Cut, or Redistribute?

Government spending. This was the issue preoccupying the minds of our two presidential candidates in a debate on foreign policy. However government spending is in fact a big deal, and a key election issue for both major parties.

Why is government spending such a big issue? The main reason, is that government spending is funded by your taxes, and John Mc.Cain would like to cut them, while Obama would like to raise them. I on the other hand would like to take specific spending, i.e pork barrel spending, and redistribute it to stray away from the special interests, and put them into say public works, or part of the bail out. However by tying these up in pork barrel spending we take away from the tax money going to help the people.

So why should we not cut spending though? It seems like a good idea, lower taxes, more money for you right? Wrong. You see in America, there are literally millions of tax free jobs. These are jobs that are part of the government, part of the bureaucracy. Teachers, postmen, and any federal or state employee is paid through government spending. So to cut government spending in our faltering economy means unemployment, and therefore less liquidity in the market.

Obama would like to expand spending, however as McCain made clear Obama has historically supported pork barrel spending. Thus said, we wonder what Obama will increase spending for. He says, provide health care, and lower taxes for the middle class. Do that, however rather than tax anew, take what's already being spent, and shift funds over.

I am neither for the cutting of all spending, nor the increase of spending. However, the redistribution of spending, may perhaps be a safer long term solution when considering the faltering state of our economy.

Obama, McCain, and Bush... Different methods for the same product.

I'm not the biggest fan of Obama, even if I do prefer him to Mc.Cain. Although I don't believe in many of his positions, and ideas, I did watch the Democratic National Convention (DNC).

I will say this much for Obama, like Reagan, like Bill Clinton, like Nixon, he is an excellent orator. (Scratch the Nixon.) But what did he actually say in his acceptance speech is what I'd really like to know?

First off he said he wanted change, that he desired social change, that he wants education reform, and healthcare reform. However he did not mention his plans for each item, and when looking at them you will see that the plans he does have are inadequate. He also said that he plans on pulling out of Iraq, and that Iraq is bad. However later in the speech he contradicts that very notion, and I’ll explain that a little later on. Finally he said that McCain is another George Bush, but in reality later in his speech he himself describes the desires of the Bush administration. You may say how, but for the moment, I want you to ask yourself what has he actually said thus far, that Republicans are bad and that he is different.

I'm now going to turn the writing for a bit over to Obama's speech writers, as this is the section where he truly expresses a desire and the knowledge that not only is America an Empire, but that his Administration will keep it that way. Note this is both the goal of McCain and George Bush; it appears it is now the goal of Obama as well. Are they any different now?

"You know, this country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit, that American promise, that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night and a promise that you make to yours, a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west, a promise that led workers to picket lines and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that, 45 years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustrations of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead -- people of every creed and color, from every walk of life -- is that, in America, our destiny is inextricably linked, that together our dreams can be one.

"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."

America, we cannot turn back..." (Barack Obama accepting the Democratic Nomination)

Many people see that excerpt and think, what a great country we live in, I view it as an admission that we have built an American empire which strives to capture, not only the economic capital, but also the human capital from around the developing world. This excerpt is not only an admission that American empire is a good thing, but that it is right to exist. Many people here will view the "we cannot turn back," line as a landmark for civil rights. However it is really an exclamation that under an Obama administration the U.S will maintain its hegemony, and will remain the empire it is currently. Obama is hypocritical here, as it's finally coming out that the change the Obama campaign wishes you to believe in, is really the preservation of empire.

People often ask of me; how can you think Obama and McCain are the same, that Democrats and Republicans are equal. It's a very simple answer. Both The Democrats and Republicans end goal is to preserve American hegemony, and in doing so assert ourselves as the worlds only superpower. Even George Bush wished to do this, even if through what we may now call preemptive war. (Kissinger would be proud)

The fact that McCain leads to four more years of George Bush is a fallacy, because in terms of preserving hegemony and the "Pax Americana" society we live in, Obama, and McCain are both the equivalent of George Bush.

Obama Is not all he's been cracked up to be.

Barack Obama is a candidate for change. Perhaps this is why I have a problem with Barack Obama. Not only has he become the candidate for "change," but in the past he's chosen to shy away from change. Looking at his voting record,(small as it is,) you will find that he often voted "present" essentially abstaining from the vote on controversial issues. This record of voting "present" is even more apparent when he was during his glorious tenure in the state of Illinois state congress.

The word change... What do we associate with change? Generally I feel many people view change as a negative thing. However when presented in the right light, (which Obama's done very well) it can be become positive; this was also done, by a man many "liberals" hate. That man was Ronald Reagan. We can view Reagan and Obama's campaign tactics as nearly identical as they both are positive go get'em attitudes. However Reagan was more specific for the change he desired. The interest rate was at 21% when he took office and the feeling was that America's days of empire were over. Reagan said they were not.

How is Obama's quest for change any different I ask of you? How many times in the DNC have you heard of America's world image, NEEDING TO BE RESTORED? Apparently it does, because all of a sudden we care what other countries think of us. We didn't ten years ago. Obama's promise of change is really a promise to continue on the path of an ever greater imperialist America.

As for Biden, I ask of you to view his voting record on appropriations. You will notice that here he is not so "liberal," that he has continually voted with the Bush administration i the Iraq war, and furthermore is for ANWAR Drilling. His record further shows that for someone who is a "Humanitarian" he has repeatedly supported military action over aid. He in fact called Saddam Hussein a threat before the Bush Administration. As head of the foreign relations committee that's just what I'd want, a war-monger.

If all the above doesn't convince you that Obama, Biden, (hey alliteration!) are not the perfect candidates, than I would like to throw out there also that Biden is a known Plagiarist, and has even been caught lying on his resume. People wonder why this matters. I say it does, because if a man is cutthroat in his personal relations, than what is to keep his love of lying, cheating, and winning at all costs, inside the country once in power? These very qualities, are also backed up in Biden's war voting record, where he's consistently voted for the war, and he's always voted for U.S "intervention" in foreign affairs. Biden is just what we need, an ardent supporter of Real Politik, in his own life, and in foreign relations.

Realists of the world rejoice! Idealists, sadly now is the time to worry most. Will we ever resort to soft power in foreign affairs in lieu of military action? Obama and Biden seem to think not. In fact none of the candidates do. Note that I am not a McCain supporter. However I refuse to believe that Obama is all he's cracked up to be.

Both McCain and Obama have some decent Ideas, however neither truly defines change in the sense they wish to convey it. To me it seems, that were just doing more of the same old “stuff”, presented in a different light. In one way or another, we will either continue Reaganist internal policy, or go back to a quasi version of Johnson's great society. The question is not whether we want change or not, but rather which do you prefer? My fear is not that Americans will vote for one or the other. But rather that they will remain unaware of what they are voting for.