammunition would be a bad idea.  It has potential to devistate ecosystems.  There was an article in the Herald on monday talking about a lake that straddles the U.S./Canadian border where snow geese die by the dozens every year because when the lake is shallow the geese consume lead shot from shotguns.  Lead shot was banned in 1991 in wetland areas but the effect from its use still lingers.   

While I agree that something should be done to develop a better projectile, I feel that an outright ban is not the answer and that there really should be a transitional period. We use lead, because it is cheap, dense, and easy to form.

Alright, Mr. Zeitgeist. Please substantiate your claim that the Federal Reserve caused this crisis.

I'll add that we do have funding, except most of it is being used in the militarism that so titillates our representatives in Congress.

Most will tell you it's the sub-prime crisis. But the system as a whole created credit (based on nothing).

We've never had such easy access to credit in our nations history until the Fed.

No, we don't have the funding. The US has been bankrupt since the early 1900's. We borrow almost all of our money. That which we do tax is paid against the national interest.

You're right, money that is borrowed doesn't affect the amount of funds you have. Don't tell the accountants.

Bankruptcy, regarding financials, is pretty much a strictly legal term. The United States is not bankrupt.

Because we are trillions of dollars in debt means pretty much nothing at this point in the game.  Any economist (even an undergrad) can tell you the people we owe money to (China, for instance) are economically incapable of calling the debt we owe them; they have our money for a specific purpose (basically, because they want to buy something that is priced in American dollars).  Calling our debt to them doesn't make that purpose disappear, meaning China calling back whatever trillions of dollars we owe them would destroy their economy as well as ours.

Except that capitalism has failed us. Other than that...

How has capitalism failed us? What kind of standard of living are you used to?

Yeah $2.30 a gallon isn't bad...they pay $9 per gallon in socialist countries.

Not to mention you still attend a college that costs thousands per year.

Wow, you sure have it hard...

While the economy recovers (and it is. the dow is back above 8000. slowly but surely) you can take your anti-capitalism propaganda and move to europe. im sure you will be back.

Norway has the second highest tax rate in the world but the highest standard of living.  They have near 100% literacy rate.  They have universal healthcare.  They can go to school to learn as much as they want without having to worry about money.  They rehabilitate criminals rather than execute them.  And they pay 8-12 dollars per gallon of gasoline, but that is a good thing, because as a result of that, their lifestyle is much more sustianable.  You would be broke if you drove an H2 that gets 8 MPG. 

I saw the chalk writing too, but I highly doubt conservatives wrote them. I am happy Obama is in office instead of McCain, but I voted for the green party. I was not completely pessimistic with Obama's election, but he has shown through his actions that he is not changing much of anything. I wrote my congressman for the first time when the bailouts were getting voted on (I was against them along with 97% of America, yet Obama managed to push it through). He allowed the freakin people who created this economic mess to be his closest economic advisors. It just all doesn't make sense to me.

WATCH THE OBAMA DECEPTION!! GO TO YOUTUBE RIGHT NOW AND WATCH IT...ITS A REALLY WELL DONE MOVIE.

I am not saying all or even most of it it true, but it may open your eyes to some interesting things.

 Are you guys kidding me. I suggest you listen to one of our founding fathers who grew hemp and was an honest human being. (at least they say so)

THE TWO PARTY SYS. is shit

its like sports or some shit. what the fuck! let's all root for our team, conservatives vs. liberals. 

ERROR #1
It is ignorant to subscribe to a party unless you are upper echelon and benefit monetarily from being a member.

ERROR #2
You are being distracted and shortchanged relegated to black and white ideals with the two party system.

The two party system was frowned upon by George Washington to say the least. It causes a distraction by having to root for figureheads (cough* tools)

Vote for Ideals and the common man who only want's to be happy. 

As far as obama goes. He was voted in because of "change". Guess what changed? The color of the president, thats all he was voted in for. Congrats! Your "leader" is a different color, hooray! let's cheer with the rest of the ignorant liberals like they did in the dining hall when he was handed the presidency.

I SAW HIM IN PERSON GIVE A SPEECH IN NC at UNCW. He is intelligent and well spoken. He knows how to get a crowd excited. You know who else did this and was voted in by the people? Everyone's pal Hitler.

You know you voted for a change of color you ignorant liberal. He is still a whitey moneygrubbing attention whore cigarette addict. I want a president with self control. I voted for no one mind you. I assumed he would win because of the blind support from young and old alike.

Personally I wanted Ron Paul, but I knew that wasn't going to happen. I actually DID NOT WANT RON PAUL because he is a politician, but there are no normal society members to vote for with a chance of winning. No one cares about real issues. The election is like American Idol. Televised, hyped, and quite possibly rigged. 

Vote for real change! Vote for a worldly common man who will lead our nation in a direction for the people, not corporations. (see the former Bushocracy. Now it's just a clintonocracy.

The Bush family, and the Clinton's vying for control. Its all a distraction, know the real issues. Revamp the system!

VOTE FOR A WORLDY BENEVOLENT COMMON MAN

we need to find someone normal with no fascist connections or incentives to worry about. Someone uncorruptable.

Haha, they would be killed for sure. *glances over shoulder

 does that ring true to anyone, or is it just me? George washington was just a man of the revolution in his day, but our lessons have been forgotten.

 Anyone want to join me to create a party embodying the above, haha. That would be awesome, haha. But then it would be like Kent State U all over again. Pansies afraid to stand up to pawns with  (now)5.56mm rifles? (was .30 06 back in the day of all american guns, and automobiles and everything else AMERICAN.)

THIS IS AMERICA, let's start acting like it. It is't the EU. it isnt mexico either. Please....

Even Pan America would be a step in a better direction. It would be true to something other than money and bullshit politics.

 
Last Fall my brother had the idea to make t-shirts with a picture of obama on them with the words "Hitler made great speeches, too" underneath....but i thought it might be counter-productive to go that far.

 Nice, I would wear one for sure. And be instantly frowned upon by liberals and cast of as a madman, haha. life is funny. If he makes one, i'll pay for one or so.

At least you can decide who to vote for by flipping a coin.  

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=20061222-000001&p...

For Conservatives
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-8qyoVssNQ

For Moderates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdiCJUysIT0

For Liberals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjWThJ0jYxo&feature=related

I want you to consider this:

The top 25 managers of hedge funds each took home at least $240 million in 2006

The top salary was $1.7 billion

All 25 earned more than 14 billion

This number is greater than the entire GDP of Urugauy (3.5 million population) and Jordan (6 million population)

So 25 people were more productive than entire countries. Now, I really find it hard to believe a manager needs to earn more than an entire country just to be motivated to work harder. This is the idea behind redistribution, making it the norm to earn 1 million in a year rather than a billion.

In 2007 they increased their total to 22 billion.

I got all of these statistics from "Class War?"

To conclude I leave you with the words of former Fed chairman Paul Volcker "I don't see a relationship between extremes of income now and the performance of the economy."