Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivists for Obama?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Fundamentally they are very close. However, you might get a little less statism with McCain and a Democrat congress than with Obama and a Democrat congress.

Are you sure?

Bush greatly expanded government with a Republican Congress. The Democrats opposed him in everything, save for such things that expanded government. If they opposed him in the latter, it was only to demand more subsidies and more welfare.

I expect if McCain gets elected the Democrats will push for more statism, while the GOP will stand quietly by "supporting" their party's President.

With Obama, on the other hand, the Democrats will go along, and theya re a majority (and coul be a bigger majority next term), but the GOP will oppose them in principle (the principle being they're the other party). How effective such opposition would be remains uncertain. But do recall a minority GOP in the early 90s mannaged to nix Clinton's "stimulus package" and Hillary's propposed socialized medicine program.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you sure?

Bush greatly expanded government with a Republican Congress. The Democrats opposed him in everything, save for such things that expanded government. If they opposed him in the latter, it was only to demand more subsidies and more welfare.

I expect if McCain gets elected the Democrats will push for more statism, while the GOP will stand quietly by "supporting" their party's President.

With Obama, on the other hand, the Democrats will go along, and theya re a majority (and coul be a bigger majority next term), but the GOP will oppose them in principle (the principle being they're the other party). How effective such opposition would be remains uncertain. But do recall a minority GOP in the early 90s mannaged to nix Clinton's "stimulus package" and Hillary's propposed socialized medicine program.

In the 1990s the Republicans still had some members of the Senate that were willing to stand on principle and the Dems didn't have a veto-proof majority. The current set of Senate Republicans is about as weak as they come and the Dems could easily end up with a 2/3 majority in the Senate and control of the House. The idea of giving over control of the country to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and B. Obama scares the shit out of me. I don't doubt that McCain might be swayed to go along with more socialism, but he also seems to be open to less of it (i.e. his willingness to backtrack somewhat on his previous ridiculous enviro stances). At least with McCain you have a chance to convince him that less government is better. With Obama and a Dem congress, we are guaranteed to get socialized healthcare, higher taxes on the most productive people, and a weak, even timid foreign policy. So to answer your original question, yes I'm sure about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dkian and gags are not talking about parallel situations.

The distinction is that D'kian pointed out that a Republican president and a Republican congress with a Democrat minority went for big government.

That's because the two branches did not fight each other, being the same party.

gags is arguing that a Republican President and a Democratic congress (with a Republican minority) might gridlock. In fact they have been doing so for the last two years. Absent some really catastrophic event that convinces voters en masse not to vote for Democratic congresscritters, the house will become MORE Democratic and so will the Senate. I do not see even that catastrophe being sufficient to make the Senate republican, since there are far more currently-Republican seats up this time than currently-Democratic seats. (Only 1/3 of the Senate is elected every two years.)

It has also been my observation that the Republicans tend to grow a pair (a small pair) and a notochord (alas not quite a spine) when they are in the opposition.

So IF your strategy is to encourage gridlock in the hopes that the Rs will grow a spine when they are bickering, vote for McCain/Palin. The congress will almost certainly remain Democrat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

So IF your strategy is to encourage gridlock in the hopes that the Rs will grow a spine when they are bickering, vote for McCain/Palin. The congress will almost certainly remain Democrat.

This is my analysis as well, and (IMO) will likely result in the least harm done. It may also serve as a repudiation of Obama's overt socialism (for maybe ten minutes, anyway :lol: ).

Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea of giving over control of the country to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and B. Obama scares the shit out of me.

It scares me too. But I remain uncertain as who's the best choice for president.

I don't doubt that McCain might be swayed to go along with more socialism, but he also seems to be open to less of it (i.e. his willingness to backtrack somewhat on his previous ridiculous enviro stances).

When a politician has held a position for most of his professioal life and then changes it for a campaign, I'm 99% certain he'll revert to his earlier position once he's elected. McCain is likely to want to implement a cap and trade system for CO2 emissions. Whether he dresses it up in free market rhetoric really doesn't make it less deadly to industry.

I'd go over to McCain if he made it clear he intends to take effective action against Iran. Asbent that, I'm still in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all need to go to their various websites to find out what it is these clowns stand for.

For example, Obama:

Immigration: “The time to fix our broken immigration system is now… We need stronger enforcement on the border and at the workplace… But for reform to work, we also must respond to what pulls people to America… Where we can reunite families, we should. Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should"

Change? Perhaps. As far as enforcement at our borders, we need to protect America against immigration by those who are obvious criminals, and those who carry infectious diseases. All others could be admitted. I'm reading a policy here that is a meager step in the right direction.

Iraq: Obama wants to set as a goal withdrawal. Does McCain? Yes, that constitutes change what he wants to do.

Taxes: Neither candidate has an acceptable solution to the tax problem. But the notion that Obama plans to raise taxes is without solid proof. And many at this site have bought into this nonsense lock, stock, and barrel.

Given the propensity for the current candidates to continue the mixed bag "democracy" and make their "changes" to that, I'd say my goal as a capitalist is to seek out the candidate who will preserve whatever individual rights we as Americans have left.

1. For women, the right to their bodies and for men and women who are doctors, no regulation regarding abortions.

2. For all of us, the right to our lives without the government mandating that we enter upon service- you know, the draft, which I understand McCain favors.

It becomes clear to me that that candidate is Barack Obama.

The notion that a religious-based conservative team who will stack the court with anti-abortion judges scares the heck out of me.

For those who want to stay away from the polls, I think that's the very worst thing that you could do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taxes: Neither candidate has an acceptable solution to the tax problem. But the notion that Obama plans to raise taxes is without solid proof. And many at this site have bought into this nonsense lock, stock, and barrel.

But it's true, and with solid proof provided by the candidate's own campaign. Obama's official economic stimulus plan involves putting a "windfall" profits tax on the oil companies and then redistributing the money to workers. I have tried searching for the .pdf file, but it has slipped out of my grasp, so here is an article from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1217806362...emEditorialPage

Keeping in consideration the extremely predictable consequences of such a tax, everyone will get hurt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keeping in consideration the extremely predictable consequences of such a tax, everyone will get hurt.

But not everyone knows that.

Also, Obama promises a huge tax cut for 95% of America. But of course, this is a bad thing since it's coming from a Democrat. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
But not everyone knows that.

I know. The very fact that people don't know is testament to the terrible dumbing down of America, as the string of reasoning required is, quite literally, of an elementary level: The expenses are increased for oil companies, they raise prices sky high to compensate the losses, and everyone else raises their prices sky high, to compensate.

This plan is so utterly ridiculous I would be amazed if even only part of it went through. Forgive me if I sound snobbish, but I can figure no better way to relay the truth of something so drastically terrible and ignorant. :P

Also, Obama promises a huge tax cut for 95% of America. But of course, this is a bad thing since it's coming from a Democrat. :D

And in vain too, if he goes through with his plan. The high prices will gobble up the extra income, to compensate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, Obama promises a huge tax cut for 95% of America. But of course, this is a bad thing since it's coming from a Democrat. :D

No... It's a bad thing because it elevates failure, weakness, need, incompetence, suffering, vice, and irrationality and regards them as moral claims on success, strength, wealth, ability, joy, virtue, and rationality.

Edited by agrippa1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Taxes: Neither candidate has an acceptable solution to the tax problem. But the notion that Obama plans to raise taxes is without solid proof. And many at this site have bought into this nonsense lock, stock, and barrel.
Huh? Obama openly brags about his intention to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy--that would be a tax increase. He has openly mused about raising capital gains taxes--that would be a tax increase. Then there is the windfall profits tax on 'big oil'--that would be a tax increase. Those are just three example that come to mind. I dont doubt that there are many more. There is no question that Obama plans to finance the tax cuts he says he plans to give 95% of Americans by taxing the hell out of the remaining 5%. Do you not see the problem with this?

2. For all of us, the right to our lives without the government mandating that we enter upon service- you know, the draft, which I understand McCain favors.
Do you have a source for this?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a part of McCain's session at Columbia, and they asked him about it. He said he didn't want any mandates, but would be willing to spend a lot of money encouraging people to go into "service". I think he mentioned $3 billion -- or, the interviewer did, and McCain responded with something like -- he'd make the money avaialble, money was not the issue.

I don't see either Obama or McCain about to enact any type of mandatory "service" requirement. Such things usually come in stages.

McCain actually praised Obama's version, to which the interviewer asked if he would have Obama in his cabinet. McCain reasoned that he would -- and seemed like it was not really jest -- saying that service ought to be a cabinet level position.

His single quibble with Obama's plan was that Obama was not willing to have a broad plan that involved more non-governmental service organizations. What he means is that he -- McCain -- will make sure that churches receive a lot of "service dollars".

All the above is from memory. Therefore: E & OE. The Columbia video might be somewhere on the web.

I think that we can be sure of two things happening, regardless of who is president (because they both agree): some carbon-trading scheme, and some service/Americorp/faith-based "service" spending.

On the tax issue, within small ranges, bringing spending down is far more important than reducing taxes. Unfortunately, the Reagan years left people with the idea that deficits didn't matter. Tax cuts have to be paid for sometime if there is no corressponding spending cut.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw a part of McCain's session at Columbia,

I saw part of it as well. Maybe fifteen minutes worth. I used to think that Dancing with the Stars was the most unwatchable show on TV. Not any more. This might have been the most revolting political spectacle I have ever seen. I defy anyone to sit through that forum without throwing themselves out a window.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But the notion that Obama plans to raise taxes is without solid proof. And many at this site have bought into this nonsense lock, stock, and barrel.

"Here's where I would start... to first look to adjust the cap on the [social security] payroll tax... and by the way, I think that we should exempt anyone making under $250,000 from this increase... 97% of Americans will see absolutely no change under my proposal"

If you're saying Obama's promises do not constitute solid proof of his intent, then I have to agree with you. But in this case, I tend to believe him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taxes: Neither candidate has an acceptable solution to the tax problem. But the notion that Obama plans to raise taxes is without solid proof. And many at this site have bought into this nonsense lock, stock, and barrel.

Check out this story from the WSJ: If You Like Michigan's Economy, You'll Love Obama's

I think it tells you all you need to know about Obama's so called "tax cut"

Mr. McCain will lower taxes. Mr. Obama will raise them, especially on small businesses. To understand why, you need to know something about the "infamous" top 1% of income tax filers: In order to avoid high corporate tax rates and the double taxation of dividends, small business owners have increasingly filed as individuals rather than corporations. When Democrats talk about soaking the rich, it isn't the Rockefellers they're talking about; it's the companies where most Americans work. Three out of four individual income tax filers in the top 1% are, in fact, small businesses.

In the name of taxing the rich, Mr. Obama would raise the marginal tax rates to over 50% on millions of small businesses that provide 75% of all new jobs in America. Investors and corporations will also pay higher taxes under the Obama program, but, as the Michigan-Ohio-Illinois experience painfully demonstrates, workers ultimately pay for higher taxes in lower wages and fewer jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A Republican nominated replacement for any of the 5 liberal judges (of whom Stevens is the oldest and expected to retire before he turns 90, which he will do during the next president's first term) would have long-reaching disastrous effects. I don't like the liberal judges, but they are at least pro-secularism.

~Q

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung - they were all pro-secular also. Did that turn out well for the people they enslaved? Socialism is not dead, and it is just as deadly now as it ever was. Environmentalism may be a fad, but it is a fad that can kill millions and destroy economies, before it is replaced by another fad.

The single fact of being pro-secular is not a good in itself, if it is married to a virulent anti-individual rights philosophy, and blatant anti-Americanism, as is the case with Obama and all the rest of America's liberal establishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, Obama promises a huge tax cut for 95% of America. But of course, this is a bad thing since it's coming from a Democrat. :P

I'm generally in favor of virtually any tax cut, no matter who receives it. However, the numbers don't add up in Obama's plan. You have to recognize that the top 5% of the earners in this country currently pay more than 60% of the income taxes that are collected, while the bottom 50% of earners pay less than 3% of the income taxes collected. Clearly if Obama is going to give a "huge" tax cut to 95% of America, then a good chunk of those people will have to receive some kind of a subsidy because as it sits now, they don't even pay income taxes.

So yes, this IS a bad thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The single fact of being pro-secular is not a good in itself, if it is married to a virulent anti-individual rights philosophy, and blatant anti-Americanism, as is the case with Obama and all the rest of America's liberal establishment.
Of course. However, given the the court is now 5:4 in favor of the right, a GOP win can only help move that to a worse imbalance. The SCOTUS is best kept in balance between the two parties, because -- in essence -- it is like a super-senate.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course. However, given the the court is now 5:4 in favor of the right, a GOP win can only help move that to a worse imbalance. The SCOTUS is best kept in balance between the two parties, because -- in essence -- it is like a super-senate.

A 5:4 is as good as a 9:0, except that it's harder to tilt back the other way. I prefer conservatives who interpret the Constitution over any other comers, since they are the only ones who regard that document as objective law. The "living document" bozos from the Left (primarily) wish to bypass the inconvenient amendment process and go directly to what's "right" based on nothing more than their own ideology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course. However, given the the court is now 5:4 in favor of the right, a GOP win can only help move that to a worse imbalance. The SCOTUS is best kept in balance between the two parties, because -- in essence -- it is like a super-senate.

Outside of abortion, are there any major issues where a liberal court is preferable to a conservative court?

Link to post
Share on other sites
A 5:4 is as good as a 9:0, except that it's harder to tilt back the other way. I prefer conservatives who interpret the Constitution over any other comers, since they are the only ones who regard that document as objective law. The "living document" bozos from the Left (primarily) wish to bypass the inconvenient amendment process and go directly to what's "right" based on nothing more than their own ideology.

I agree. Lets not forget the case of District of Columbia v. Heller from last June that struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional passed by 5:4 decision. The fact that 4 Supreme court Justices felt that one of the first and most basic constitutional right should not be upheld gives me shivers.

Edited by Rearden_Steel
Link to post
Share on other sites
A 5:4 is as good as a 9:0, ...
I don't think so. I think the more justices one any one side, the more willing they will be to set new precedents for their side.

The "living document" bozos from the Left (primarily) wish to bypass the inconvenient amendment process and go directly to what's "right" based on nothing more than their own ideology.
That is true; but, the Scalia's of the world are on the opposite extreme. One is presented with the choice between the subjectivists and the intrincists.

Outside of abortion, are there any major issues where a liberal court is preferable to a conservative court?
If we see a couple more Scalia's, we'll have a court that is significantly more sympathetic to religion, justices who agree that "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." it's tough to know what could be impacted. For instance, McCain is threatening to give a few billion $ out as rewards for "service". he's promising to route a good chunk via churches (he calls them "the private sector"). There could well be legal challenges, trying to ensure that such money comes with secular strings attached. However, a religious court, with a couple more nuts like Scalia, could ensure that such cases fail.

In addition, a GOP court will probably give weight to the doctrine of "states rights", at the expense of individual rights. They will use this doctrine to rationalize in areas where they want to allow states to go against the Federal government. At best, this is a double-edged sword. At worst, it is dangerous. I think Qwertz has posted about this in an old thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think so. I think the more justices one any one side, the more willing they will be to set new precedents for their side.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Did you mean that justices would be less willing to hear a case that was set by 9:0 than one that was set by 5:4?

I'll buy later willingness to revisit a settled case as a difference between a 5:4 and 9:0 split. But a precedent is not a precedent until the next time it comes up. If 5 justices feel that a decision covering previously uncovered ground should be given, I find it impossible to believe they would reconsider when they found out that "only" 5 of them felt the same way. For one thing, they are not supposed to decide one way or the other until after they have heard all of the evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...