Your post does not respond to my concern. In high school debate jargon, there’s no clash. Stated another way, just because he will eliminate government programs that don’t work doesn’t mean that, when considering a societal problem, he actually considers whether a government program is the right way to solve the problem.
The fact that he clearly states his intention to eliminate government programs that aren’t needed doesn’t tell you anything about his reluctance to implement government programs that aren’t needed?
So you’re expecting that at the same time as he’s going through the list of government programs and eliminating the unnecessary ones, he’ll just reflexively create more unnecessary programs without even thinking about whether they’re necessary in the first place?
Doesn’t sound very likely to me. I mean, I’ve seen nothing to indicate that Obama doesn’t think, and ISTM that pulling off a trick like that would require positively Bushian levels of non-thinking.
After reading some of the Newsweek articles, I think his flaw is his coolness, which can veer into coldness. It’s the negative side of the positive ‘No Drama Obama’ Sometimes he can be too unemotional.
What exactly do you mean by “unnecessary” as bolded above? I contend that you mean something like “not effective to help the problem the program is designed to help.”
The fact that Obama will eliminate programs that are unnecessary (as that term is defined above) says nothing about how he thinks about societal problems and the best way to solve them. I contend that he automatically and reflexively thinks about how the government can help solve a societal problem before thinking about whether using the government at all is a good thing or not. This leads him to implement or expand government programs in a way that I deem unnecessary (in the sense that the government is doing something it is not necessary for the government to do). If he implements a new program or expands an existing one, then he could later cut it as unnecessary (under your definition) because the program turned out not to be effective to solve the problem, but this doesn’t change the fact that he thinks the government is the proper vehicle to solve lots of societal problems.
What Obama said in your quote was that he would eliminate those programs that aren’t working or are not needed because they are duplicating what is being done in other programs. That is not the same as evaluating whether or not the government ought to be involved in solving a particular problem in the first place. And it doesn’t imply that he won’t find new problems for the government to solve.
I understand your gut-level concern, given that you come from a perspective that is generally opposed to modern-day Liberal politics. It’s easy to hear or read things through our own biased lens. I admit to occasionally being as guilty of that as the next person.
Given that, I would implore you to re-read that quote, trying not to do so with pre-conceived notions.
Some government programs simply do not work as was hoped when they were implemented. Those are the programs that Barack Obama says he will not defend “just because [they’re] there.”
There are other programs that are being duplicated, and which also need to be eliminated.
These are not the same programs as mentioned first. Your interpretation is flawed when you combine these goals as the same.
He’s referring to the programs that have overlap, where parts of them are duplicating other efforts already being funded through other programs, and parts of them are defensible because they stand on their own. He gets that every program can’t, or shouldn’t, be slashed and burned in their entirety, but also recognizes that tough choices will have to be made by both sides. I think this is sensible.
This seems pretty straight forward to me. It also coincides with his repeated calls for parents to step up, turn off televisions, read to their kids; fathers to be present in their children’s lives; and communities to organize together to improve their own lives through activism and participation.
When more people get involved at the community level, government needs to step in even less because people are taking care of each other more. That’s why he put a tool on his campaign website for people to organize within their communities.
I would like to encourage you to sign up at barackobama.com, create a profile and get to know some of the good folks over there, and connect to those in your own neighborhood. There are local groups in every corner of this country. Won’t you join us and give it a try? What’s the worst that can happen?
You’re half right, or in other words, wrong. He did give an example of a program that was unnecessary because its results were duplicated elsewhere (the EDA funding). But he ALSO gave an example of a program that was just plain not working (the children’s literacy thing).
And he stated quite clearly that both kinds of failed programs would be ones that he would cut.
I realize that many conservatives (not necessarily you, Sarahfeena, but I’ve noticed this elsewhere) are heavily invested in thinking that Obama is a stereotypical liberal devotee of bureaucracy who doesn’t know how to solve any problem except by running to Nanny Government. But the fact is, he has explicitly disclaimed that identity, although some conservatives have become so hypnotized by their own “Obama-is-a-socialist” rhetoric that they don’t realize it.
Now of course, he might not be telling the truth. We’ll have to see how he actually governs. But at this point, trying to portray him as a government-bloating bureaucrat requires you to ignore or deny his own explicitly stated positions.
I am totally confused as to what you are reading my post to mean. I never said that both points were referring to the same programs. I said:
See the word “or” in there? My point was that neither or those things addresses the concern that he is not going to evaluate the necessity of the government solving those problems. I appreciate that he recognizes that some programs duplicate efforts, and that this is inefficient. That doesn’t mean that he’s going to look at these duplicate efforts and say, do we need either one of these programs addressing this problem?
I’m not sure what you are asking me to do. If you suggesting that I use barackobama.com to figure out how to volunteer in my neighborhood, thank you, but I already do so through my church.
prr, we really do not need to take the feuds over the quality of Obama’s presidency to the personal level, just yet. (I’d like to say never but then someone will note that they want a pony.)
OTOH, R R, this does not quite rise to the level of direct personal attack or insult.
= = =
EVERYONE: let’s be a bit less hostile to other posters and read with a bit thicker skin.
[ /Modding ]
You are half missing my point, or in other words, completely missing it. My point applies to BOTH his intention to cut programs that aren’t working AND programs that are being duplicated elsewhere. In none of that is there an evaluation of whether the problem ought to be solved through government involvement. “Not working” doesn’t necessarily mean “Government trying to solve this isn’t working,” it may very well mean “this program isn’t working, let’s see if we can figure out what kind of program WILL work.” Nothing in that quote gives me confidence that he means the former and not the latter.
As a fiscal conservative, I had some concerns about Obama. But now that the republican administration is implementing a $700 billion bailout package for financial institutions, it seems that throwing that socialist label on democrats is a bit hypocritical.
Perhaps you can’t glean that from that particular snippet, but Barack Obama does, in fact, espouse that philosophy.
You can read Barack Obama’s spending plan in its entirety, here. One part reads:
Will he be able to accomplish all of that? I doubt it, but I hope so. At least he plans to do exactly what you’d like to see of him.
I’m pointing out that that particular tool, provided by the Obama campaign, is actual, real-world evidence of one of the ways he intends to tackle your (apparent) primary concern (at least the one you’ve brought up here).
I’m also asking you to come join our community and get to know some of us in your own neighborhood. I’m “reaching across the aisle” as it were. 
How is raising taxes (on anyone, but in Mr. Obama’s case, on corporations and the wealthy) going to “create wealth in the first place”?
I have read his spending plan, and it all sounds great. The question is whether it is to be believed. There’s no point, really, in continuing to argue this point. He’s going to be the President, and we will all see what the results turn out to be.
I’m pretty much the only one of “my kind” IN my neighborhood. Every time I do any volunteering, anywhere, I’m reaching across the aisle! I never needed Barack Obama to show me how to do that.
Thanks. That’s what I was trying to say.
You’re welcome…but you said it just fine. 
Sarahfeena and Rand Rover, besides national security, are the any functions that you believe should be performed by the federal government? Because I have a suspicion that no president, certainly no Democratic president, is ever going to cut enough programs to starve the beast enough to satisfy folks whose beliefs are like yours. Any program I name, I’m guessing you’ll say should be handled on a state or local level, with the possible exception of the FBI (but that could come under the heading of national security).
Of course, you’ll also vote to reduce taxes in state and local elections, then be shocked, shocked! when your dams and highways crumble, and blame it on the welfare state. You see, John McCain notwithstanding, they’re Federal Highways and Interstate Dams in many cases, and some “pork-barrel” projects really do make a lot of sense.
If you actually look at what Barack Obama has said, you’ll find there are a number of programs he has said he would cut or even eliminate, and he has stated up front what new programs he intends to institute. You can look at his website, or you can ask Shayna, who has the most exhaustive knowledge of what the man’s actual positions of any of us. Alternatively, you can continue to assume that he is a Democrat and therefore out to destroy you and your Republican way of life. We Democrats like to have you in our country, and we don’t want to shut you out the way we were shut out of George W. Bush’s America. We think we’re all the real Americans.
As for the OP, I am concerned that Obama, like Bill Clinton, will over-compromise, but I understand the need for that better than I did in the early nineties. Mind, I don’t like it any more, but I understand it better. My other concern is that he will either get so wrapped up in policy that he will lose some other thread of control (highly unlikely), or that the man will work himself to death. He’s a remarkable man, but people have limits. I’m just not seeing how he can do it all, and I don’t see anyone to whom he can delegate enough; he’s both too much of a policy wonk and too good a diplomat/facilitator.
In an effort not to repeat myself, I’ll invite you to read this previous post on the subject, as well as this historic 1910 speech by Teddy Roosevelt. I strongly recommend reading it in its entirety, to get the full tone and feel. But here are a couple of snippets to incite you. . .
Oh well, I tried.
Obama is not the horror that Rover and Shodan bleated about, He actually is republican lite. He seems to be behind the bailout which is just a huge going away present for the financial looters. He shows little interest in getting us out of Iraq and even wants a bigger army for Afghanistan.
A moderate change in income tax has them foaming at the mouth. Apparently they think Bush did a bang up job with the economy and we should continue his successful methodology.
He talks aggressively toward Iran. That bodes an ugly future. He has not discussed the financing of the pile of wars we enjoy so much. The Shrub just put it on a credit card.
Tried what? To get me to do something I already do?