How could a president love a country that he wants to fundamentally change?

[The MobFather]

He never has and never will.

He has nothing but contempt for this nation and the principals it was founded upon.

You are 100% correct, it was capitalism and liberty that made this country strong.

But Obama, and liberals in general, view a system in which the "pursuit" of happiness is not as worthy as a system that Guarantees the acquisition of happiness.

It's not enough to be free. Liberty takes responsibility, and sadly some choose to hand that over to higher powers.

Now, the country founded on equal opportunity has become the country that "tries" to insure equal results. That cannot be achieved without sacrificing liberty, plain and simple.

[iris054]

Ike taxed the wealthy at 90%.
Reagan taxed them at 50%.
Obama taxes them at 35%.

After the New Deal and the war, the Democrat-dominated 50s, 60s, and 70s were the most prosperous time for the middle class in our history. We had strong unions, no deficit to speak of, strong upward mobility, low unemployment, and very high taxes on the wealthy. Ike created thousands of new jobs building our National Highway System with *cash*. We had trade policies that stopped our jobs from going overseas. Wages were high enough men could support their families and get ahead while wives stayed home with the kids. We had high taxes on the rich and low unemployment with plenty of good jobs. We had Social Security, Medicare, food stamps and welfare. We had paid down our WWII debt. We had strong infrastructure.

Now look at us now after Republicans have controlled the White House for 20 of the last 30 years.

See the difference? If Democrats were bad for the economy, the 50s, 60s and 70s would have been times of very high unemployment. But they weren't. High unemployment and a crashed economy is what we’re seeing now with the Republican plan of low taxes for the rich, and low regulation on business.

Americans want to see higher wealth taxes
http://story.birminghamstar.com/index.ph...lth-taxes/

Poll: Most Americans say tax the rich to balance the budget
http://www.examiner.com/populist-in-nati...the-budget

It’s the Inequality, Stupid
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/...hart-graph

The Top Ten Percent Income Share, 1917-2008 (note The Great Depression versus now)
http://rs.resalliance.org/2010/09/22/ine...-politics/

Among developed countries, the United States currently accepts the highest level of income inequality. (It's important to know that no other advanced economy has seen a comparable surge in inequality.)
http://csis.org/blog/us-tolerance-income-inequality
See also: http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slidesho...y/2266213/

Lower and Middle Class Does Better Under Democratic Presidents than Republican Presidents
http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266030
See also: http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slidesho...y/2266218/

Why the rich should pay more taxes
http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm

##

[Jeff]

I am no fan of Obama and really hope he loses this November.......but I can see how someone could love a country and want to change it at the same time.

The citizens of the old Soviet Union for instance........just because many of them wanted to end the communist rule and change things to a market economy with democratically elected leaders doesn't mean they hated their country.

fwiw

[Ken]

Well, you're right, it was the greatest country in the world. But it's wrong to think that's the sole result of capitalism. And right now, capitalism is an excuse for unrestrained greed. It is the role of government, the voice of the people, to restrain greed while encouraging the economy, through regulated capitalism, to grow. Both are needed.

Many of the things that made us powerful and respected came from the government: atomic weapons, advanced aircraft, the space program, the polio vaccine (tons of other medical advances), radio and radar and television (the last developed by commercial interests but refined in government labs).

Both are needed.

[honestamerican]

Noticed you skipped over pertinent facts!

Fact Union workers built the "arsenal of democracy" that won WW2!
Fact it was a democrat president(FDR) presided over the founding of the prosperity you talk about!
Fact Republicans sold out many of the American companies that built the "arsenal of democracy" by throwing open our domestic markets for foreign companies to flood then with cheap products!

[Smite Monkey]

The very recent runaway corporatization is bringing the whole thing down. The political system is built on checking government power. There is little done about corporate power. If you refuse to see it so be it...

[Sfancik]

Well, I think my opinion is based on some other facts, facts that aren't quite the same as the facts you "state". I think the United States began to be viewed as "super power" in the late 19th century after the Union military buildup during the Civil War and really didn't become a dominant world power until the mid 20th century. I also believe that there are several "nations" throughout history that have accomplished geographically larger empires and longer periods of being the major influence in the world than the United States has, and I believe our greatest prosperity and international economic and military influence actually occurred when our capitalism was regulated, our unions were strong and our tax structure benefited a greater percentage of the population, ie; mid 20th Century.

So...given all those "facts" I think it's easy to see why people would vote for Obama, because the last 30 years has taught us that capitalism requires a degree of regulation and absent some control over capitalistic interest by the citizens (the people) who vote for the "government" and who's voice is only heard by and through that government, we're left with a nation striving for corporate profit at the expense of the safety and prosperity of majority of the people who live there...(here).

How can people not vote for Obama when the alternative is the relegation of representative national government to the beneath the interests of international corporatism?

[Optimumsententia]

My guess is that people don't think about such things. When a political leader offers you free healthcare, and government aid, you would most likely vote for him if you don't earn enough money to get by. The method of doing it on your own is less appealing, and does not seem like the logical option it would seem.

You are right in your reference to history, it is just less common that people would consider it that way.