Obama has the right approach to fatherhood

Reasons to agree:

1. “How many times in the last year has this city lost a child at the hands of another child? How many times have our hearts stopped in the middle of the night with the sound of a gunshot or a siren? How many teenagers have we seen hanging around on street corners when they should be sitting in a classroom? How many are sitting in prison when they should be working, or at least looking for a job? How many in this generation are we willing to lose to poverty or violence or addiction? How many?” “Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools. Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities.” “But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child--it’s the courage to raise one.” Barack Obama, Chicago church speech, in Change We Can Believe In, p.235 Jun 15, 2008. I'm not saying this makes Obama a better dad than Bush, or Clinton. I'm just making a comprehensive list of all the good and bad things about Obama, and I think he is a pretty good dad. We haven't gotten so bad that we don't care about this sort of thing, or elect people who are very bad to their kids.

Politicians should make fewer decisions

Reasons to agree:

1. We should not let baby-kissers make important decisions.
2. We should not let people who are willing summerize their ideas for American's future in a 30 second campaign commersial.
3. We should not give power to the type of person who wants power. No politicians are appointed. They all self-choose. This is stupid. You don't advance in the military because you want to. You advance if you imprese those above you. The same with business. Politicians should be appointed.
4. People have problems who want to control other people's lives. Politicians should get a dog, plant a garden, or have kids, and try their little experiments on a scale that will only hurt them when they make mistakes. 

Obama is wrong when he says: "We have to fight for all those young men standing on street corners with little hope for the future besides ending up in jail

Reasons to disagree:

1. We should reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. Fighting for people who do nothing but "stand around on street corner" is rewarding bad behavior. Obama didn't stand around on street corners. It sounds cruel, but kids need to see that people who make bad decisions fail. That prevents more bad decisions. But it all depends on what you mean by "fight for". We should, of course, be smart. If we can fight for them in a way that does not reward bad behavior, but gives them different options, that is ok, but that is the problem with generic stupid language, like "fight for". A lot of parents fight for their kids, and cause damage... sometimes it is better to let the kids fight for themselves... but this language is stupid...
   


2. Usually compassion is not a limitless resource. When you have compassion on criminals, to some degree, you are less able to provide compassion to law abiding citizens. You will have less money, time, and other resources for other priorities. 

We should reward good behavior and punish bad behavior

Reasons to agree:

1. People, like dogs, seek rewards, and avoid punishments.


2. The Parable of the Talents tells us that law of the harvest.


3. We can all agree on some very basic definitions of good and bad.


4. Even if we make some mistakes, and accidently call some good things bad, the effort in the long run, will result in more good being done than bad.


5. It may seem cruel to "reward" those who are smart, but it is cruel to those in the future, if we create an un-just society, or a backwards society. Our challenges that we face in the future will need smart people. We have to reward those who seek education.


6. We should reward behavior people that help the environment.

Reasons to disagree:

1. If I don't like what you call "good" and "bad" then you might end up, then I might think you are rewarding bad behavior and punishing good behavior.


2. It is hard to judge "bad" behavior. For instance, if you get bad grades, is it because you are lazy (bad), or disadvantages.

Obama is right to provide tax incentives for corporate responsibility

 

Reasons to agree:

1. We should reward good behavior and punish bad behavior


2. If you are going to have sin taxes, you should also have virtue tax credits.


3. If a behavior helps America as a whole, it isn't wasting money giving tax incentives; it might actually bring in more money.

Reasons to disagree:

1. The government shouldn't determine what is "good" business behavior and "bad business behavior.


2. Some businesses could win more jobs if they had 30% of their employees in India... for instance, if they keep losing jobs to South Korean firms, because employment costs are too high, maybe it would help them keep at least some of the work coming into the states, instead of going to companies that are 100% foreign. These should be business, not political decisions. 

Background: Obama’s “REAL USA” Corporations Plan (Responsible, Accountable, Loyal USA Corporations) will reward companies that create quality jobs in America with tax incentives. Companies will be required to:

1. locate in the United States 90% of its production and employment for the sales of goods and services that are consumed here;


2. invest at least 50% of its R&D budget here in the U.S;


3. make sure their workers have access to affordable health care by providing a standardized and portable health insurance plan and pay at least 70% of the cost;


4. make sure their workers have retirement security by contributing at least 5% of payroll to a portable, multi-employer pension fund and operating a profit-sharing plan for all full time employees; and


5. limit management compensation to 50 times the lowest-paid full-time worker.


6. Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com Jun 25, 2004

Obama is right to stand against "the excess influence of agribusiness lobbying"

 

Reasons to agree with Obama:

1. Big farms located far away are bad.


2. People should be allowed to have goats, and chickens in the suberbs.


3. 
   People should grow food not grass. It is a waste of time to plant grass, put fertilizers, pesticides, and weed killer, down, and every week mow a lawn while burning gas in a 2 cylinder engine that spits out carbon dioxide, when you could spend 1/2 the time growing a better looking yard that actually gave you fruits, vegetable, and nuts for free. There should be more local farms, and less giant farms that all produce the same thing.
   
   

Reasons to disagree:

1. Words are cheap. You shouldn't get any credit until you take actions.