Monday, February 18, 2008

Obama: No change at all, really

If Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama stands for anything, he stands for "change."  Up to now, that's the only policy plank he's promoted.

Change?  In what direction?  As Liberty Scott discovers in examining Obama's economics policies, it looks like a "change" towards even bigger government.

In other words, not much of a change at all.  No wonder America's Marxists are backing him, as Trevor Loudon has been tirelessly pointing out.

UPDATE:  An anonymous commenter gets it right:

His policies are "change" as in "small change," which is what will be left of taxpayers money after he has had his bite.

Labels: , , ,

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think his policies are "change" as in "small change" which is what will be left of taxpayers money after he has had his bite.

2/18/2008 12:01:00 pm  
Blogger Daisy said...

i have been watching the election primaries closely and found that obama says basically NOTHING...well until someone else calls him on that and then he just twists what their plan is and how he isn't going to do that...i can't believe people are so stupid as to follow him...but then again Oprah (who is as dumb as they come) is supporting him so everyone who loves her dramatics will vote for obama...why not put jerry springer up...or maury...good god i wish people would wake up!

2/19/2008 03:05:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First he's a fascist, then he's a communist? Hilarious.

At some point, you'd think the right wing would put away this "communist" slur. Does it really work on anyone with an IQ over room temperature? For all practical purposes, there is no socialist left in the US, at least not one that matters. Both major parties favor redistribution of wealth to one degree or another in order to soften the rough edges of capitalism, just as every major nation in the world does.

But the vast majority of wealth redistribution in this country goes not from the wealthy to the poor but from middle class taxpayers to wealthy corporations, and that is true of both parties. The amount of corporate welfare dwarfs the amount of social welfare in the Federal budget and the two parties, on this matter, differ only slightly in the ratio of one to the other.

Remember, it was Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress that pushed through the largest new entitlement program since the Great Society in the medicare prescription bill, most of which was really pure corporate welfare designed to funnel tax dollars to the pharmaceutical companies while stripping the government even of the ability to negotiate a better price as a result of the buying power the bill provided them. In America, "socialism" is encouraged by big business and is just one more means of transferring our tax dollars to their bank accounts.


From http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/02/no_wait_obama_is_a_communist.php

As if issues matter - the Clinton presidency was saved largely because Bill was a cool dude, Ken Starr was a geek, and Linda Tripp was two-faced and everybody hated her.

You know this -a dog whistle.

2/19/2008 01:37:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home