News Obama for President: Experienced Leader

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

Last time I checked, social security was projected to be solvent through 2037. And quite frankly, projections aren't that great so far out.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cbo-projec...ration-solvent/story?id=12776481#.T0co13mY7x4

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?

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[daveb]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[ThinkToday]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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

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

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

 

[mheslep]

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/

 

[SixNein]

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

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

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.

 

[SixNein]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

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."

 

[ThomasT]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[Hobin]

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.)

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[Hobin]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[ThomasT]

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.

 

[Pythagorean]

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.

 

[mege]

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).

 

[Pythagorean]

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[mege]

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?

 

[Hobin]

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.

 

[MarcoD]

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.

 

[mege]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

... the employees of faith-based companies can often get free riders to provide contraceptives even if the companies refuse to pay for the service.

Then why do we need a law to enforce what would happen on its own anyway?

 

[russ_watters]

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.

That leads well into another point I was wanting to bring up:

First off, I'd like to see your evidence that the "US wants progressive". I think the mid-term elections are evidence it doesn't. And (citation later), it has been true for a long time that the US self-identifies itself as more conservative than liberal.

In addition - and more relevant than today - even though the republican candidates are actively campaigning to their conservative base, more Americans still say Obama is too liberal than say Santorum or Romney are to conservative:

Americans' perceptions of Obama's ideology have changed significantly since he was elected. Four years ago, when Gallup first asked this question about Obama while he was competing for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, a plurality, 47%, thought his views were about right. At that time, 37% said his views were too liberal, compared with today's 51%.

The perceptions that Obama is too extreme to the left of the ideological spectrum than his competitors are to the right are likely due to three factors. First, Americans are more familiar with Obama than with either of his challengers, as evidenced by the smaller percentage without an opinion of Obama's political views (4%) compared with Romney's (9%) or Santorum's (13%).

Second, for many years Americans have been roughly twice as likely to self-identify as conservative rather than liberal. Thus, the odds are probably greater that a Democratic politician would be perceived as too liberal than that a Republican candidate would be perceived as too conservative.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152954/H...com&utm_campaign=sharing#.T0ebqHvZQBQ.twitter

In other words, many people who voted for Obama thought he was more moderate than he really is. Now after seeing him in office, they realize just how liberal he is.

Now for the last part, there may be an issue of biased self-reporting at work and it is something that I've perceived a lot at PF: liberals, even ones that are pretty far to the left, often self-label as "moderates" (a few even as conservative!) even though they aren't. But 40% to 20% is still a big gap.

On the other hand, the poll also reports that Obama has roughly the same split of people agreeing vs disagreeing with him on the issues as those other two candidates. However, this may result from Obama's actions not following his beliefs due to being beaten toward the center by the Republicans. For example, he was pushing for a second stimulus, which he never got, at about the same time as he was signing debt control legislation. This can make his "policies" vs his beliefs hard to reconcile.

 

[Evo]

Each candidate has their own thread. Please keep all discussions specifically about the canidate.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

I think one of the problems the President has with the healthcare reform is that it hasn't been fully implemented yet and details continue to seep out that some embrace and others reject - this is a good example. Personally, when I see a contraceptive mandate - I have to wonder how close these plans will ultimately come to being the "Cadillac Plans" the President originally intended to punish?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-22-health-care-revision_N.htm

"A proposed 40% tax on high-priced or "Cadillac" health care plans would begin in 2018 instead of 2013, as originally proposed by the Senate. And the definition of a high-end policy would increase to $27,500 for a family, instead of $23,000.

The Senate's version of the tax, which was projected to raise $150 billion over 10 years, was opposed by labor unions. House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had raised reservations about its impact. A typical family policy costs more than $13,000 in 2009, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, indicated that there would be support from labor leaders for Obama's new proposal. "Working families deserve health insurance that covers more and costs less," he said."

Please note the annual cost of these plans - premiums of over $2,000 per month before the elimination of the lifetime cap and other mandates.

 

[Pythagorean]

First off, I'd like to see your evidence that the "US wants progressive".

You've skewed my words here with selective quoting... go back and read the sentence again and compare to what you've written. Once you've done that, look at the link below.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

On the particular issue we are discussing, you can see there's still a large body of the US supporting his decision (about half).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152963/Contraception-Debate-Divides-Americans-Including-Women.aspx

It's going to come down to swing votes in the end, which means those of us that are looking for the lesser evil. When it comes to a choice between Santorum and Obama, it will be Obama for me. Romney and Obama... I might not even bother voting. I would say they're about equally the lesser evil; Obama is just smoother on stage. Then again, maybe a smooth talker is better for foreign affairs.

And of course, remember that approval ratings don't tell you who people think is the lesser evil. I may not approve of a lot of what Obama does, but that doesn't mean I want Santorum as president if that was the alternative.

 

[Hobin]

Then again, maybe a smooth talker is better for foreign affairs.

It definitely is.

 

[ThomasT]

It's going to come down to swing votes in the end, which means those of us that are looking for the lesser evil. When it comes to a choice between Santorum and Obama, it will be Obama for me. Romney and Obama... I might not even bother voting. I would say they're about equally the lesser evil; Obama is just smoother on stage. Then again, maybe a smooth talker is better for foreign affairs.

I think Obama's personality is better for an American figurehead ... given that other things are equal, which I don't think they are. That is, of the three you mentioned, Obama is clearly the best choice, imho.

 

[Pythagorean]

What about the employee's beliefs?

Employees aren't forced to take contraceptive... nobody is... or what are you implying?

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.

Nobody said you were...

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.

How?

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

So what?

(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).

So what?

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.

So what? This policy reduces the chance that their irresponsibility will result in another mouth for the US to feed. It saves money by removing that burden.

This policy is purely idealogical and has very narrow real impact compared to the constriction of freedom imposed.

You still have yet to demonstrate freedoms taken away from individual employee.

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?

No individual's rights are being stepped on. Insurance companies and religious institutions are not individuals. Birth control is simply not being discriminated against as a medical issue. It's religious institution that wanted to be the exception, not many other employers even recognized this as some special case of health.

 

[Hobin]

I think Obama's personality is better for an American figurehead ... given that other things are equal, which I don't think they are. That is, of the three you mentioned, Obama is clearly the best choice, imho.

Well, if it were clear, it's strange that so many people talk about the presidential campaign and who's going to win, isn't it? (I agree with you, though.)

 

[WhoWee]

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...

If someone is labeled a "smooth talker" - don't they run the risk that people will not trust them?

 

[Hobin]

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.

Wait, what? I'm from the Netherlands, and I agree with something that's widely agreed on in the Netherlands (among other countries), therefore I am 'projecting' local Dutch custom on the US? That's not an argument at all.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think one of the problems the President has with the healthcare reform is that it hasn't been fully implemented yet and details continue to seep out that some embrace and others reject - this is a good example. Personally, when I see a contraceptive mandate - I have to wonder how close these plans will ultimately come to being the "Cadillac Plans" the President originally intended to punish?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-22-health-care-revision_N.htm

"A proposed 40% tax on high-priced or "Cadillac" health care plans would begin in 2018 instead of 2013, as originally proposed by the Senate. And the definition of a high-end policy would increase to $27,500 for a family, instead of $23,000.

The Senate's version of the tax, which was projected to raise $150 billion over 10 years, was opposed by labor unions. House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had raised reservations about its impact. A typical family policy costs more than $13,000 in 2009, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, indicated that there would be support from labor leaders for Obama's new proposal. "Working families deserve health insurance that covers more and costs less," he said."

Please note the annual cost of these plans - premiums of over $2,000 per month before the elimination of the lifetime cap and other mandates.

Thanks for the informative post. I can't argue with your concerns. I certainly don't think Obama is the white knight, here. All I can say is that this issue (cadillac plans) is somewhat obscure and probably won't impact his candidacy much.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It's going to come down to swing votes in the end, which means those of us that are looking for the lesser evil.

I'm tired of always voting for the lesser evil. I'm changing tactics this year.

 

[Pythagorean]

If someone is labeled a "smooth talker" - don't they run the risk that people will not trust them?

The people (me) labeling them smooth talker already don't trust them as much as they (Obama) would like. Still, the point is that most Obama supporters don't see it the way I do. They take Obama as 100% genuine. The fact that he's a good smooth talker will only help him with the majority of his votes.

Also, it's not like those of us that think that think the other candidates are squeaky clean. For us, it's a choice between good liars and bad liars, but they're all liars.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm tired of always voting for the lesser evil. I'm changing tactics this year.

I've considered not voting before as a "tactic" (the tactic would be to give up on caring, thus lowering my stress levels).

What did you have in mind?

 

[MarcoD]

Wait, what? I'm from the Netherlands, and I agree with something that's widely agreed on in the Netherlands (among other countries), therefore I am 'projecting' local Dutch custom on the US? That's not an argument at all.

God man. He asked what's wrong with the system, and you responded with what I consider basically a platitude, you didn't even bother to answer the question. If you want to say anything, then bring arguments to the table. And, in case you forgot, I am Dutch too.

 

[ThomasT]

If someone is labeled a "smooth talker" - don't they run the risk that people will not trust them?

Sure. I don't particularly trust Obama any more than the others. I just don't think he's screwed anything up yet, and I don't think he will. He'll do, I'm guessing, basically what's expected of him by the status quo. Even though I'd like to see some changes in that status quo, it's gotten us to the America of today which is a pretty good place to live for most of us.

In terms of what they can be expected to do, maybe it would turn out to be a coin toss between Obama and Romney. But, assuming that other things are essentially equal, I think that Obama projects a better image for an American president at this time.

 

[Hobin]

God man. He asked what's wrong with the system, and you responded with what I consider basically a platitude, you didn't even bother to answer the question. If you want to say anything, then bring arguments to the table. And, in case you forgot, I am Dutch too.

*rereads* My apologies, I seem to have misread the question. (Yes, I did not forget you were Dutch.) It was the 'projecting local Dutch custom' that tends to get on my nerves.

 

[MarcoD]

*rereads* My apologies, I seem to have misread the question. (Yes, I did not forget you were Dutch.) It was the 'projecting local Dutch custom' that tends to get on my nerves.

Well, I am sorry, but you do that. The US is a continent with 300M people and has different problems than the Netherlands, which is, in respect to that, a village filled with Hobbits.

As an example, I've read your remark on the right to bear arms. Well, if you would move with family from the Netherlands to somewhere in the outback of the US where it takes police about an hour to arrive at your doorstep, you wouldn't know how fast you would end up buying a gun to defend your family just in case. So please take into respect that it is just a different country.

 

[Hobin]

As an example, I've read your remark on the right to bear arms. Well, if you would move with family from the Netherlands to somewhere in the outback of the US where it takes police about an hour to arrive at your doorstep, you wouldn't know how fast you would end up buying a gun to defend your family just in case. So please take into respect that it is just a different country.

I don't disagree with that. I simply think it's a relatively unimportant issue when it comes to electing a presidential candidate.