Well, my first issue with Obama's speech was that my wife was watching it while I was trying to go to sleep. So, he gets negatives right there.
Moving on.
I am reading the text now and will comment as I go:
It is that promise that has always set this country apart - that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.
I like this, but he has always been more on this do for each other (through government) than on the individual responsibility creates a stronger union thing. This does not sound like him.
Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach.
These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.
And there it is. I see him basically saying, the hardship is partly your fault, not government's (after all government can do no wrong, just not enough right?), but it is government's responsibility to fix it.
BULL. This shows a lack of economic and Constitutional understanding on his part (or pandering). First, if the government hadn't gotten involved in wanting everyone to own a house the housing bubble wouldn't have happened (both parties pushed for that, by the way) and then the credit crisis wouldn't have followed quickly behind it.
Having government bail anyone out of this situation is unconstitutional, as it is a market problem and the best way to support individuals who need help would be through private voluntary charities, not forced government welfare programs.
For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.
Considering this comes after two paragraphs accusing McCain of not getting it I find it funny, because he shows that he does not understand the economic theory he is attempting to make fun of.
Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.
I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.
I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.
You know, I could swear the Constitution makes a comment about taxes being even across the board.....
But why should he pay attention to that. No one else has.
And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.
Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.
As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.
So, he is going to throw $150 billion at every renewable energy technology and upgrade to current tech and hope one of them pays out after they get a small chunk of change?
1) The free market would be better at deciding that.
2) Ten years is a laughable goal. Between Democrats not wanting local drilling and everyone in America using oil like we do we will not be able to be independent of Middle East oil in such a short timeframe. It would take a combined effort of beginning drilling as much as possible right now and about half the population switching to a new tech. Since we don't have a new tech yet that switch over is still probably more than ten years off. Heck, we can't get people to buy a better type of TV at that rate, much less something that will cost thousands of dollars extra early on and has to be trusted to get you to and from work on a daily basis.
Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.
Last I checked education is a state issue. But nice talk.
Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.
Wait, what is the plan again? It seems to me that every time government screws with health care it gets more expensive.
Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.
What part of
private business does he not get?
And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.
I have yet to run across this issue personally. If there are equality issues somewhere then it means that current laws aren't enforced.
Of course, other factors may play a roll in this as well. As a manager I see some of them.
And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.
Hey, individual responsibility. Now, if he would quit trying to make it government enforced.
But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism.
So, does this mean he will get his speech writers to word Michelle's statements better? Cause a lot of the patriotism issues I heard came from their statements, not their policies.
No, I only use his policies to question his understanding of economics and the Constitution.
I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.
I will say that I don't think he is using these things as a Trojan horse to hide some evils scheme. No, I believe he has good intentions. Most bad policy comes from good intentions.
OK, so that is my last point.
In all it was a good speech. He was charismatic, and he has the ability to make people want to do something. Honestly, if I didn't understand the economy and the Constitution better then I would immediately want to jump by his side and support his ideas. But I do understand.
His ideas are either not plausible, not in line with the Constitution, and/or are things that the federal government has no place in dealing with.
He talks about change, but so do I. My problem is that when I talk about change and getting back to what we once had, I do not talk about getting back to eight years ago. That system was broken too. When I say I want change and to get back to what we once had I am looking back more at the government of nearly 100 years ago. You know, when it didn't mess with things, money represented something tangible not pieces of paper, and the education system worked, despite not being mandatory.
Obama's change is not change that we need.
I have thought this all along and his speech only reinforces that idea.
Just as I gave Obama a chance I will give McCain a chance, but I see him as no better.
