Obama's Candidacy

mege

I think this is the definition the president is using:
middle-class [mid-l-klas], adjective, of or pertaining to unaccountable government employees and contractors, mostly belonging to a labor union.

Seriously though, even President Obama admits that the ACA is not going to lower health care costs - it's just about getting his voting bloc insured. Health care costs will continue to go up, especially with that much more easy money floating around (see: former housing bubble, current education bubble, current medical care bubble, current Europe).

skippy1729

This is a fascinating statement. Is it intended to present a reason or qualification for re-election?


Compare this statement with:

Kim Jong-un has the most experience as Supreme Leader with the current political atmosphere.

OR

Bashar al-Assad has the most experience as president of Syria with the current political atmosphere.

mege makes some relevant and largely factual statements and is scolded for being partisan. Many of the other posts praise his rhetoric over his record. If rhetorical skills are what we need then, hands down, he's the man.

Skippy

Pythagorean

I'm going to ignore comparison of Obama to the Supreme Leader.. that's ridiculous...

Obama has done a lot to reduce money-powered lobbying.

note: regardless of tuition costs, I am on RA's and TA's, I teach and do research for tuition. Food and gas prices are rising too. That's the nature of the beast, I don't blame Obama for that. But either way, I don't pay tuition, I work under research assitanceships for it, and the stipend rises with the tuition; the hours contracted stay the same.

what he has done for science/education (at least):

5 billion dollars to NIH
lifted the ban on stem cell research funding
student loan relief (caps on repayment rates)
extends more benefits to National Guard members who performed active service and allows for education benefits to be transferred to family members.
investing $2 billion in competitive grants to reform community colleges
$2,500 American Opportunity tax credit for tuition expenses


In general, you can see a list of accomplishments:
http://www.whathasobamadone.org/

Pythagorean

We'll see; I hold fast to my prediction that he'll win. I'm not even going to bother voting.

My mother is a nurse and my father is a federal employee so it didn't seem to affect them negatively. As a grad student, I'm povert, so taxes and medical and loans have worked out great for me under Obama.

mege

Your list of examples just furthers my point - the President is essentially 'buying' votes with tax dollars by shoveling money to individuals. "Oh, look - that nice man gave me $2500" - this is why the President will likely win reelection. Too bad his campaign is costing the country trillions.

Out of those things you listed, there are only 2 arguably 'common interest' type projects: the community college reform money and stem cell research. The stem cell research ban was silly, and the community college money dispursement was seen as redundant since many CCs had revitalized in the late-90s already when the states were doing better. The CC money was really more of a state-education-bailout than an education policy.

Pythagorean

Then we agree Obama will win by appealing to the most people. You keep trying to sell me on common good though which only seems dishonest to me. It's snake oil. Have you forgotten about Hobbes and Locke? The alternative to this kind of appealing to masses was killing opposition and oppression.

So do you think a particular candidate has "real" snake oil?

russ_watters

I believe that his "experience" is going to be a major problem for him.

russ_watters

[stunned] Then how can you vote at all? You may be right, but that attitude may just kill western democracy. It's doing a fine job in Europe and we're racing to catch up.

I also agree that that will likely be Obama's campaign strategy. It makes me scared and sick to think that's what we've devolved into.

I'd much prefer an attitude where driven by bias one believes that what is best for them is best for the country because at least the good of the country is a consideration. Instead it sounds like you just want to pillage what you can from the ship before it sinks.

daveb

Well, Roosevelt has the most experience being president, but he's dead.

daveb

I think one reason for that was that he took a hands-off approach to Congress, letting them decide decide the specifics rather than write the legislation himself. In this way, he let a bunch of bickering hyenas argue over things, so in that essence, yes, it could be said he didn't lead his party.
That partisanship has been going on a long time (I would say since Nixon, though maybe eralier - I'm too young to remember before that).

Because also included in the provisions were other tax cuts that benfitted the middle class, and he wasn't willing to see those expire. In essence, he didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Evo

Romney is appealing to the upper class by the tax cuts he wants to give them, and himself, but that's ok?

Char. Limit

Wow, didn't take long for this thread to get derailed by anti-Obama fanatics, did it?

russ_watters

It did? To whom are you referring?

Char. Limit

This is probably gonna get an infraction, but since you asked, I'm referring to Mege. I don't think he's had a good thought about Obama in his life. At least that's not the message I get from reading his posts.

EDIT: Not that it really matters. I probably won't visit this thread again.

Pythagorean

There's a lot of nonsequiturs in response to the OP...

Russ, I already sad I'm not voting. Obama will still win. Democracy isn't going to last forever. Majority wins? Doesn't anyone read history? That's how Cesar got so much power. The majority is not equipped to guide political decisions.

skippy1729

I WAS MAKING NO SUCH COMPARISON. I was trying to figure out what your OP meant. The substitutions (Assad and Kim) are straightforward and tend to show that the OP is a largely empty statement. Therefore I was trying to figure out what this thread was about. Your reply has clarified what this thread is about.

Skippy

Pythagorean

So do you agree he will have a 2nd term or not?

edit:

Also, the OP isn't an empty statement. Changing administration is a nightmare, especially changing partisans. Given two otherwise equal candidates, in a time of economic challenges, the wrong decision would be to change administration.

So it is an argument in favor of Obama's candidacy. Of course, they're not equal. Mitt Romney has less of a chance of becoming a president, so an lot of his time/energy/money are being wasted right now.