I see your point; you make a good argument. However, there are two problems with it.
First, you’re assuming that Obama really means what he’s saying; in light of the fact that he’s a politician, that’s a very bad idea. Look at his record; since that seems to be so very sparse, look at what he has said when he was not campaigning for office. That, I feel, will give the best indication of his true intentions.
Furthermore, you didn’t seem to give much consideration to the effects of these economic policies. Rolling back tax cuts for wealthier Americans, for example, not only reduces their incentive to work (they can’t keep as much of what they earn), but it makes them unable to pay as many people or to pay them as well. In other words, higher taxes on the wealthy have a negative impact on the entire economy. Also, the implications of these policies are profound: assuming Obama doesn’t so royally botch his Presidency that another Democrat will never be elected again (unlikely, I admit), the next Democrat President will expand upon these programs. You mentioned yourself that his ideas aren’t that far out of the Democrat mainstream, then listed national health care as one of these; would not another Democrat President, then, share his plan and expand the national health care system, possibly even making it mandatory?
It’s far better to nip these ideas in the bud rather than allowing them into full bloom. I hope I’m right in assuming that you would rather not see Obama elected; in that case, it may not be such a good idea to point out how common his ideas are. If you’re truly intent on keeping him out of the Oval Office, expound upon the flaws in his plans rather than praising them (even obliquely).
