A letter to Mr. Obama

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mr. Hamtastic, Nov 18, 2008.

  1. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    Dear Mr. Obama,

    I sent out a warning recently to a number of agencies describing the situations which would push me towards violent insurgency. Such things should be

    followed up by more temperate remarks, I believe, thus I send this to you.

    I am not against you, Mr. Obama. I believe that you will act in what you consider to be the best interests of this country. However, during this first

    term, you must provide evidence of results, for both your constituents, the populace, and your party, which has been so helpful a tool in bringing you to

    power.

    That is the problem, however. The man who bucks his political party's ideals ceases to be a man of that political party. You claim to be for change, Mr.

    Obama, but from what to what?

    I know the answer, whether or not you do is unknown to me, therefore I shall enlighten you. This past election, the populace of the United States was

    offered a choice. A choice between bigger government with a civic mind and a weak foreign policy, and bigger government with less services to the populace

    and a strong foreign policy. Obviously the civic mind won. The problem, however, was that the men were almost inconsequential. Your race made race a non-

    issue. McCain didn't go stumping in Harlem, did he? No. Experience was not a major issue either. Career politician against junior congressman. It should

    have been a cakewalk. You are the black JFK. The youth fawn over you. Had it been McCain vs Obama, the vote may have stood further apart. It wasn't

    McCain vs Obama, though. It was red vs blue, republican vs democrat.

    I know you want to introduce the US to socialism, and I stand to benefit from it. I have a large family, and we are poor, so the various plans to make

    things "free" does nothing but help me. Redistribution of wealth? Works in my favor completely. Like I said before, however, I am unwilling to sacrifice

    my children's freedom for a bit of convenience. The bigger the government, the smaller the freedoms. If everyone is enslaved, then we have true equality.

    Of course enslavement is not your goal, nor the stated goal of those who control you. Those who control you only want power, at whatever cost. Let me

    suggest some useful change, now, Mr. Obama. Change we desperately need.

    Change one would be to eliminate the electoral college. Let one vote be valued at one vote.

    Change two would be to free us from the tyranny of this two major party system. Political groups should be allowed their say, but should not be able to

    represent themselves with anyone. Let me vote for the person most worthy, and if the vote comes down to two highest percentages, let those be President and

    Vice-President. This would increase unity.

    Change three would be to deregulate many "federal" issues, and make them the problem of state government. From gay marriage to abortion to gun control,

    these should be issues of states not nations. The federal government should run the programs that exceed the states' capacity. Defense, Foreign Policy,

    Space program, Social Security. Make statehood mean something.

    In closing, I caution you strongly that there are also further forces out there that want to bring the US to it's knees. Assassination of you would do this,

    as would violent overthrow of the government from some source. I can only imagine at the things people who sought our demise as a nation would come up with

    to destabilize our country. You are now a trigger, Mr. Obama. Stay alive, for our sakes.

    Sincerely,

    *******

    Yes. I already sent it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2008
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Ham you really need to think before you post stuff like that, note the edit
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    It was nice knowing you.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    What? What's wrong with it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Besides, I sent it to Obama already.
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I'm sure he appreciates the Republican talking points (socialist?).
     
  9. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    I didn't even read it. I'm sure the same can be said of Barak Obama and his inner-circle.

    ~String
     
  10. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Mr. Hamtastic before you complain to him about what his enemies say he wants to do, you might try finding out what he says he wants to do.

    I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
     
  11. EntropyAlwaysWins TANSTAAFL. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    I think It's a heartfelt letter that expresses Ham's feelings on the issues quite succinctly and eloquently, even if it's very unlikely that it's intended recipient will actually read it.
     
  12. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Haters will never actually go to the source. What they'll do, as Ham has clearly done here, is listen only to what detractors say. His opinion of Obama, as was the case with millions of Americans this election year, was based completely and totally on the accusations and opinions of right-wing critics.

    This is what is wrong with America. You want to be informed, yet you won't get credible information.
     
  13. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    Nothing is wrong with it.
    I agree with some of it and disagree with some of it, but it was a well written letter which gets your points across succinctly and clearly.
    Well done.

    My comment was in response to this:
    If you are still around so far to read this so far, depending on hoe it was worded, this may be perceived as a veiled threat and treated as such.
     
  14. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Blue text below is inserted comments by Billy T
    I did not assert that I knew in advance what the people "controlling Obama" would compel him to do, but I did write to offer a suggestion for Obama's consideration as follows:

    Dear President elect Obama,

    Here is a "CHANGE," everyone would quickly notice with huge "bang for the buck," because it cost essentially nothing to implement and yet it can:

    (1) Greatly reduce the importation of hard drugs.
    (2) Bring US / RoW trade into balance or make small trade surplus in a few months.
    (3) Allow paying for public works / infrastructure project with newly printed dollars yet have essentially zero inflationary effect due to Gresham’s Law.
    (“Sterilization” by issuing new T-bills to soak up the new circulating dollars is not required and the associated interest cost is avoided.)
    (4) Boost jobs the US. (As American can no longer import on credit, they make the previously imported goods.)
    (5) Boosts, at least slightly, FDI as foreigners see more opportunities to make profits selling or financing these new item 4 domestic activities in the US. Also redeemed Treasury Bonds are spent in the USA.
    (6) Make Americans more adverse to debt, including government granting special interest tax benefits.
    (7) Show Obama is bold and creative in solving the US’s economic and other problems.

    DISCUSSION:

    Hundred dollar bills mainly facilitate the importation of drugs and illegal domestic activities, such as bribes.
    If all paper money were phased out then:
    (1) Either truck loads of coins would be needed to import a suit case or tire stuffed with heroin; Or
    (2) There would be an electronic trail to aid the police.

    However, this is probably too radical for now so why not at least change the words under the Federal Reserve seal to be:

    This note is legal tender for all debts public and private in the United States.

    And use red, instead of black, ink for these words and the Federal Reserve seal (or everything now printed with black ink to avoid and extra ink color). These new “red dollars” would not be allowed to legally leave the US and very quickly they would be the only ones commonly in circulation (Gresham’s Law) within the US. Some "green dollars" would continue to circulate out isde the US, especially in countries with unstable currencies / rapid inflations. The Chinese Yuan is already begining to replace the Dollar in Asia, but an Asian currency, backed by China, Japan and S. Korean is being developed now - in the planning negotiation stages. BTW, China has just passed Japan as the major owner of US Treasury bonds.

    The red color would help all understand that excessive debt and negative balance of trade are destroying the US. They would stop much of the “trickle down” to China and Dubai etc. GWB’s tax relief for the investing rich created as they would have essentially zero value to foreigners, except when visiting the USA. US imports would rapidly be reduced to the level of US exports as foreigners would not accept “red dollars” with no legal value in their country as they now accept US’s paper dollars – effectively lending to the US the current negative trade balance. This reduced importation would tend to increase domestic jobs in the USA.

    US treasury notes and bonds could of course be “rolled” into new ones but if cashed in, the redemption would be effected in “red dollars” which would cause buying of US products or investing in the US. I.e. the US would be forced, like it or not, to cease borrowing from foreigners to finance imports in excess of US exports and budget deficits. The US mint could print these new red dollars with little inflation effect as an old one would go out of circulation automatically (Gresham's Law). For example, pay the worker on a new infrastructure project with newly printed "red dollars" to put them into circulation with little inflationary effect.

    Unlike hard drugs, legal imports are rarely paid for by export of cash, but if for some reason payment cannot be done via electronic transfer, then the foreigner could go to an authorized bank in his country to collect old style “green dollars.” Banks, S&L etc. would be required to keep two accounts for each depositor. (The existing “green” and new “red dollar” accounts.) People would naturally pay with red dollar checks and credit cards before spending any of their green dollars. Thus the revenue to the merchants, including those that import would be predominately red dollars. To replenish their stocks, they would be forced to “buy American.”

    Sincerely,
    --------------, US citizen now retired in Brazil. São Paulo, 18 November 2008
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2008
  15. EntropyAlwaysWins TANSTAAFL. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    How exactly do you enforce this?
    US currency has its value because everyone agrees that it has value. How valuable it is depends on the demand for the currency and the quantity of it in circulation.

    Technically speaking, every currency is only legal tender within the borders of the country that issued (with the possible exception of the euro) but some currencies, e.g., the US$, are sometimes accepted outside of the US because its such a valuable and widely accepted currency that people have confidence in its value.

    Just because you say; "this is not legal tender outside the US", which would be superfluous anyway as mentioned above, does not necessarily result in anyone listening.

    Having said all that, I agree that in principle this is an excellent idea I merely think it will be extraordinarily difficult to enforce.
     
  16. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Screw that. The Founding Fathers were 100% AGAINST POLITICAL PARTYS.

    Open a History book Ham ... oh, and while you're there get over it, you have Obama as President - the American Citizens have voted Obama in as POTUS in a LAND SLIDE.
     
  17. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    The popular vote wasn't a landslide, Michael. It wasn't even an electoral landslide compared to some other elections in our history. Compared to our last four elections, I can see why you'd think that...but it really was close.
     
  18. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It was indeed an electoral landslide. Mandate, baby.
     
  19. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    Um. Did you read the whole letter? Or just stopped there? If you read on you'll notice that I agree with you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    Billy T-way to misrepresent what I said. Bravo.

    Point 1: Straight popular vote would mean every vote counted equally. Alaska should not be as important a stumping ground as California. Are we voting land mass or population, because Alaska should stomp most of the continental US in land mass or resources.

    Point 2: The Prez and VP being #1 and #2 votes might cause some strife, however having the vp as someone with different political leanings than the prez would be of value, and the portion of the population that lost the vote would feel represented better.

    point 3: states should be responsible for the trivialities such as abortion, legality of drugs/gambling/alcohol/prostitution, marriage as a legal contract or a purely religious one and some contract that shows legality of a couple's status.

    Of course, perhaps you only see me as a "red" thinker because I am not "blue" enough. Perhaps this biases you against me directly. How disappointing. I tend to think of myself as "purple".
     
  21. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    I have been curious about why they ended it.
    I coudl see how it may increase the threat of assassination...
    I don't see how it coudl cause disunity, however.
    The only real power the V.P. has is President of the Senate.
    If the President dies, the OTHER half of the people get what they want.
    It would seem that it would get the parties working together.

    Do you have any historical specifics about what caused the change?
     
  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    No, I do not know my history well enough to cite specifics. I would need to search and others are much better at that than I am.

    I think that the VP, especially back then in relative terms, got much more coverage as he was the leader of the opposition party. The opposition VP leader of his party would be running again soon hoping to make the current POTUS become the VP of his term. Each would (and probable did) as much as they could to cause the government to go badly while the other's party held the office of the POTUS. As most POTUS lose popularity from day one, if the VP is of the opposition party and Congress makes things go bad for the USA, then he is sure to be the next POTUS.

    SUMMARY:
    It was a self destructive unstable system. - Why it was quickly changed.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2008
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I only quoted you and added comments - that is not "misrepresentation." (That requires me to have claimed you said or implied things you did not.) Then following that quote of you, I added more comments, and assumed you were ignorant of the fact the No. 2 vote getter becoming VP, as you recommended, was the original system - a disaster quickly changed as "It was a self destructive unstable system."

    We are a "Union of States" - no one is suggesting "land mass" voting where Alaska would dominate. The fact the Senate exists was to preserve the rights of small states. The fact that federal funds must originate it the House of Representatives was to make it impossible for a majority of small state doing things like requiring all federally funded projects must spend equally in all the statres, etc.

    All in all, the founding fathers got it mainly correct, and even provided for mechanism of change. I think one of the first was to correct their mistake that the VP should be the No. 2 vote getter.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2008

Share This Page