What disagreements do you have with Obama?
 

I'm just curious. There have been a number of posts in other threads from right-wingers on why they don't like Obama. Here, I'm interested in hearing from people who are voting for Obama. I like Obama a lot, I'm voting for him, not against McCain, but naturally I don't agree with everything he says. I'm curious about what other people who are voting for Obama disagree with him on, or what worries them.

Protectionism. Obama has several times said that he wants fair trade, not free trade, and seems to embrace at least mild protectionism. I think this is a bad idea. Free trade makes everyone better off in the long run. It may result in some short-term hardship for people whose jobs are displaced, but in my view, the correct response is some other program to help them, like a national infrastructure program or retraining, not protectionism.

Unions. I like unions alright, but getting rid of the secret ballot in determining whether or not to unionize seems like a bad idea. It could lead to unions pressuring people to join, and doesn't really seem to have an upside.

Foreign Policy. This is more of a worry for me than a concrete disagreement. I'm a bit of a hawk, and think we sometimes need to behave hawkishly in our foreign policy. I worry that Obama might want to talk to other nations too much, in cases where we need to do some saber-rattling.

What are your thoughts?

Telco immunity. I really don't like the fact that they illegally spied on us and will get away scott-free. They should be fined and Bushco should sit in jail.

i think the biggest structural problem the us faces is transforming the military-related patronage system away from cold war logic. the united states now spends more on military procurement than the next 20 countries combined.
this goes to comparative data for 2006:

World Military Spending ? Global Issues

this has to change.
i don't see obama doing it.


a radically different type of "globalizing capitalism" needs to be put into place---if we're going to accept the present configuration as given, it seems insane not to develop comprehensive programs that would seed the development of new forms of activity within the states--the republican "get a job at mcdonalds" plan is a farce, and always has been. 70% of american gdp is based on consumer spending. that seems crazy to me. i think obama is talking about initiatives that will in some ways address this general problem, but they need to go further and be rationally co-ordinated. another dimension: the american labor market has changed but in the main the educational system continues to reproduce an outmoded profile. and there's no obvious way to redirect the educational system. if that's the case, it puts more pressure on the need for some kind of systematic re-seeding of production in the states.

i do not think the question of "free trade" is a coherent single matter, nor do i think "protectionism" is a single coherent step to mitigate the effects of it. basically, you cannot think about this if you abstract the united states from the capitalist system that it has been instrumental in fostering since the 1980s. if you factor in the southern hemisphere, "free trade" means american domination. period. a different type of overarching organization is probably going to result from the present mutations in the space of capital flows. i think that the united states should advocate a more equitable and sustainable form of globalizing capitalism while it's still in a position to advocate anything. this is vague, but i think this will be among the biggest problems with the highest stakes that obama will face. i take some solace in thinking him intelligent and curious about the world. if mc-cain is elected, in my view the united states is fucked.

Nuclear power and gun control. I am very for and very against, respectively, and he has a middle of the road and pro stance.

Ditto here. Retroactive immunity was an epic mistake. We could have sent the message "If you spy on us, there will be consequences", but Obama and other Dems supported the FISA reboot. Very frustrating.

Nuclear power, emissions, gun control, education reform, foreign policy, unions, and taxes. I pretty much agree with Obama only in regards to abortion rights (for the most part) and illegal immigration.

FYI, Bear Cub (unless your signature isn't true :)):

Offshore drilling - it's a waste of time and resources and he needs to call it out for what it is instead pandering to the oil-drunk "drill baby drill" types.

I disagree with him about ethanol & Afghanistan. The US needs to get out of Afghanistan as well as Iraq. I also worry that his health care plan isn't radical enough to do make much of an impact. And NCLB needs to be scrapped rather than modified.

FISA and Patriot Act, defense build up, federal funding for faith based organizations, off shore drilling.

Looking at the bigger picture, if he is to bring the country together to any extent, I expect to see him compromise in order to build consensus around difficult issues and I suspect I wont always agree with his compromises.

Bt I'll take a pragmatic consensus builder over a rigid ideologue any time.

the FISA stuff for sure

I also think he's falling short on the gay marriage issue. People like to call him the most liberal senator on the planet, but he still doesn't support gay marriage (just civil unions, which I don't think is going far enough in terms of civil rights).

- His tax cuts do not go far enough to help the poor and middle class who pay a higher percentage of their income than the wealthy to support our government.

- Gun control.

- School vouchers.

I agree on gay marriage, but I hope that he'll at least reverse the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Obama thinks that No Child Left Behind can be saved. I don't think it can. I think it needs to be repealed, period. There are too many problems with NCLB that cannot be solved with more money (though that is the deepest flaw, that NCLB hasn't been properly funded since the beginning). We have moved our educational system towards testing as the standard, and in doing so, have changed our classroom curriculum to fit that. Schools teach to the test, and they teach students how to take the test. Unfortunately, this results in robot-students receiving a standardized, monocultural message from robot-teachers. It removes a teacher's ability to actually TEACH, and turns students from kids into test scores. Quite frankly, the entire concept of NCLB is dehumanizing for both teacher and student. Why would we want a law that accomplishes all of this on the books? Even the UK, where serious standardized testing has long been the norm, is trying to move away from such testing. Why? Because research shows it does not work. Teaching to a test and testing students fails to teach students to think critically.

I also support nuclear power and disagree with his vote for Telco immunity.

Strange thing is, I'm not sure if he'd get away with it. America MIGHT be ready for a black president (we'll see, soon enough), but they're not ready for a federal approval of gay marriage... I'd say not until his second term at least, if he gets that far.

I am also against offshore drilling, but I'm hoping that his endorsement of that really is just pandering... and that he'll pour resources into building up alternative energy. But we'll see.

Many people ARE ready for it, and IMO, catering to those who aren't is the very opposite of progressive thinking

Well, certainly I'M ready for it :) but given all that he's already been up against by just being black, my point is that he'll probably have to wait until he's already in office and other platform items get pushed through before he brings this one up. I'd sure like to see it happen--but this country does not deal well with way too much change all at once. At least, that's my amateur take on the situation.

I won't swear to this, since I don't have any hard evidence of it, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is an election tactic as opposed to how he actually feels about the issue. I think he'd risk losing some of the moderate conservative vote he's trying to swing if he came out fighting for gay marriage. I think gay rights are something we'd be likely to see improve under Obama after he establishes himself, but it'd be a very dangerous campaign platform point to make in a national election.

I think he dems are taking the long approach to health care. He will get all of the uninsured on the same plan as the government. FEHB 2008 Plan Information for Nationwide Fee-for-Service Plans Open to All

Eventually the small businesses will switch to this plan because it will reduce their paperwork and make tax time simpler. Then when you have more than half the nation with the same type of plan, more and more companies will go this route.

And then the government will either run the healthcare plan or will make it a non-profit running it hopefully. But I don't see that happening until Hilary is elected.

There are a lot of issues to work out with that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Off-shore drilling isn't that great. But us environmentalists can't complain too much about ruining the view because we want wind turbines put up off the coast.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taxing real hard work. If he can reduce government spending to offer the tax cut for 'middle class' people, then I'm ok with it. But the tax code needs some work and make it so corporations pay instead of passing the costs to the consumer or moving their headquarters to a PO Box in the Cayman Islands. Also, the Joe the Plummer thing is a issue I have. If a small business is successful or if someone who was in the lower tax bracket moves up quickly, they should be able to pay taxes at the rate they were at for to years.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think we need to have an unannounced pull back of a few thousand troops to see if anything changes. Put some more in Afghanistan/Pakistan though. There are still problems there.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ethanol is a tricky one. If they built wind turbines next to the processing plants, it would solve some of the problems of powering the refining process. But the farm subsidies for not growing crops needs to go away. Since every acre now growing corn for ethanol can't be used to grow other food, making food prices rise. And causing farmers in other parts of the world burn down rainforests and drain swamps to grow crops.
And investors/speculators helped create demand for ethanol before the public was using it, so that didn't work.

In his 30 minute commercial, he also said that he would go through the budget line by line and get rid of programs that weren't working. Which programs would those be? I can go through the budget line by line too, but will the programs I would cut to get the budget balanced be the same he would cut?

he's not going to say at this point....don't want to alienate a potential block of voters

His FISA vote is very problematic, and I wish he'd rethink gay marriage.

I forgot about that. His running to the center on that issue may have gotten him a few folksey (bigot) votes, but it really paints him as a panderer. I'd be willing to bet he supports equal rights for gays in all truth.

Yeah. Biden agreeing with Palin on gay marriage was the low point of the whole campaign season for me.

I think it was pandering to the christian vote. I understand it, but it's disappointing. Obama had enough other hurdles to jump without alienating those who already questioned his religion

Its disappointing at one level but irrelevant at the same time.

The issue of marriage is a state issue, with the Defense of Marriage Act being the only federal legislation to address it in any meaningful way...and Obama is on record for the repeal of DOMA and to ensure the same federal rights and protections that are associated with marriage to civil unions or domestic partnerships.

i don't remember having seen anyone link to this----i'm not sure that doing so here means that there's a disagreement (though there is, really)---but anyway, here's obama's 2007 article "renewing american leadership" in the journal "foreign affairs"

Foreign Affairs - Renewing American Leadership - Barack Obama

it's interesting, particularly if you want an idea of just how centrist obama is inclined to be--and of how skewed the (still) current sense of left-right distinctions are in american politics--that obama could be understood as a "radical" is beyond me.

regardless, this is a pretty comprehensive piece, some of which of course we've now heard before...

My advice to an aspiring entrepreneur under an Obama Presidency with a Democrat controlled Congress is to not start a small business unless you have a sure thing or you are using to someone else's money with deep pockets. Keep your corporate job, government job, or invest in real estate.

As a small business owner you will work harder than you ever worked, risk your life savings, pay what you owe first while getting paid what is owed to you last. You will support your employees, including mandated health care insurance, raising minimum wages to people with no skills, workers compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, your part of FICA, and other benefits and for that you will be at a continual risk of being sued even if you meticulously follow the law. Your taxes will be so complicated you won't be able to do them or have the time, so you will pay high fees to get them done. Depending on your industry government regulations will be so onerous and so complicated you will never be 100% in compliance, so you will always be at risk for fines and penalties. You will continually re-invest profits into your business to try to stay competitive and/or grow, but big business will always have an advantage and will be able to lobby in ways that will make it harder and harder for you to succeed.

You will have no guarantee, like a minimum wage. You will pay for your healthcare insurance, your retirement, your FICA taxes and other taxes. Then if you get lucky and finally have a few good years of income, government will take about half of what you make in those years. If you sell the business government will take a large portion of any profits on the sale.

So, the disagreement I have with Obama is based on the economic impact of his philosophy on small business. He believes that when a small business finally makes it, that they did not do enough - and the wealth needs to be spread around. My advise to aspiring entrepreneurs is simply don't do it unless you have a sure thing. Innovating, creating jobs, adding value to the economy is not going to be worth the risk.

when has it ever been easy to be a small business owner?

Never, but under some administrations, Presidents understood the difficulties. Obama's plans will make small business ownership more difficult, to a point where I say the rewards won't be worth the risk. A small business owner may work his ass off for a decade or more investing in the future and then have a few good years, Obama/Biden have no appreciation of the effort and say things like its patriotic to pay more, and paying more is not going to hurt because you are "rich". Then they trot out the richest man in the world, who is already rich and manages his tax burden, to say "rich" people should pay more, as if that is validation for his plan. They want to raise income taxes, increase our costs, put more burdens on us,and then raise capital gains taxes. Certainly non-small business owners don't care, until economic growth comes to a stop.

Very dramatic, Ace.

It's kind of odd, though. Obama's "Kill small business" platform is the only idea I've consistently agreed with him on.

Jinn, I already mentioned that in post #7 but I guess they just can't stay away...

The title of the thread could have pointed that out - it did not.

Read the first two lines of the original post? No? You not reading what other people write is a shocking new development.

Gay Marriage.

I also don't agree with his stance on NASA Mars exploration -- IIRC Hillary wanted to pour more resources into putting a human on Mars than Obama did. :(

Gun control. As a card-carrying member of the NRA who owns a few guns, Obama's early statements about wanting to ban "all semiautomatic weapons" scares me ... a lot. He agreed with the Supreme Court that it shouldn't be a federal issue and that the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, but it's still a little bit shaky. That aside, I'm absolutely in love with Obama's philosophies about what this country is, can do, and will do, as well as his positions on the economy, small businesses, abortion, foreign policy and education.

I disagree with what Obama is proposing on taxes for two reasons. One is outlined in the Op Ed piece in the Wall St. Journal on July 21, 2008 that I've quoted below. The top 1% of earners (those making in excess of $388,000 / year) paid 40% of the US Tax burden in 2006. 1% of the population pays 40% of the bill. The top 50% of earners pay 97% of the tax burden. How much more can the top half pay to support the bottom half so that you will call it fair?

The second reason is that during the correlating period of time with the 2003 tax policy the real net worth of ALL American households (the sum total of all assets minus liabilities) exploded by 43% to a record $58 Trillion. Yes that's Trillion with a T. The tax policy passed in 2003 worked as predicted just as tax rate reductions have time and time again throughout history. And yes...it worked for all Americans.

Check this out...

http://bp0.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/...As/s400/nw.bmp

The really amazing line item burried in that data and what should be part of the story this election season is that over that three year period the number of US households with adjusted gross incomes of over $1,000,000 nearly DOUBLED at a rate far faster than at any time in US history. Lower taxes mean opportunity...

Before you start to think I am a shill for the Bush Administration let's talk about the real failure which is again not taxes. The failure of the Bush Administration, AND both Republicrats and Democans in congress is not the tax policy of 2003. The real failure is that they just can't help themselves. They spend money like drunken sailors on a weekend bender in Bangkok and then at election time they engage is this piss poor idealogical food fight over who fucked up the budget and by how much.

Higher taxes = slower growth, the wealthy will pay less, and there will be less opportunity because the investment capital that would otherwise be out there to create jobs disappears into the portolet on the Potomac. Conversely lower taxes leads to just the opposite but at the same time you cannot spend more than you make. Period. Or...as many people are willing to do just --->

Send more money to Washington because it's the patriotic thing to do and watch party imbicile after party imbicile insult your intelligence by telling you that the rich just aren't doing their part. The fact that there are as many Americans willing to believe this pile of horse feathers that seemingly do is astounding.

------------------------------------------------------
Wall St. Journal - Op Ed, July 21, 2008
------------------------------------------------------

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...0720202013.gif

It will be interesting to see where the net worth is at the end of 2008 (home values dropping, stock market going down, prices going up). They also should subtract the additional 5 trillion that the government has paid out, but put on the deficient instead of having Americans pay more taxes.

I also like Nader's plan to tax short-term capital gains at a higher rate. Hopefully that will push investors to become more long-term and there won't be as many sharp fluctuations. Obama talked about it back in March, I'm surprised nobody has brought it up. Ben Smith's Blog - Politico.com
His plan makes sense to me, but I would think tht it would cause a large part of the country to dislike him if it happened.

I'm not sure what he will actually be able to get done and what he actually wants to get done. Both for financial and political reasons.