Obama for President: Experienced Leader

  • News
  • Thread starter Pythagorean
  • Start date
In summary: You should care about the greater good, and try to do what's best for everyone. That's... not a very good attitude.
  • #246
If we start taxing the wealthy on just a bit more of of their income, SS can be solvent forever. I think that we all know this. There are politicians that want to resist this and claim that SS is in crisis, and clamor for "privitazation" instead of considering reasonable reforms. I hit the maximum contribution limit for years and years. It wouldn't have hurt me a bit to pay just a bit more, when I was making those wages.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #247
turbo said:
If we start taxing the wealthy on just a bit more of of their income, SS can be solvent forever. I think that we all know this. There are politicians that want to resist this and claim that SS is in crisis, and clamor for "privitazation" instead of considering reasonable reforms. I hit the maximum contribution limit for years and years. It wouldn't have hurt me a bit to pay just a bit more, when I was making those wages.

What makes you think the increased revenues won't be used elsewhere - again?
 
  • #248
WhoWee said:
My mistake - Social Security will be solvent for another 25 years (approx). Do those projections factor in a shrinking workforce, reductions in contributions, increases in SSDI, annual cost of living increases, expanded LIS program,or other variables?

Why not just look up the CBO report?

I don't think it's possible to state how long social security will remain solvent with any kind of certainty. All we can say is that social security is now on a decline, and if the trend continues at its present rate, it will be insolvent in 2037. But next year, the trend could dissipate, accelerate, or remain the same. There is simply too many variables to predict social security so far out into the future. For example, there will be 6 presidential elections between now and then. One might as well ask the 8 ball.

A more accurate argument would be that social security coffers are currently declining; however, there is no immediate risk of insolvency of the program. So social security coffers are something we want to keep an eye on, but it's not currently a crisis of any kind.
 
Last edited:
  • #249
SixNein said:
Why not just look up the CBO report?

I don't think it's possible to state how long social security will remain solvent with any kind of certainty. All we can say is that social security is now on a decline, and if the trend continues at its present rate, it will be insolvent in 2037. But next year, the trend could dissipate, accelerate, or remain the same. There is simply too many variables to predict social security so far out into the future. For example, there will be 6 presidential elections between now and then. One might as well ask the 8 ball.

A more accurate argument would be that social security coffers are currently declining; however, there is no immediate risk of insolvency of the program.

I'd like to see the Social Security funds managed with the same level of accountability private pension funds and their managers/administrators are held.
 
  • #250
WhoWee said:
I'd like to see the Social Security funds managed with the same level of accountability private pension funds and their managers/administrators are held.

Social security is the one program that doesn't concern me too much. By and large, social security has been doing its job.

Medicare, military, and energy are my largest concerns. I have quite a few concerns about our legal system...
 
  • #251
Pythagorean said:
So you don't identify with "40 days for life" or prolife.com or any of the other leading acitivists that rally outside of abortion clinics, tell people they're going to hell, and commonly cite Jeremiah 1:5?

These are clearly the most vocal people about pro-life... and these people exist... so Obama's words are obviously targeted at them. It seems "disingenuous" to not acknowledge these people exist and that they vocally represent the pro-life movement.
Do these people ever explain anything or is the only thing they every say that bible verse? Perhaps they figure it is too obvious to explain what "pro life" means? I've never heard of them and I find it hard to believe a group that is only 8 years old is the most vocal group on abortion. Around where I live, I see billboards and bumper stickers that say:

-Abortion stops a beating heart
-Choose life
-Abortion is murder

These go right to the heart of the matter. The very name of the movement should evoke thoughts about the issue of a right to life. Are you saying you had no idea that the pro life movement was about a right to life for fetuses?

By the way: I'm mostly pro choice. I don't identify with them at all.
 
Last edited:
  • #253
It seems like the debate over high gas prices has picked up right where it left off in 2008.

my bold
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-04-tires-inflated_N.htm

"The Department of Energy estimates that keeping tires properly inflated can help improve gas mileage by about 3.3%. It's one step the agency recommends to reduce fuel costs, along with removing items from the trunk, replacing clogged air filters and getting regular tuneups.

The Obama campaign could not provide figures to back up his claim that inflating tires and getting tuneups would save just as much oil as could be produced by offshore drilling. Offshore drilling is off limits under current law, but McCain wants to lift the ban to alleviate high gas prices. Obama said last week he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling as part of a comprehensive energy policy, a shift from his previous position.

But McCain is wrong when he says inflating tires is the only thing Obama is proposing to address America's energy challenges.

Besides the recommendation to keep tires properly inflated, Obama also suggested providing incentives for people to trade in gas guzzling vehicles for more fuel-efficient cars; investing in research and development to produce new fuel-saving technologies like long-running batteries; encouraging innovation in alternative energies; and retrofitting buildings to make them more energy efficient."


I just realized "Cash for Clunkers" was part of the Obama energy policy.
 
  • #254
WhoWee said:
Besides the recommendation to keep tires properly inflated, Obama also suggested providing incentives for people to trade in gas guzzling vehicles for more fuel-efficient cars; investing in research and development to produce new fuel-saving technologies like long-running batteries; encouraging innovation in alternative energies; and retrofitting buildings to make them more energy efficient."[/I]

While I understand the morivation behind the cash for clunkers and other similar programs, I have to wonder if people driving more fuel efficient cars isn't offset by the idea (in their heads) that now they can drive more.
 
  • #255
daveb said:
While I understand the morivation behind the cash for clunkers and other similar programs, I have to wonder if people driving more fuel efficient cars isn't offset by the idea (in their heads) that now they can drive more.

I suppose a few people might drive more if there's gas remaining in their tank - my teenagers are classic examples.
 
  • #256
Why in the world would I trade in a truck that's paid for only to borrow money to buy a new truck with better gas mileage? That's like trading in my wife for one that's a better cook. I may get what I want, but it'll cost me a lot more ;-) - and No, my wife will never read this, lol

Seriously, I remember the first gas lines during Carter's presidency. You had to buy a foreign car to get good gas mileage, and people did. I came back (as I suspect others did) to US made cars when they started getting the mileage, reliability, and style right. Cars and trucks will evolve and we'll move toward them. My 61' Willy only got 8mpg and it was a 6-cylinder!

IMO, we don't need the government pushing us to borrow more money to buy a car just for more mpg, we have enough debt now. I'll run my truck until it won't run, then I'll look for my next truck and mpg will be a factor, so will 4x4, A/C, safety, etc.

I tend to think oil speculation is a big factor. As one oil trader put it, http://www.thereformedbroker.com/20...half-the-price-of-oil-is-speculative-premium/ , perhaps to the tone of $40/barrel or more.

From http://www.philstockworld.com/2012/02/14/oil-myths-the-hedgeye-rebuttal/

'According to a recent paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis titled, “Speculation in the Oil Market” (Juvenal and Petrella), it has been “estimated that assets allocated to commodity index trading strategies rose from $13 billion in 2004 to $260 billion as of March 2008”. This paper concludes:

“Our results confirm that Kilian’s (2009) conclusion that global demand shocks as the main drivers of oil fluctuations remains robust. In addition, we show that speculative shocks are the second most important driver of oil prices.”'

IMO, the rolling of futures contracts until the price is "right" is a problem. In the links you'll see the speculation is often by investment groups that don't do anything with oil except trade it up for a better price. I'd like to see the government require oil contracts to require the buyer prove they can take delivery in 30 days or loose their "investment".

One thing I don't think Americans can continue to do is tell the rest of the world to drill every gallon you can so we don't have to. Until technology replaces oil, we need to be working as hard to get oil from here as they are from there. We're "farming" gas from dumps, natural gas, etc., I just don't see us that far away. T.B. Picken's push to move commercial trucking to CNG seems like a good start. I remember when 18 wheelers were about all that used diesel, now diesel is everywhere. Perhaps the same thing could happen with CNG.

Obama's not wrong about making your car run better, but we're not going to "save" our way out of a gas/oil future.
 
  • #257
WhoWee said:
We really don't know which taxes he's referring to or their specific income level or filing classification - do we? They might be small business owners facing cost increases - we don't know. The payroll tax cut (the one that reduces your contribution to social security at a time when social security is facing insolvency) might not be enough to offset a lost deduction of some type?
The payroll tax cut is only a part of all the middle-class tax cuts that Obama has signed over the past 3 years. But even so, I'm not aware of any lost deductions that come close to offsetting the payroll cuts. Are you?

As for medical, we really don't know the medical history or reasons for increases - do we? For instance, are you certain that healthcare mandates (PPACA/Obamacre) aren't causing insurance premiums to rise? Also, are you certain that changes to the Medicare reimbursement rates haven't somehow impacted the specific health care costs of these particular people?
We'll if we don't really know these things, one could hardly make definitive assertions about the blame lying solely with Obama! But that's exactly what Pengwuino does.

If Pengwuino decides to share more details - then perhaps a definitive response can be given - until then - we just don't know enough about their particular situation to render a conclusion - IMO of course.
While we may not be able to arrive at a conclusive analysis of the Pengwuino family tax history, we certainly can say something about the tax rates affecting the average middle class family (which is, in fact, who Pengwuino specifically mentions before giving the example of his own family), and the reality, last time I checked, is that the vast majority of these families have gotten net decreases in taxes over the past three years adding to somewhere near three thousand dollars per family (just from "Making Work Pay" in 2009 + payroll tax cuts for 2010 and 2011) fpr the average family. As for small businesses, Obama signed over a dozen different tax cuts for them, including things like: eliminating all capitals gains taxes on key investments, doubling the investment limit that businesses can write off, a new deduction for health insurance for the self-employed, deductions for start up investments, etc.

http://www.ctj.org/obamastaxcuts.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-signs-payroll-tax-cut-extension-into-law-includes-jobless-benefits/2012/02/22/gIQArSaAUR_story.html [Broken]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-31/obama-urges-congress-to-extend-expand-small-business-tax-breaks.html [Broken]

2010 Tax Year Summary [pdf] --> http://tax.cchgroup.com/downloads/files/pdfs/legislation/tax-yearend.pdf

2011 Tax Year Summary [pdf] --> http://tax.cchgroup.com/downloads/files/pdfs/legislation/2011yearend.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #258
Recall that the President also raised tobacco taxes, about $1.5B/year, back in 2008. Also in effect now is the "Snooki" tanning bed tax.

Signed into law by the President but not yet in effect include:
o Uninsured penalty/tax/whatever, $695 up to $2085, 2014 to 2016
o Medicare tax hike of 0.9%, medicare investment income tax at 3.8% for incomes>$200K/year, 2013
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ident-barack-obama-says-he-didnt-raise-taxes/
 
  • #259
russ_watters said:
The link to the citation is dead.

I've been hearing 2037 for a while now - has that number been updated to account for the recession and cuts in the payroll tax rate?

Yes, both of those things are considered.

Here is another link:
http://cbo.gov/publication/42212
 
  • #260
SixNein said:
Yes, both of those things are considered.

Here is another link:
http://cbo.gov/publication/42212

Given the date of the report - is it likely the shrinking of the workforce (as reported in recent unemployment stats) was factored in for future years? Fewer workers will probably mean lower revenues. Also, the new extension of the social security reduction wouldn't be included - would it?
 
  • #261
mheslep said:
Recall that the President also raised tobacco taxes, about $1.5B/year, back in 2008. Also in effect now is the "Snooki" tanning bed tax.
I'm aware of those, but hardly think they come anywhere close to offsetting the tax cuts for most people.
Gokul43201 said:
So I'd be surprised if any significant fraction of the population has seen an increase yet (though that may change in the next few years). I think you'd have to be a chain smoking (see: tobacco tax increase) paper mill to have seen more tax raises than cuts.
 
  • #262
WhoWee said:
Given the date of the report - is it likely the shrinking of the workforce (as reported in recent unemployment stats) was factored in for future years? Fewer workers will probably mean lower revenues. Also, the new extension of the social security reduction wouldn't be included - would it?

I posted a link.
 
  • #263
SixNein said:
Yes, both of those things are considered.

Here is another link:
http://cbo.gov/publication/42212
As the chart in that CBO report shows, SS revenues have been falling short of outlays for a couple years now and the gap is about to expand rapidly. The parlor games with the SS trust fund/lock box continue here with the payroll tax cut, which will decrease revenues $100B. If one still believes in the lock box concept, SS loses no revenue here because it simply takes more money from the general revenue, i.e. the left hand of the govt. pays the right, and the left hand borrows more.
 
  • #264
Obama said:
I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
russ watters said:
I don't think they are all that useful - even a little disingenuous - since the "principle" at issue is clearly accessible to people of all/no faith.
The question is: what principle, that's accessible to both theistic religious people and atheists, does abortion violate?

Apparently, what Obama's saying is that he can't pinpoint such a principle. Therefore, he can't advocate outlawing abortion in his capacity as chief executive, even though he might personally and religiously be against abortion.

I think this makes sense. Whether it's disingenuous or not is another question.

But to say that Obama doesn't acknowledge what the issue is would be wrong, imo. The point being that the endowment of 'personhood' on a developing fetus at some point in its development is arbitrary.

Does personhood begin at the instant of conception? Sometime in the first trimester? The second trimester?

What exists is a situation in which Obama, or anyone else, can't explain why "abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those who have no faith at all."
 
  • #265
turbo said:
If we start taxing the wealthy on just a bit more of of their income, SS can be solvent forever.
This seems to be the case. If that increased revenue is actually used for SS. But the bottom line is that if taxes on the wealthy aren't increased, then there's no hope of saving SS. Which is quite ok if one happens to be relatively well off. But of course not ok for the majority of Americans.
 
  • #266
SixNein said:
I posted a link.

Yes you did. However, the projections show Social Security contributions increasing - even though the size of the workforce is shrinking and the contribution reductions were extended.
 
  • #267
I'm not an American, but...

For both your sake and the sake of the rest of the world, I hope Obama wins the election. The USA has not been incredibly popular with the rest of the world for years now. However, when Obama won the election in 2008, I know that many people I know were quite happy and thought he would make an able president. Many people around me still think the same thing (although they are a bit disappointed he didn't make it life paradise in a few years).

Romney and Santorum, on the other hand, pretty much everyone I know utterly dislikes. Romney is an American exceptionalist who feels the need to tell anyone how much more important the USA is than any other country, which makes him well-hated by anyone I know. While I try very hard to ignore this, even I sometimes get the idea that people from the USA are annoyingly 'proud' of their country. When a president feels the need to excessively show this, I start worrying. Santorum is simply an idiot for believing such strange things as the Dutch performing euthanasia on all the elderly who don't wear an "I don't want to be killed"-bracelet, for actively saying being gay is bad, and openly saying he would bomb Iranian facilities if they don't show everything they're doing to America (because, of course, all Iranians are bad peopleTM and should do as the Americans say[1]). In other words: diplomatically speaking, Obama is a million times more capable than the Republican candidates I've seen so far.

I should add that, given that the above is based on interaction with people in my country and things I've heard people say in public, my view might be inaccurate or only be accurate for many people in my country (the Netherlands).

As far as the economy goes, I don't think I can change anyone's view on this one: I think Obama's been much better than most people give him credit for. However, I suspect that the people who wouldn't like to see him re-elected gladly say he hasn't done enough for the economy.

Then there's the matter of political positions on ethical and social issues. I've already hinted a bit at this in my rant about Santorum, but I also think Obama is much more capable in that regard. To give a few examples, Romney is in favor of abstinence-only education, he opposes same-sex marriage, doesn't favor legalizing medical cannabis (even though cannabis is less harmful than tobacco, but meh), and would ban federal funding of stem-cell research. The other Republican candidates speak of similar things.

Of course, I don't agree with everything the presidential candidates of the Republican party have said so far, but, like I said, I believe (and hope) Obama is the way to go for 2012-2016.

[1] I don't want to say too much about this now, seeing as this is a thread about Obama's candidacy, not about my views on Iran, but I feel it might be necessary. I'm not particularly thrilled about the possibility of Iran building nuclear weapons, that's true. And if they do, I think there has to be something we can do about it. However, I also try to see it from their point of view. And from their point of view, 1. Israel is their sworn enemy, and the USA is 'with them', 2. the USA have nukes, 3. they pretty much get told that they will be completely destroyed if they will build nukes (several important people in the USA have by now called for a strike on Iran), 4. if they *don't* have nukes, they're doomed if/when Israel decides to attack them. What choice do they have but to build nukes in secret, and pretend they're only building these facilities for nuclear energy? (There is, of course, the possibility that they're speaking the truth, in which case it would still be prudent not to let an enemy see their facilities out of fear for espionage. But, for the moment, I'll assume people's worst-case scenarios are correct.)
 
Last edited:
  • #268
Hobin said:
I'm not an American, but...

For both your sake and the sake of the rest of the world, I hope Obama wins the election. The USA is not incredibly popular with the rest of the world for years now. However, when Obama won the election in 2008, I know that many people in my direct vicinity were quite happy and thought he would make an able president. Many people around me still think the same thing.

Romney and Santorum, on the other hand, pretty much everyone I know utterly dislikes. Romney is an American exceptionalist who feels the need to tell anyone how much more important the USA is than any other country, which makes him well-hated by anyone I know. Santorum is simply an idiot for believing such strange things as the Dutch performing euthanasia on all the elderly who don't wear an "I don't want to be killed"-bracelet, for actively saying gays are stupid, and openly saying he would bomb Iranian facilities if they don't show everything they're doing to American (because, of course, all Iranians are bad peopleTM). In other words: diplomatically speaking, Obama is a million times more capable than the Republican candidates I've seen so far.

I should add that, given that the above is based on interaction with people in my country and things I've heard people say in public, my view might be inaccurate or only be accurate for many people in my country (the Netherlands).

As far as the economy goes, I don't think I can change anyone's view on this one: I think Obama's been much better than most people give him credit for. However, I suspect that the people who wouldn't like to see him re-elected gladly say he hasn't done enough for the economy.

Then there's the matter of political positions on ethical and social issues. I've already hinted a bit at this in my rant about Santorum, but I also think Obama is much more capable in that regard. To give a few examples, Romney is in favor of abstinence-only education, he opposes same-sex marriage, doesn't favor legalizing medical cannabis (even though cannabis is less harmful than tobacco, but meh), and would ban federal funding of stem-cell research. The other Republican candidates speak of similar things.

Of course, I don't agree with everything the presidential candidates of the Republican party have said so far, but, like I said, I believe (and hope) Obama is the way to go for 2012-2016.

We have threads for bashing Santorum and Romney - you might want to post these opinions in those threads?
 
  • #269
WhoWee said:
We have threads for bashing Santorum and Romney - you might want to post these opinions in those threads?

I'm aware. This was not to show my personal opinion so much as what most of the people around me think - and why it would (diplomatically speaking) be best if Obama gets elected.
 
  • #270
WhoWee said:
We have threads for bashing Santorum and Romney - you might want to post these opinions in those threads?
Agreed. This thread is meant only for bashing Obama.
 
  • #271
Hobin said:
I should add that, given that the above is based on interaction with people in my country and things I've heard people say in public, my view might be inaccurate or only be accurate for many people in my country (the Netherlands).
I think, and polls will show, that about 50% of Americans agree with your assessment, and about 50% don't. The US is an extremely divided country in certain respects.

I agree with you that, compared to the GOP candidates, Obama seems head and shoulders above them in many ways.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that Obama is particularly special, other than wrt his general demeanor and rhetorical skills. That is, I think he's basically a bought and paid for advocate of the status quo ... in practice if not necessarily in belief.

So, I won't be voting for him, and I certainly won't be voting for any of the GOP candidates.
 
  • #272
russ_watters said:
Do these people ever explain anything or is the only thing they every say that bible verse? Perhaps they figure it is too obvious to explain what "pro life" means? I've never heard of them and I find it hard to believe a group that is only 8 years old is the most vocal group on abortion. Around where I live...

The argument has already been had and established long ago in Roe vs. Wade. It's pro-life activists whom the iotas is on. Many do feel justified citing God; others fail to come up with convincing arguments (they appeal only to pathos).

Obama's not talking about one example (such as a specific organization that formed 8 years ago) he's talking about people who feel that it's their place to enforce the laws of the bible.

You use your locale as a reference, should I reference mine? Can you imagine what kind of people might be hanging outside of Planned Parenthood by how I've demonstrated my perception of the pro-life movement? Can you image they're the same group that protest Elton John playing local shows?

Anyway, we don't need to base it on our locals or specific organizations; there's a long national history already established in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life

Obama is declaring a clear separation philosophy in a concrete example that is well-known in the US. He has made political actions to back it up (by making sure EVERY female has access to birth control measures). He has faced resistance!

Anyway, this a thread about Obama's candidacy. The point is that his statements are consistent with Obama's image as progressive and a large body of the US wants progressive. It especially strengthens him against Santorum.
 
  • #273
Pythagorean said:
Obama is declaring a clear separation philosophy in a concrete example that is well-known in the US. He has made political actions to back it up (by making sure EVERY female has access to birth control measures). He has faced resistance!

Every female already had access to birth control, his policy just makes sure that someone else is paying for it.

He basically constructed a straw man and beat it down with his 'contraception mandate'. What deficiency was he honestly correcting? This 'separation philosophy' is coming at the expense of everyone's choice. What is the harm in allowing someone (or a religious orgnization...) a choice in what medical coverage they buy? Freedom is constricted via the President's policies (with this being the latest in a long line), I don't see how there is any other way to look at it.

I'm far from being a religious person, but President Obama (and his cohort) are waging a war on freedoms, starting with Religion. If (reasonable) Religious freedom can be thrown to the wayside by the government so easilly, what other freedoms should I be prepared to give up? Women (and men) already had the freedom to buy contraception, but now they lack the freedom to NOT buy contraception (via paying for insurance).
 
  • #274
mege said:
Every female already had access to birth control, his policy just makes sure that someone else is paying for it.

Your twisting the meaning; the point of healthcare reform is that everyone gets access to healthcare financially and this should be regardless of what beliefs their employers hold.
 
  • #275
Pythagorean said:
Your twisting the meaning; the point of healthcare reform is that everyone gets access to healthcare financially and this should be regardless of what beliefs their employers hold.
And that's not a bad policy. Birth control is cheap. Pregnancies and childbirth can be very expensive. That's why the employees of faith-based companies can often get free riders to provide contraceptives even if the companies refuse to pay for the service.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #276
Pythagorean said:
Your twisting the meaning; the point of healthcare reform is that everyone gets access to healthcare financially and this should be regardless of what beliefs their employers hold.

What about the employee's beliefs? 'Employers' aren't the only ones with beliefs. Individuals, despite what many leftists belief, do have beliefs of their own that may not be owed to religion or some other orthodoxy. Even if that belief IS owed to some religion - does it really make it less viable?

And I didn't twist the meaning in the slightest, the paradigm is slanted from the start. Being against a mandate does not mean that one wants the total opposite mandated instead. ie: just because I think that a contraception mandate is entirely unneccessary that does not mean that I am against the use/purchase/etc of contraception. I think that the mandate is being unfairly posed as a matter of 'women's health' when it is nothing more than another purposely divisive policy that strips individuals of their freedom of choice. If an individual (woman in this case) is employed in a job that has health benefits and they are unable to afford birth control out of pocket, then they probably have larger problems (I paid for my college GF's pills out of pocket: we got it from a corner pharmacy, unsubsidized, from a 'normal' doctor (not planned parenthood) for ~$15/mo). Making birth control 'free' to women does NOT change the fact that many people still are not responsible for themselves and make bad decisions anyhow. This policy is purely idealogical and has very narrow real impact compared to the constriction of freedom imposed. This President has no problem imposing his beliefs on others, but yet has the gall to tell people that their beliefs are totally invalid.

To put this in different terms: where is the problem inherent in the system that requires such a change that it is necessary to step on individual's conscience and personal freedoms?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #277
mege said:
To put this in different terms: where is the problem inherent in the system that requires such a change that it is necessary to step on individual's conscience and personal freedoms?

The very simple fact that these beliefs are destructive to other people.
 
  • #278
Hobin said:
The very simple fact that these beliefs are destructive to other people.

I think you misunderstood the question and the problem. Moreover, you're projecting local Dutch custom on the US. AFAIK, he made a good point.
 
  • #279
Hobin said:
The very simple fact that these beliefs are destructive to other people.

Personal responsibility is destructive to other people?

Is there an example of a reasonably responsible person that has been 'left out in the cold' regarding contraception due to the status quo? Like I mentioned above - the pill is not expensive, and 'free' condoms are generally already available from NGOs.

The 'contraception mandate' was not in response to some grand call for making birth control illegal. Even Rick Santorum (as an example of the religious 'boogie man') is on record noting that while his family doesn't use birth control, he does not believe it should be banned - but he also believes that making birth control mandatory erodes on individual freedoms.

This is just one of many facets to the ultimate 'insurance mandate' problem. Many states already have a 'contraception mandate' - and while they pose a much less problem (especially since nearly every state with a mandate has a clause for conscience objections), an individual can move from state to state unfettered, just like an individual can normally move from job to job if they don't like the benefits. Under the Presidents dictate - this is no longer possible and half of the states which did not have a contraception mandate now have had their soverignty taken away. In a general sense, the all-consuming-power of this President is eroding freedoms and choice bit by bit. The choice to use/buy/sell contraceptions exists. Now, we're left with only the choice to use or not - with zero benefit to show for it. "Freedoms for you, as long as I agree with them" - DNC mantra.
 
  • #280
turbo said:
And that's not a bad policy. Birth control is cheap. Pregnancies and childbirth can be very expensive. That's why the employees of faith-based companies can often get free riders to provide contraceptives even if the companies refuse to pay for the service. This is pretty much a non-issue ginned up to give Santorum, Gingrich, etc, something to beat Obama with. I don't think Mr. Mittens would get much traction on this issue after having signed a universal health-care initiative into law in Massachusetts.

This thread is about Obama - please don't de-rail with off topic comments about the other candidates.
 
<h2>1. What makes Obama an experienced leader?</h2><p>Obama has over 20 years of experience in public service, including serving as a community organizer, a state senator, and a U.S. senator. He also served two terms as the President of the United States, making him one of the most experienced leaders in recent history.</p><h2>2. What were some of Obama's major accomplishments as President?</h2><p>During his presidency, Obama successfully passed the Affordable Care Act, which provided healthcare coverage to millions of Americans. He also implemented the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which helped stimulate the economy during the Great Recession. Additionally, he oversaw the operation that led to the death of Osama bin Laden and signed the Paris Climate Agreement.</p><h2>3. How did Obama handle difficult situations during his presidency?</h2><p>Obama showed strong leadership during challenging times, such as the economic crisis and the rise of terrorist threats. He worked with Congress to pass legislation and implemented policies to address these issues. He also prioritized diplomacy and international cooperation in dealing with global challenges.</p><h2>4. What is Obama's stance on important issues?</h2><p>As a candidate, Obama campaigned on a platform of change and promised to address issues such as healthcare, immigration reform, climate change, and income inequality. As President, he worked to fulfill these promises and implemented policies to address these issues.</p><h2>5. How did Obama's leadership style impact his presidency?</h2><p>Obama's leadership style was characterized by his calm and thoughtful approach to decision-making. He valued collaboration and sought to find common ground with those who held different viewpoints. This helped him navigate through difficult political situations and achieve success in passing legislation and implementing policies.</p>

1. What makes Obama an experienced leader?

Obama has over 20 years of experience in public service, including serving as a community organizer, a state senator, and a U.S. senator. He also served two terms as the President of the United States, making him one of the most experienced leaders in recent history.

2. What were some of Obama's major accomplishments as President?

During his presidency, Obama successfully passed the Affordable Care Act, which provided healthcare coverage to millions of Americans. He also implemented the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which helped stimulate the economy during the Great Recession. Additionally, he oversaw the operation that led to the death of Osama bin Laden and signed the Paris Climate Agreement.

3. How did Obama handle difficult situations during his presidency?

Obama showed strong leadership during challenging times, such as the economic crisis and the rise of terrorist threats. He worked with Congress to pass legislation and implemented policies to address these issues. He also prioritized diplomacy and international cooperation in dealing with global challenges.

4. What is Obama's stance on important issues?

As a candidate, Obama campaigned on a platform of change and promised to address issues such as healthcare, immigration reform, climate change, and income inequality. As President, he worked to fulfill these promises and implemented policies to address these issues.

5. How did Obama's leadership style impact his presidency?

Obama's leadership style was characterized by his calm and thoughtful approach to decision-making. He valued collaboration and sought to find common ground with those who held different viewpoints. This helped him navigate through difficult political situations and achieve success in passing legislation and implementing policies.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
506
Replies
87
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
466
Replies
1
Views
782
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
38
Views
883
Replies
1
Views
957
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
3K
Back
Top