News Obama for President: Experienced Leader

[Pythagorean]

He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.

 

[Evo]

He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.

He's my choice, he took over a terrible situation, made some good changes, and needs a second term to see things through as much as possible.

He's the choice for middle America. Romney's the choice for the rich. Romney has nothing in his plans to make life for the average American better, he doesn't even recognize middle America, IMO.

 

[Pengwuino]

He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.

Finally someone says something factual in P&WA.

 

[mege]

What's the saying? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

The Democrats had a lock on the government for 2 years and did less than nothing (except spend money) - and have the gall to blame the 'current Republican house' for their shortcomings. Unfortunately, making the government work efficiently is unpopular - but when given the chance the Dems failed hard. Blaming President Bush for the countries problems can only last for so long - that's all we've been hearing from the President is that it's Bush's fault, it's congress's fault, it's the rich's fault... I wonder how much campaign money the President will raise from Wall Street this year? He might set a fundraising record... again.

I also find the OPs original statement interesting - especially when compared to the 2008 election. There was a senior (moderately respected) Senator and a governor of one of the most well ran states in the country versus... a junior Senator whom had barely served for a year before campaigning. Mitt Romney is not perfect, but the President will have a hard time making the case of 'experience' stick - basically just because he's the incumbent he has more experience? I've been driving a car longer than Danica Patrick, but that doesn't make me a better driver.

 

[Pythagorean]

basically just because he's the incumbent he has more experience? I've been driving a car longer than Danica Patrick, but that doesn't make me a better driver.

This sentence would be fair alone. But given that the rest of what you said is irrelevant to this election, you display a double standard.

I don't care about what party a candidate belongs to; if you want to whine about democrats, make a new thread. Let's keep partisanship out of this thread.

 

[mege]

This sentence would be fair alone. But given that the rest of what you said is irrelevant to this election, you display a double standard.

I don't care about what party a candidate belongs to; if you want to whine about democrats, make a new thread. Let's keep partisanship out of this thread.

I see the President as being the 'leader of his party' and when he couldn't get 'his agenda' passed through a friendly congress, I have a hard time seeing him being successful. (even if I agreed with his policies) I think much of the extreme partisanship that exists is due to the 'us vs them' mentality that he talks about in nearly every speech. There is always someone for the President to blame it seems. That's not healthy for the country as a whole IMO, especially when we probably all could use less government in our lives.

Say what you want about the previous administration, but nearly all of his 'infamous' policies had vast bipartisan support*. That can't be said about President Obama - he seems too focused on eating the rich (so is that cannibalism?).
*(The tax cuts that were passed through congress in 2001/3 were one of the few major policies passed along party lines - but if they were so bad, why didn't President Obama and his friendly congress totally repeal them - especially when the sunset provision came to term?)

 

[Pythagorean]

In my view, I don't care whether there is bipartisan support or not, either. In fact, I think both democrats and republicans are basically kings fighting over how many scraps to throw the rest of us. I care about what the president is doing for me. Obama is doing things for me as a student of science. I didn't like "no child left behind"; when you mess with the education of our youth, you really screw our future up.

In my view, Obama is the lesser of evils, not a knight in shining armor.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I care about what the president is doing for me.

Is that the right attitude? Shouldn't you care about the greater whole rather than self-interest?

 

[Pythagorean]

Is that the right attitude? Shouldn't you care about the greater whole rather than self-interest?

I don't know what's best for the whole, and I don't like it when people pretend they do. I also don't trust people that claim to; I'm cynical like that.

That's how our law system is built, free-market and all, Hobbes, Lock, etc...

 

[Pythagorean]

I also feed my children, not other peoples;

Don't get me wrong, I volunteer at a Children's museum... but I don't think I'm a great savior of man or anything for it. I don't mind doing science for health, but it's all because these are things I'm interested in, not because I'm Jesus.

 

[Pythagorean]

also, that's why Obama's going to win the election. Because he appeals to the personal needs of the most people. As Evo said, middle America.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I don't know what's best for the whole, and I don't like it when people pretend they do. I also don't trust people that claim to; I'm cynical like that.

So hypothetically you would vote for a dictator if he included you in his inner circle?

 

[Pythagorean]

So hypothetically you would vote for a dictator if he included you in his inner circle?

Dictator doesn't mean evil. But if you mean evil, ruthless dictator, no I wouldn't. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I did that.

 

[Pythagorean]

It's not like I don't have "altruistic" feelings and behavior. It's just that I don't think I'm really accountable for them. They're a result of millions of years of evolution, not some utilitarian logical conclusion I came to all on my own.

I think that morals are just a way we justify our feelings and behavior. They come as words and rules after the feelings/behavior, they don't guide it.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Preservation of self-interest/desire/life is where morality stems from.

This discussion so far kind of reminds me of the Prince to be honest. "Quick to change the one in charge, but the net result is still the same" (paraphrasing).

 

[Pengwuino]

also, that's why Obama's going to win the election. Because he appeals to the personal needs of the most people. As Evo said, middle America.

Heh, my parents are pure middle class and had nothing but higher taxes and higher medical bills because of him. I'm sometimes curious as to which middle class people are talking about when they say Obama is a man of the middle class. You can appeal all you want to people, but when they see your actions concerning them, appealing to voters isn't going to be worth much.

 

[mege]

also, that's why Obama's going to win the election. Because he appeals to the personal needs of the most people. As Evo said, middle America.

See, that's the general problem that I have with the President - I don't want him (via the government) dealing with my 'personal needs'.

There was an analogy by a lesser-known pundit (I forget his name even) that basically said politicians (and especially President Obama) are campaining with our tax dollars via handouts. It's no longer about the strength of the country but 'what can uncle sam do for you?' It's also the hypocrasy in the solution - 'hey, health care costs are ballooning, the government covers 1/2 of all of the healthcare costs already - so let's expand it!'

I'm also curious as to what President Obama is doing for you 'as a student of science'? All I see are rising college costs, that at the rate the government is giving out student loans, are only primed to go up even still. I'd also remind you, that if you're using NCLB as an indictment of 'the opposition' - remember that President Obama extended it when the provision was expiring. (I'm not a fan of NCLB out of principle, but think that it's negative impact is far overblown - also remember, that it had more Democrat supporters than GOP supporters when it first was passed. The 100% literacy requirement was kind of silly, but the accountability piece was about as good as schools will get for money from the federal government - rightly so. So, teach to some sort of standard or don't get extra federal money.)

 

[mege]

Heh, my parents are pure middle class and had nothing but higher taxes and higher medical bills because of him. I'm sometimes curious as to which middle class people are talking about when they say Obama is a man of the middle class.

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]

He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.

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.

I'm also curious as to what President Obama is doing for you 'as a student of science'?

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

 

[Pythagorean]

Heh, my parents are pure middle class and had nothing but higher taxes and higher medical bills because of him. I'm sometimes curious as to which middle class people are talking about when they say Obama is a man of the middle class. You can appeal all you want to people, but when they see your actions concerning them, appealing to voters isn't going to be worth much.

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]

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/

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]

He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.

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

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know what's best for the whole, and I don't like it when people pretend they do. I also don't trust people that claim to; I'm cynical like that.

That's how our law system is built, free-market and all, Hobbes, Lock, etc...

[stunned] Then how can you vote at all?

also, that's why Obama's going to win the election. Because he appeals to the personal needs of the most people. As Evo said, middle America.

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]

He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.

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

 

[daveb]

I see the President as being the 'leader of his party' and when he couldn't get 'his agenda' passed through a friendly congress, I have a hard time seeing him being successful.

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.

(even if I agreed with his policies) I think much of the extreme partisanship that exists is due to the 'us vs them' mentality that he talks about in nearly every speech. There is always someone for the President to blame it seems. That's not healthy for the country as a whole IMO, especially when we probably all could use less government in our lives.

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).

Say what you want about the previous administration, but nearly all of his 'infamous' policies had vast bipartisan support*. That can't be said about President Obama - he seems too focused on eating the rich (so is that cannibalism?).
*(The tax cuts that were passed through congress in 2001/3 were one of the few major policies passed along party lines - but if they were so bad, why didn't President Obama and his friendly congress totally repeal them - especially when the sunset provision came to term?)

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]

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

It did? To whom are you referring?

 

[Char. Limit]

It did? To whom are you referring?

This is probably going to 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'm going to ignore comparison of Obama to the Supreme Leader.. that's ridiculous...

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.

 

[turbo]

IMO, Obama will win a second term. He can run (quite effectively, I believe) against Boehner and McConnell, who have pledged to quash every Democratic initiative in order to make Obama a one-term president. That kind of partisanship does not serve the interests of the people - only the interests of the GOP, and it's not going to play well this fall. When the focus of the GOP leadership is not on economic recovery or job-creation, but just on getting rid of Obama, they are petty and self-serving. Maine's two senators are supposedly "moderate" Republicans, but they do whatever McConnell tells them to, even if that runs directly against the interests of this predominantly poor rural state.

 

[Gokul43201]

Heh, my parents are pure middle class and had nothing but higher taxes and higher medical bills because of him.

Which taxes have increased, and by how much?

Digging around the internets, I count a total of about $60B in tax hikes that have taken effect so far (nearly a third of which involves plugging a loophole in an alternative fuels tax credit that primarily affects the lumber/paper industry - see "Black Liquor Tax").

The 'Making Work Pay' tax credit alone was over $100B, and if you throw in all the payroll tax cuts and small business credits that Obama has passed, I wouldn't be surprised if there's been close to $200B in cuts.

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.

 

[Char. Limit]

If Romney does not win the primary, I think it's safe to say Obama is definitely winning a second term. None of the other candidates are really viable. Especially Newt gingrich, who has more black marks on his record than a smudged printer test sheet.

 

[Pengwuino]

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

The thread started as a single thoughtless statement expressing that Obama is better than the others. How exactly was this derailed?

I'm sorry, I suppose everyone should just nod politely and agree, less we're called anti-Obama fanatics.

 

[Pythagorean]

The thread started as a single thoughtless statement expressing that Obama is better than the others. How exactly was this derailed?

I'm sorry, I suppose everyone should just nod politely and agree, less we're called anti-Obama fanatics.

Well.. you did politely agree with our first post : )

 

[Pengwuino]

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.

They've had hikes in health care premiums starting right after Obama passed his health care plan. Insurers aren't idiots. My father also runs a small seasonal tax preparation business and has seen his costs go up. Hell, I think the profit from the business barely covers their normal tax bill.

The only good President in my opinion will be the one who gets rid of all the BS in the tax code. I did a clients return the other night (I work for him as well on the side) and this lady had $15k income, paid $1.5k in SS/Taxes, and since she had 2 kids, received an $8000 refund. My father does mainly lower income and middle class folks tax return and he says in all his years, the basic trend really is that lower and lower-middle class people do not pay ANY taxes. Most of them receive so much that the feds practically repay any state sales tax the people may have paid so "any" tax literally means ANY tax.

The problem with this country is that a vast majority of people pay so little taxes that they have no idea what it costs to run the country. This is why I dislike the pro-taxes types and the people who buy votes by running with pro-taxes agendas. If 30% of everyones income was taken away before you could even see it, I think people would start being a little more wary of having so many taxes.

Well.. you did politely agree with our first post : )

It was a back-handed agreement. It's like saying that the UN has the most experience being the UN. I can't believe the thread wasn't shut down immediately.

 

[Pythagorean]

The problem with this country is that a vast majority of people pay so little taxes that they have no idea what it costs to run the country. This is why I dislike the pro-taxes types and the people who buy votes by running with pro-taxes agendas. If 30% of everyones income was taken away before you could even see it, I think people would start being a little more wary of having so many taxes.

In general, higher taxed places are actually happier. Of course, the higher tax has to actually go towards people's happiness. But based on so-called "for the greater goods" reply in this thread... the money is actually going towards people's happiness. Which is why Obama is going to win : )

As an example, Denmark has a 41.4 HPI, The US has 28.8 HPI, just looking at taxes and happiness index. But you can also read a more thorough review:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-happiest-places-on-earth-are-heavily-taxed

It was a back-handed agreement. It's like saying that the UN has the most experience being the UN. I can't believe the thread wasn't shut down immediately.

It's more like saying let's not uproot the UN and replace it with an administration that has a completely different value system. The time it takes to change everything and all the conflicting policies during transition would be much more costly to members of the UN. And why? The UN is doing it's job!

The UN is an excellent candidate for remaining the UN!

 

[Gokul43201]

They've had hikes in health care premiums starting right after Obama passed his health care plan. Insurers aren't idiots.

They also had hikes right before, and the year before, and the year before that ... going back many, many years, and at about thrice the inflation rate, on average. What might be useful is a comparison of the increases after, with the rate of increase before ACA was passed. I haven't seen any data that's recent enough for that.

My father also runs a small seasonal tax preparation business and has seen his costs go up. Hell, I think the profit from the business barely covers their normal tax bill.

But this is not to say that he's seen a net increase in taxes, is it?

The only good President in my opinion will be the one who gets rid of all the BS in the tax code.

Might not be any President that can pull it off. For one thing, you'd need a supermajority in Congress that wants the same thing.

I did a clients return the other night (I work for him as well on the side) and this lady had $15k income, paid $1.5k in SS/Taxes, and since she had 2 kids, received an $8000 refund. My father does mainly lower income and middle class folks tax return and he says in all his years, the basic trend really is that lower and lower-middle class people do not pay ANY taxes. Most of them receive so much that the feds practically repay any state sales tax the people may have paid so "any" tax literally means ANY tax.

I believe this though it's quite the opposite in my case. I pay a much higher tax rate than say, Romney ... on a pathetic postdoc salary.

If 30% of everyones income was taken away before you could even see it, I think people would start being a little more wary of having so many taxes.

I agree.

 

[Pythagorean]

well, look at that... the slope is smaller during Obama! It looks like there's a lot of fallacy in people's selective claims about rising costs.

Pengwuino, perhaps you should have your parents create a PF account rather than us relying on your hearsay.

 

[ThomasT]

So far, and this is just tentative, and just my opinion, I don't think that Obama represents any sort of significant positive change. That is, assuming Romney gets the GOP nomination, then I don't think it matters who gets elected to the presidency.

For example, Obama recently temporarily stopped the TransCanada oil pipeline to Texas. A good thing imo, because I think that what's needed is more American refineries, not a pipeline to Texas for eventual export so that the oil companies can maximize their profits.

But it remains to be seen what the eventual outcome will be. I'm betting that, eventually, Obama will go along with it (and of course Romney is pro-pipeline all the way), and then we'll see the usual discussions about how he was forced to do it because of unreasonable Republican intransigence or whatever.

I also don't think that Obama is going to spearhead the enactment of sufficient regulatory measures wrt, say, the financial industry. Or that he's going to lead the way to significant changes in the tax code ... etc. In short, flip a coin, it will be business as usual either way.

 

[Pythagorean]

In short, flip a coin, it will be business as usual either way.

So then by that measure do you agree that a change in administration would just be an unnecessary hassle?

 

[skippy1729]

If Romney does not win the primary, I think it's safe to say Obama is definitely winning a second term. None of the other candidates are really viable. Especially Newt gingrich, who has more black marks on his record than a smudged printer test sheet.

I think that you have been watching too many Romney ads. Many of Newt's "black marks" are false and many are unusable in a general election campaign. I would be happy to get into specifics but that would probably be considered "thread hijacking". McCain was too much of a gentleman to use personal attacks. Newt will use them in retaliation. Newt doesn't have to cringe whenever the health care topic comes up, Romney does. Newt is not the "poster boy" for the OWS people; Romney is a perfect boogey man for the planned "class warfare" campaign. Present polls not withstanding, I think Newt will be a more formidable candidate than Romney.

The only prediction I have is that this race will be extremely close. Anyone who thinks this will be a blowout for either side is engaging in wishful thinking.

Skippy

 

[ThomasT]

So then by that measure do you agree that a change in administration would just be an unnecessary hassle?

My opinion is that all elected public officials should be allowed one term (say, 6 years) and that's it. Wrt your question, I don't think it will matter whether Obama or Romney is elected. So, yeah, if that's the choice, then why bother voting? Or, as the mainstream ads extoll, "it doesn't matter who you vote for, as long as you vote". Well, if it doesn't matter who you vote for, then why does it matter if you vote at all?

On the other hand, if Gingrich gets nominated, then I'll probably vote for Obama.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm actually impressed with what I've seen of Romney's science stances, so far. I mostly just don't think his stage presence is going to appeal to most the voting US, and of course (to reiterate my OP) a change in administration is a waste of time if the candidates have the same end effect.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Well, if it doesn't matter who you vote for, then why does it matter if you vote at all?

If I were a politician and I could do a favor for some district, I might pick one that had voted for me in order to reward it, or I might pick one that had voted against me in order to seduce it, but I would never pick a district that doesn't vote.

 

[Pythagorean]

If I were a politician and I could do a favor for some district, I might pick one that had voted for me in order to reward it, or I might pick one that had voted against me in order to seduce it, but I would never pick a district that doesn't vote.

Good point; that's an important factor. But it doesn't mean much to a district with little/no population. We don't get much political foreplay whether we vote or not because the numbers just aren't enough to warrant appealing to us.