News Obama for President: Experienced Leader

[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.

 

[Pengwuino]

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

Yes, it is. They are on fixed incomes and haven't had any real changes in their exemptions or anything.

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.

Which is a whole 'nother thread, unfortunately.

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 you're talking about the 15% rate, that's been debunked before. Have some kids, they do wonders on your tax bill. It surprises me that my city is not rich with tax dollars considering the way people pop out babies around here .

 

[Pengwuino]

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!

So in 2004, you would have agreed not to vote out Bush because why should we replace him with an administration that has a completely different value system? Remember, one persons "he's doing half decent" is another persons "he's destroying this country". That would imply we should just get rid of term limits because "why go through the hassle".

 

[ThomasT]

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.

I think that Obama's stage presence and rhetorical ability exceeds any of his possible opponents. But of course we have no way of knowing if a, say, Romney presidency would be substantially different than an Obama presidency.

The problem I have with Obama, and why he's been something of a disappointment to me, is that I don't think he's used the power of the presidency, his bully pulpit, to anywhere near its maximum effect -- assuming that he actually wants the sort of sweeping changes, to the betterment of America, that his rhetoric seems to indicate that he wants. His rhetoric is sort of inspiring, but his actions have been, more or less, in line with the status quo ... imho.

 

[Pythagorean]

That would imply we should just get rid of term limits because "why go through the hassle".

You're being rather selective in your reading comprehension. "Why go through the hassle" is a conditional. It only applies if the forseeable outcome is the same for both candidates.

So this kind of argument is only a distraction from the real argument (whether another candidate could do a better job, whether the forseeable outcome is not in favor of Obama). What makes you want to avoid that argument? Are you just throwing everything to the wall and seeing what sticks?

For example, why avoid responding to the statistics that show a lower increase in the increase of premiums during Obama's stay? You selectively complained about the function of the data, ignoring the derivative that countered your complaint. Instead, you chose to raise a straw man.

If you want to have a productive discussion, tell me who you think would have a better forseeable outcome and why, instead of using deconstruction tactics.

 

[ThomasT]

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.

I think that, if you were a politician, then you would have a prioritized list of people, companies, etc. that you are beholden to, and that that list would be prioritized according to the monetary contributions and power/influence of those people, companies, etc. -- and that how the common folk in a particular district have voted, or not voted, will be less important than that.

Wrt the logical parsing of the statement (a common theme in mainstream ads some years back), "it doesn't matter who you vote for, just as long as you vote", my question remains. If it doesn't matter who you vote for, then why does it matter that you vote?

 

[Pythagorean]

I think that Obama's stage presence and rhetorical ability exceeds any of his possible opponents. But of course we have no way of knowing if a, say, Romney presidency would be substantially different than an Obama presidency.

I agree, we can only talk about forseeables. Another reason my voting is pointless. Maybe despite Romney's bumbling stage presence, he'd make a much more effective commander and chief. I don't really know what's going on "up there" within the circles of the rich and powerful (no conspiracy theory intended... that they're in competition with each other only convolutes things more).

The problem I have with Obama, and why he's been something of a disappointment to me, is that I don't think he's used the power of the presidency, his bully pulpit, to anywhere near its maximum effect -- assuming that he actually wants the sort of sweeping changes, to the betterment of America, that his rhetoric seems to indicate that he wants. His rhetoric is sort of inspiring, but his actions have been, more or less, in line with the status quo ... imho.

Yes, he's actually been quite moderate on a lot of issues (such as abortion).

I'm not terribly surprised overall though. Everybody that makes it to president had some people that helped them get there. They're all somebody's corporate puppet to some extent. Ron Paul is probably the least so, but nobody takes him seriously and there's no guarantee his ideas would ever see the light of day if he magically made it to president.

 

[ThomasT]

Another reason my voting is pointless.

I think it probably is pointless, but it doesn't have to be. That is, as long as we're pretty much confined to voting for either a Republican or a Democratic candidate, either of which is necessarily going to represent the interests of the status quo, then voting for one or the other is essentially pointless. But it doesn't have to be in the sense that it's entirely possible to develop massive support for a third major party that represents the interests of the people and improvements in America, and not just the interests, to the detriment of America, of corporations, the wealthy, and the financial sector.

But I've gotten off topic. Imho, Obama wil win. I'll probably vote for him. And no significant positive changes will ensue.

 

[Pythagorean]

Or I could just move to Denmark...

 

[Pengwuino]

You're being rather selective in your reading comprehension. "Why go through the hassle" is a conditional. It only applies if the forseeable outcome is the same for both candidates.

But that's what you're implying.

So this kind of argument is only a distraction from the real argument (whether another candidate could do a better job, whether the forseeable outcome is not in favor of Obama). What makes you want to avoid that argument? Are you just throwing everything to the wall and seeing what sticks?

For example, why avoid responding to the statistics that show a lower increase in the increase of premiums during Obama's stay? You selectively complained about the function of the data, ignoring the derivative that countered your complaint. Instead, you chose to raise a straw man.

I find your attitude insulting. Health premiums HAVE gone up, was I suppose to argue that they haven't? The idea that they haven't gone up as fast is argument against the fact that my parents have seen increases and that we should keep ol' Obama in office is silly.

If you want to have a productive discussion, tell me who you think would have a better forseeable outcome and why, instead of using deconstruction tactics.

You still haven't answered my question. I find your notion of keeping a candidate because it's too much of a hassle to change a bit silly. Why aren't you defending this notion beyond situations that are convenient for yourself?

 

[Angry Citizen]

Imho, Obama wil win. I'll probably vote for him. And no significant positive changes will ensue.

Some significant positive changes have already ensued. Health care is huge to me, particularly as I am an uninsured type one diabetic. But you can thank Republicans and blue dog Democrats for keeping most of the 'change' from happening. I swear, the Democrats should've FORCED the filibuster out. What kind of country requires a sixty vote majority to pass legislation? The Democrats had a clear mandate from the people, and they lost it.