[Alex]

Originally Posted by revstriker

Yes, I do. He talks about "income equality" which really means income redistribution.

Maybe to you. But it relies on a whole bunch of assumptions to get there that most wouldn't agree with. We can go through them if necessary, but I think we both know where it ends up. For one thing, talking about the problems of extreme income inequality caused in part by bad tax policy is not the same as arguing for income equality. Opportunity doesn't equal result. But pointing to income equality as the goal and knocking it down as a straw-man argument can be entertaining, I guess.

Originally Posted by revstriker

He wants to keep corporate taxes high, and wants to increase their cost for things like healthcare. So again, yes, he wants to take some of their profits.

The corporate tax argument is empty. We both know this. The costs of healthcare to both individuals and the corporations who pay for such a large portion of it are rising at unsustainable rates. Putting aside all of bluster and fear of "Obamacare", the small steps taken over the years to reform medicare, attempt to rein in costs, gain efficiencies through technology, process, etc.; haven't done anything significant to affect these continually rising costs. Projections such as these show healthcare costing 100% of the GDP within some of our lifetimes. It's not sustainable. It's not a matter of raising costs on businesses, or moving the costs around from businesses to individuals or back again. It's figuring out how it works for everybody going forward.

Originally Posted by revstriker

As for his views of the military, again, yes. He wrote about this in "Dreams from my Father" when he criticized what he called "the powerful" for it's "dull complacency" and how "sophisticated military hardware" is often used as an "unthinking application". As a candidate he also ran on a platform of cutting spending on missile defense systems, and that he would slow down the development of future combat systems. So yes, I believe that deep down, Obama sees a strong US military as a weakness.

That's another huge stretch. Your prerogative to believe whatever you want, but it isn't based on anything tangible. From ramping up the drone programs, to supporting the latest electronic warfare capabilities, to greatly increasing programs and support for military families, to strengthening military bases in key areas of the world, it's terribly hard to paint Obama as a peace-loving leader who doesn't understand the military realities. Heck, there's any number of sites like this one that list all of the things he's done to spend too much or act too rashly on military endeavors.

Originally Posted by revstriker

As for US interests, and example of Obama putting the interests of others above the US is his support of European Union's Common Security and Defense Policy which is by design to replace a lot of the functions (and all of the functions) of NATO.

It doesn't have to be NATO vs. CSDP. It's a matter of neither one of them working in Europe right now, and finding a way to fix that. According to Gates in his last speech in Europe a few months ago, on the topic of the future of NATO (link to transcript), the point is clear that America might not be interested in picking up such a huge part of the tab for European defense. He says it better than I can paraphrase:

Originally Posted by Robert Gates

President Obama and I believe that despite the budget pressures, it would be a grave mistake for the U.S. to withdraw from its global responsibilities. And in Singapore last week, I outlined the many areas where U.S. defense engagement and investment in Asia was slated to grow further in coming years, even as America’s traditional allies in that region rightfully take on the role of full partners in their own defense.

With respect to Europe, for the better part of six decades there has been relatively little doubt or debate in the United States about the value and necessity of the transatlantic alliance. The benefits of a Europe whole, prosperous and free after being twice devastated by wars requiring American intervention was self evident. Thus, for most of the Cold War U.S. governments could justify defense investments and costly forward bases that made up roughly 50 percent of all NATO military spending. But some two decades after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. share of NATO defense spending has now risen to more than 75 percent – at a time when politically painful budget and benefit cuts are being considered at home.

The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.

That's not putting Europe or any of its individual countries over America, it's instead the inverse; America shouldn't be paying the bill for countries who are more than capable of shouldering a larger portion of their own burden.