Obama for President: Experienced Leader

[ThomasT]

Some significant positive changes have already ensued. Health care is huge to me, particularly as I am an uninsured type one diabetic.

Has Obamacare made a positive difference? I honestly don't know. It doesn't affect me, as I'm a veteran and have free health care for life.

 

[lisab]

Has Obamacare made a positive difference? I honestly don't know. It doesn't affect me, as I'm a veteran and have free health care for life.

It affects many young people who can stay on their parents' plans until age 26 (I think it's 26).

Very helpful to young folks who have to take jobs that don't offer insurance.

 

[WhoWee]

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

Care to elaborate and support with specifics?

 

[seba102288]

I think we should vote them all out and make Chuck Norris president.

Seriously though, they all have their own agenda in mind. So the question is who really has America's best interest in mind?

Personally, I don't feel like Obama has done what he said he was going to do, and he can't blame congress considering it was completely controlled by the democrats for half of his presidency.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Personally, I don't feel like Obama has done what he said he was going to do, and he can't blame congress considering it was completely controlled by the democrats for half of his presidency.

That's actually false, given that everything the Democrats tried to pass that was of consequence had to pass through the Senate Republicans' filibusters. All it took was one Democrat (Lieberman, I look at you) to join the Republicans on an issue and that was all she wrote. Case in point the "public option". In the Democratic-controlled House sans filibuster, the public option was welcomed with open arms. In the filibuster-prone Senate, it was killed. Why else do you think Obama struck the tone of the "Great Compromiser" for most of his Presidency? He had to at least try to woo Republican Senators to his side. Unfortunately, Obama did not bank on the Republicans' rather pitiful need to unseat him at all costs. I have never seen such obstructionist politics in all my studies of history. I thought the 2006 Congress was bad, but the 2008 Congress was the worst in history. A clear mandate from the people, yet the Republicans blocked everything that came through.

 

[WhoWee]

That's actually false, given that everything the Democrats tried to pass that was of consequence had to pass through the Senate Republicans' filibusters. All it took was one Democrat (Lieberman, I look at you) to join the Republicans on an issue and that was all she wrote. Case in point the "public option". In the Democratic-controlled House sans filibuster, the public option was welcomed with open arms. In the filibuster-prone Senate, it was killed. Why else do you think Obama struck the tone of the "Great Compromiser" for most of his Presidency? He had to at least try to woo Republican Senators to his side. Unfortunately, Obama did not bank on the Republicans' rather pitiful need to unseat him at all costs. I have never seen such obstructionist politics in all my studies of history. I thought the 2006 Congress was bad, but the 2008 Congress was the worst in history. A clear mandate from the people, yet the Republicans blocked everything that came through.

Are you certain the Republicans blocked "everything that came through"? I seem to recall PPACA, Cash for Clunkers, Stimulus, and the tax cuts that were Bush's then Obama's and now Bush's again(something like that - IMO - can't keep track)?

 

[ThomasT]

I think we should vote them all out and make Chuck Norris president.

Seriously though ...

What do you mean "seriously though"?

 

[Angry Citizen]

Are you certain the Republicans blocked "everything that came through"? I seem to recall PPACA, Cash for Clunkers, Stimulus, and the tax cuts that were Bush's then Obama's and now Bush's again(something like that - IMO - can't keep track)?

The PPACA was blocked at all possible turns. It was neutered from its original form, which was actually a decent health care law. This current incarnation is the work of the blue dog Democrats and the Republican obstructionists. The stimulus also was forced to include a number of compromises such as massive tax incentives, not to mention the fact that it was undersized by perhaps two to three times what would be required to really jumpstart the economy.

As for the tax cuts, I would have made the same decision. Republicans were yet again playing politics, wanting more money for rich people. They essentially held the unemployed hostage until Obama signed the extension of the tax cuts. Obama was forced to do it, otherwise millions would have lost their unemployment benefits. He probably prevented a new Great Depression in doing so. Not that you likely care. Obama's an evil socialist and the country's about to fall apart under his watch...

 

[Pythagorean]

But that's what you're implying.

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?

I'm not sure if you're reading comprehension is challenged or you're just having trouble putting two different posts together. Do I really have to repeat myself or will you make an effort to reread my posts? If you're not going to make the effort, then it's pointless to even respond to your posts...

I find your attitude insulting.

Ok, so backhanded comments, personal feelings, and anecdotes about your family. These

Health premiums HAVE gone up, was I suppose to argue that they haven't?

You saw the data Gokul posted... can you see how your "argument" is misleading?

 

[Pythagorean]

Care to elaborate and support with specifics?

Quoting Bara Vaida:

1) he signed an executive order limiting the ability of registered lobbyists to get jobs in the administration.

2) he imposed new communications restrictions on lobbyists wanting to talk to executive branch officials on stimulus projects.

3) he banned lobbyists from serving on government advisory boards.

 

[WhoWee]

The PPACA was blocked at all possible turns. It was neutered from its original form, which was actually a decent health care law. This current incarnation is the work of the blue dog Democrats and the Republican obstructionists. The stimulus also was forced to include a number of compromises such as massive tax incentives, not to mention the fact that it was undersized by perhaps two to three times what would be required to really jumpstart the economy.

As for the tax cuts, I would have made the same decision. Republicans were yet again playing politics, wanting more money for rich people. They essentially held the unemployed hostage until Obama signed the extension of the tax cuts. Obama was forced to do it, otherwise millions would have lost their unemployment benefits. He probably prevented a new Great Depression in doing so. Not that you likely care. Obama's an evil socialist and the country's about to fall apart under his watch...

Care to support anything you've posted? As for the personal shot at me - is it a necessary inclusion to express your opinion?

 

[WhoWee]

Quoting Bara Vaida:

1) he signed an executive order limiting the ability of registered lobbyists to get jobs in the administration.

2) he imposed new communications restrictions on lobbyists wanting to talk to executive branch officials on stimulus projects.

3) he banned lobbyists from serving on government advisory boards.

Have these actions been effective? I'll have to do a little research on some of the green initiatives - such as Solyndra - before suggesting there were lobbyists involved. Does anyone know?

 

[WhoWee]

A quick search yielded this:
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/0...nt-liberally-to-woo-lawmakers-unti-81006.html

"Solyndra Spent Liberally to Woo Lawmakers Until the End, Records Show"

This fiasco wasted $500+ million in taxpayer funds.

 

[Pythagorean]

Huh... interesting potential scam there...

After Solyndra's bankruptcy, it was revealed that the company had spent a large sum of money on lobbying, that several of the company's shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama's campaign (as well as to Republicans), and that Solyndra executives had had many meetings with White House officials.

Another article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-solyndra-donor-20110917,0,2125785.story

Steve Spinner, who helped monitor the Energy Department's issuance of $25 billion in government loan guarantees to renewable energy projects, was one of Obama's top fundraisers in 2008 and is raising money for the president's 2012 reelection campaign.

Spinner did not have any role in the selection of applicants for the loan program and, in fact, was recused from the decision to grant a $535-million loan guarantee to Solyndra Inc. because his wife's law firm represented the company, administration officials said Friday.

 

[mheslep]

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

That's true of every one term president. Doesn't mean he gained useful experience.

 

[mheslep]

Dictator doesn't mean evil.

Yes it does.

 

[Pythagorean]

That's true of every one term president. Doesn't mean he gained useful experience.

The real question is whether Romney would really make any difference in the end... If not (and my stance is that he won't) then why bother wasting time and money changing administration?

If you think Romney (or Newt?!?) would make a better candidate, then make your case! Romney has crap for stage presence compared to Obama though, so Obama is going to win, I predict; which means Romney's just wasting his own time/money.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes it does.

Dictator has an objective denotation: it means that one has absolute power.
Evil has a massed subjective denotation: it means different things to different cultures.

Anyway, start a metaphysics thread in philosophy if you really want to carry this out...

 

[Jasongreat]

The real question is whether Romney would really make any difference in the end... If not (and my stance is that he won't) then why bother wasting time and money changing administration?

If you think Romney (or Newt?!?) would make a better candidate, then make your case! Romney has crap for stage presence compared to Obama though, so Obama is going to win, I predict; which means Romney's just wasting his own time/money.

He would definitely be atleast a little different from Obama. Romney would make the hard choice to dump unproductive programs, Obama seems set to double down on his green energy plan. More money for more Solyndra's, more money for electric cars that start on fire and have a range of sixty miles. He made it pretty clear in his state of the union that just because of all these failures it is no reason to stop funding them. So IMO, that is one difference between Romney and Obama. Since Romney has been lambasted about his choices to shut down unproductive failing buisinesses while at Bain.

 

[Pythagorean]

He would definitely be atleast a little different from Obama. Romney would make the hard choice to dump unproductive programs, Obama seems set to double down on his green energy plan. More money for more Solyndra's, more money for electric cars that start on fire and have a range of sixty miles. He made it pretty clear in his state of the union that just because of all these failures it is no reason to stop funding them. So IMO, that is one difference between Romney and Obama. Since Romney has been lambasted about his choices to shut down unproductive failing buisinesses while at Bain.

I'm not defending Solyndra or green energy in particular, and especially not the lobbying attached to that but in the sciences a program can be unproductive for a long time before it yields fruitful results. That's the nature of research and development. I don't know if I trust somebody to evaluate productivity appropriately.

 

[mheslep]

There are over 20 million people out of work in this country that want more work. The situation has not improved, at all, since hitting bottom two years ago. Since prior recessions have all snapped back much more rapidly than this, I blame Obama. His the cause of the exploding deficits and businesses that are afraid to hire because of Obamacare and regulatory expansion like Dodd-Frank.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

 

[Angry Citizen]

more money for electric cars that start on fire and have a range of sixty miles.

Just a note, but the Volt is a gas/electric hybrid that has a range of about 300 miles, IIRC. There also exists a sports car, the Tesla Roadster, that can go about two hundred, and is all-electric.

Another note: the first cars sucked too.

 

[mheslep]

Dictator has an objective denotation: it means that one has absolute power.
Evil has a massed subjective denotation: it means different things to different cultures.

Anyway, start a metaphysics thread in philosophy if you really want to carry this out...

No need. We are not in 'different cultures', we are in this one which is composed of free people. To grant anyone absolute power over a free people is evil.

 

[Pythagorean]

There are over 20 million people out of work in this country that want more work. The situation has not improved, at all, since hitting bottom two years ago. Since prior recessions have all snapped back much more rapidly than this, I blame Obama. His the cause of the exploding deficits and businesses that are afraid to hire because of Obamacare and regulatory expansion like Dodd-Frank.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

I don't disagree with the data you've posted, but how can I be sure of your interpretation of it (it's all Obama's fault).

 

[ThomasT]

The real question is whether Romney would really make any difference in the end...

Imho, a Romney admin promises to be a bit worse. At least with Obama there seems to be the chance that he might counter some of the negative forces in America. But Romney is definitely, without a doubt, pro status quo.

If not (and my stance is that he won't) then why bother wasting time and money changing administration?

No reason, imo. Vote Obama.

... Romney's just wasting his own time/money.

Yes, I think so, but he's got plenty of time/money.

 

[ThomasT]

There are over 20 million people out of work in this country that want more work. The situation has not improved, at all, since hitting bottom two years ago. Since prior recessions have all snapped back much more rapidly than this, I blame Obama.

Well, in a certain sense, so do I. It seems that he could have done more than he has, imo. Will a Republican do any better? I don't think so. They have essentially the same masters, and problems. What, really, can a president do? America is controlled by the big corporations, and the financial sector. The congress is, fapp, a corrupt body. Am I being too cynical?

 

[OmCheeto]

Yes it does.

Depends on what they're dictating...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvjoWOwnn4

I really should watch that movie one day.

I wonder how it will all end.

The Great Dictator
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Release date(s) October 15, 1940

The Great Dictator is a comedy film by Charlie Chaplin released in October 1940. Like most Chaplin films, he wrote, produced, and directed, in addition to staring as the lead. Having been the only Hollywood film maker to continue to make silent films well into the period of sound films, this was Chaplin's first true talking picture as well as his most commercially successful film. More importantly, it was the first major feature film to bitterly satirize Nazism and Adolf Hitler.

At the time of its first release, the United States was still formally at peace with Nazi Germany.

 

[mheslep]

Depends on what they're dictating...

Laughs aside, No.

 

[OmCheeto]

Laughs aside, No.

One man's dictator, is another nation's leader...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvwbqwqVJ04

 

[mege]

Imho, a Romney admin promises to be a bit worse. At least with Obama there seems to be the chance that he might counter some of the negative forces in America. But Romney is definitely, without a doubt, pro status quo.

Romney is only pro status quo in so far as he isn't out for radical change of policy. If anything he wants to 'undo' a bit of the change. Romney is a neocon, no doubt about it - but I think he will make some of the hard decisions that President Obama will not. President Obama has skirted hard decisions and spent 4 years campaigning, trying to make everyone happy while the house is burning.

Yes, I think so, but he's got plenty of time/money.

This is quite the ideological parallel: Romney using much of his own money, while President Obama is using (an expected) billion dollars of other people's money to campaign. Fancy that...