2012 U.S. Elections - President Obama Re-elected

[Jonanananas]

Wow, why is there so much extreme negativity towards Obama? I'm far from a fanboy, I see the appeal that Romney had and don't think he'd be that much worse than Obama, though I'm still moderately happy about the outcome. But I have to say the amount of gloom surprises me...

 

I'm looking forward to see what can be accomplished in these next four years.

 

Probably the same thing he achieved in the past 4 years. Nothing.

 

There are enough things he's done. You don't have to like them, but I don't really see how you can say he achieved nothing. Besides, it's somewhat understandable with Republicans controlling the house of representatives for a good part of his term.

 

 

 

I stayed up til 4:40am (or there abouts) last night watching the BBC coverage down in my University's student bar... The atmosphere there was almost tangible, and the relief and celebration we had, even here in England, was amazing... So much happier Obama is in. I sincerely worried for the safety of the world when I read about some of the things Romney has said over his election campaign.

 

Still... 4 more years of the best man for the job sitting in the Whitehouse!

 

In before a nuclear Iran, 20 trillion in debt, breaking ties in with Israel, and support of more Muslim countries.

 

Iran: What exactly should he have done/do to prevent it? Start another war? Be more restrictive, because that has worked so well? The Iranian government is so opposed to America that trying to get any progress done is unbelievably difficult. And does another war sound like a good idea?

 

Debt: Fair enough, it's the biggest issue I have with him too. But the last years were the worst recession since 1929. There is only so much a government can do to fix the economy, and without stimulus packages it gets really difficult. Romney also didn't exactly seem to have a great plan to deal with the deficit, though I'd concede that he'd probably do better on this issue than Obama, although the question would be what he sacrifices for it.

 

Breaking ties with Israel: What? The USA is far from doing that...Obama won't do it either. And tbh, I feel/have felt? at times that some less support, or rather, some equalizing support for Palestineans wouldn't be bad for trying to solve that issue. While Palestina is the more hostile, Israel hasn't been acting like a lamb either and as it's a problem between two parties, you have to work with both to fix it, trying to find some common ground.

 

More support for muslim countries: Lol? And what's so horrible about that? Everyone has a right to their religion. And while it surely plays a part in how the country behaves, it's far from all of it. Judge a a country/government by its actions, not its main religion...and again, some support might help to be able to work better together

 

 

The east coast is still in ruins, the unemployment rate is still high, the labor force participation rate is at an all time low, the United State's foreign policy for dealing with Islamic Extremism certainly is lacking, the security of the U.S. - Mexico boarder still leaves something to be desired, America is still 16 trillion dollars in debt and is still spending the stimulus every year for trillion dollar deficits.

 

The feds are still flooding the market with dollars to try to kick-start inflation, 47 million people are still on food stamps, and we may have just reached the point where more people are dependent on government and are voting "to get theirs" than are voting for love of country.

 

At the very least, Obama shouldn't be able to blame his predecessor in 4 years.

 

Most people will vote for what's good for them (Usually they'll also think it's good for their country). That goes for both people dependent on government and not dependent. If those dependent on government vote for Obama, then it's because they think they'll be worse off under Romney. That's not Obama's fault. It's Romney's, for either not having a working plan to deal with that issue or not being able to convince them that it works. Also, I find this stance a bit appaling tbh. I'm convinced the percentage of lazy asses who really will just do anything not to work and leech of the government compared to those who'd like to support themselves but can't for whatever reason is very small. And if those aforementioned lazy asses vote for Obama, because they're better off under him, then that is a fault in the system, but that doesn't mean the whole system is flawed...and afaik, there's no country supplying welfare that doesn't have this problem.

 

Debt, bad economy etc., see above.

 

I'd like to know what exactly you mean with the security of the US-Mexican border. Is this about illegal immigrants or more about drug traficking/war on drugs?

 

As for Islamic Extremism, what should he do in your opinion to help solve the problem? I actually feel the US has been doing a lot better than in the past, with failed wars, and meddling too much with countries of a different culture. Just because religion and state should ideally be seperate doesn't mean we should automatically go about and try to force that onto a government of a different culture. Yeah, I'd like a secular government way better too. But rather a muslim government you can somewhat reason with than trying to install another dictator, like in the past, (if you go to the extremes), because that has worked so well. And it's the wiser course to try to accept their religion and just try to appeal to their normal logic and human reasoning than alienating them by trying to crack down on their religion(as it will undoubtedly be perceived)

[sees_all1]

I'm not calling them lazy, they have no incentive to change. One of the crowning jewel's in Obama's progressive policy was to remove the work requirement from means tested welfare. Also, when you have 99 paid weeks to find a new job, where's the incentive to find work?

 

The immigration system is broken, but that isn't what's getting people killed. Spill-over violence from the drug cartels is unacceptable. The only thing the administration has done is further arm them (see Fast and Furious). The entire issue should be taken on in one fell swoop - increase the amount of security at the border, fix the immigration system so that people that want to come here can, and declare war on the cartels.

 

When Iran's people were rallying in the street against their government, President Obama should have supported them. If the Iranian government was toppled, America could have gained an ally. He didn't. Instead, President Obama ousted "friendly" dictators, which shows anyone that wants to be America's ally that America might not have your back further down the road.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm not calling them lazy, they have no incentive to change. One of the crowning jewel's in Obama's progressive policy was to remove the work requirement from means tested welfare. Also, when you have 99 paid weeks to find a new job, where's the incentive to find work?

This is an argument based on an incredible amount of ignorance. You're acting as if people on welfare receive anything close to the working average wage.

[sees_all1]

I'm not calling them lazy, they have no incentive to change. One of the crowning jewel's in Obama's progressive policy was to remove the work requirement from means tested welfare. Also, when you have 99 paid weeks to find a new job, where's the incentive to find work?

This is an argument based on an incredible amount of ignorance. You're acting as if people on welfare receive anything close to the working average wage.

Cite numbers then. Because I can tell you in 2011 America spent more than $1 trillion on means tested welfare.

 

E: http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/10/18/trillion-dollar-cost-welfare/

[stevepole]

I'm looking forward to see what can be accomplished in these next four years.

 

Probably the same thing he achieved in the past 4 years. Nothing.

 

If you where to put blame on the lack of achievements over the past four years it should go on the lack of cooperation in congress.

[obfuscator]

How is the US supposed to "declare war" on drug cartels? By invading Mexico?

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm not calling them lazy, they have no incentive to change. One of the crowning jewel's in Obama's progressive policy was to remove the work requirement from means tested welfare. Also, when you have 99 paid weeks to find a new job, where's the incentive to find work?

This is an argument based on an incredible amount of ignorance. You're acting as if people on welfare receive anything close to the working average wage.

Cite numbers then. Because I can tell you in 2011 America spent more than $1 trillion on means tested welfare.

 

E: http://www.foxbusine...r-cost-welfare/

That trillion figure means nothing without context. Is it for 800,000 people, or is it for eight million people? The economic consequences and the political points change quite drastically if you put that figure into any kind of perspective and analyse it properly.

 

While the unemployment insurance schemes in America are fraught with various complexities, both on a state-by-state level and on a personal level, therefore making it very difficult to draw a representative, national figure, the average UI compensation packets only add up to about a third of the average working wage of the geographical region they are awarded in (Tobey/Washington Post, 2010). Clearly, missing out on the remaining two thirds of the average working wage isn't enough incentive for people who are unemployed to find work...

[Jonanananas]

I'm not calling them lazy, they have no incentive to change. One of the crowning jewel's in Obama's progressive policy was to remove the work requirement from means tested welfare. Also, when you have 99 paid weeks to find a new job, where's the incentive to find work?

 

I see your point here. I don't fully agree with it, but don't want to argue further as I don't know enough how your welfare systems works to be able to do so.

 

The immigration system is broken, but that isn't what's getting people killed. Spill-over violence from the drug cartels is unacceptable. The only thing the administration has done is further arm them (see Fast and Furious). The entire issue should be taken on in one fell swoop - increase the amount of security at the border, fix the immigration system so that people that want to come here can, and declare war on the cartels.

 

Sounds reasonable to me. Again I fear I don't know enough to get into a deep discussion :/

 

When Iran's people were rallying in the street against their government, President Obama should have supported them. If the Iranian government was toppled, America could have gained an ally. He didn't. Instead, President Obama ousted "friendly" dictators, which shows anyone that wants to be America's ally that America might not have your back further down the road.

 

Supporting them would have lent a lot of weight to Iran's propaganda that the protests were not an expression of the people but the work of foreign agents who get these people to riot. As for ousting "friendly" dictators, the acceptance of those was a mistake in the first place. See e.g. Iran where that leads to. We can just hope consequences won't be as bad this time. But those people shouldn't be denied their right to freedom (Though I agree that western nations/the UN were too quick in asking for those dictators to step back. See e.g. Syria where they offered Assad the "option" to step down, cease the attacks and effectively fully submit to the rebels or to keep on cracking down. What a surprise he didn't accept the offer...)

[Omar]

Why would you declare war on the cartels when legalization of marijuana alone would probably take them out...?

[jasignhagj]

Sees, if you're willing to hold up your end of our bet, I request you place this as your signature:

 

[size=7][b][color=#40e0d0]Spork > Me ; Math > Feels[/color][/b][/size]

 

Spork > Me ; Math > Feels

[Donnie]

America is doomed. In before 20trillion dollar debt.

Yeah, because Romney is totally a small government guy...

 

More so than Obama. Pick the lesser of two evils, but America opted against that.

Not at all. Romney had the same spending plans as Obama, with an empty promise to end obamacare. Also the likely expensive war with iran.

[Giordano]

Too much debt, yet we should continue supporting Israel and the Jewish cause against the evil Muslims? Too much debt, yet we should be aggressive with our military on foreign relations? Too much debt, but we should lower taxes?

 

Love ultraconservative thinking. :roll:

[Donnie]

yeah its pretty crazy. Here is what we should be doing

 

1.) dismantle the military. As a force of defense it serves no purpose in the nuclear era unless it is being used to police shit countries that cant harm us

2.) dismantle socialized healthcare including medicare. Do some research on lodge practice. Which if around today could provide healthcare to todays standard at the massive cost of $64 a year per person without subsidies. heres a link to a little article about it

3.) stop market interventions. Why the recession happened and why the bailouts wont help the situation. A good sarcastic video explaining it I found on youtube

More generally though interventions never work and even UCLA admits the new deal greatly lengthened the great depression.

4.) prison state. $40k cost a year per prisoner, free everyone convicted of a victimless crime.

5.) social security. Ponzy scheme and will fail for the similar reasons. If you believe that people are stupid and need the government to force them to save for retirement why force everyone to get an IRA and/or life insurance instead?

 

1.) total savings: $600B a year

2.) total savings: $1.5T a year

3.) total savings: billions

4.) total savings: $30B a year

5.) total savings: $800B+ a year

 

 

If you want to lower the national debt all these are pretty good steps. But you wont see a candidate do 1 or any of these

[obfuscator]

That's because none of those things are that simple.

 

#1 in particular is mind-blowingly stupid.

[Donnie]

yeah they are. and if China was to launch an invasion against the united states what weapon would be used to fight them? Stealth bombers or nukes? probably nukes

 

with the othes you probably never heard of lodge practice until now, and i doubt you even read the article ot see how it was destroyed. You probably have some belief that the great recession was caused by lack of regulations. Social security would be a challenge because of current obligations to people whove paid into it 20+ years. But the best approach is everyone under 50 has the choice whether or not to continue and everyone under 30 has to switch to an IRA based retirement plan.

[sees_all1]

Too much debt, but we should lower taxes?

 

Love ultraconservative thinking. :roll:

Mathmatically proven, yet misunderstood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

[Giordano]

Too much debt, but we should lower taxes?

 

Love ultraconservative thinking. :roll:

Mathmatically proven, yet misunderstood.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Laffer_curve

35% or whatever it is still seems to low to me, considering pre-1970s the tax rate was much higher and yet...the economy prospered.

But you know, it's not really about numbers: it's about fixing the loopholes. That's more important than anything we'd end up throwing at each other.

 

But I'd like to see a valid excuse why the common folk want to keep Israel on the face of the map.

[sees_all1]

I don't see where you got 40% from.

What the Laffer curve shows is that in some situations, lowering the tax rate can increase revenue, and increasing the tax rate can decrease revenue.

 

Moar info:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_22.htm

[sees_all1]

I'm not calling them lazy, they have no incentive to change. One of the crowning jewel's in Obama's progressive policy was to remove the work requirement from means tested welfare. Also, when you have 99 paid weeks to find a new job, where's the incentive to find work?

This is an argument based on an incredible amount of ignorance. You're acting as if people on welfare receive anything close to the working average wage.

Cite numbers then. Because I can tell you in 2011 America spent more than $1 trillion on means tested welfare.

 

E: http://www.foxbusine...r-cost-welfare/

That trillion figure means nothing without context. Is it for 800,000 people, or is it for eight million people? The economic consequences and the political points change quite drastically if you put that figure into any kind of perspective and analyse it properly.

 

While the unemployment insurance schemes in America are fraught with various complexities, both on a state-by-state level and on a personal level, therefore making it very difficult to draw a representative, national figure, the average UI compensation packets only add up to about a third of the average working wage of the geographical region they are awarded in (Tobey/Washington Post, 2010). Clearly, missing out on the remaining two thirds of the average working wage isn't enough incentive for people who are unemployed to find work...

 

Call it 100 million people, and instead they could've cut a check of more than $10,000 to each of them for the same amount. Or 47 million, the number of people on food stamps, and the number becomes more than $21,000.

[TTanT]

yeah they are. and if China was to launch an invasion against the united states what weapon would be used to fight them? Stealth bombers or nukes? probably nukes

 

with the othes you probably never heard of lodge practice until now, and i doubt you even read the article ot see how it was destroyed. You probably have some belief that the great recession was caused by lack of regulations. Social security would be a challenge because of current obligations to people whove paid into it 20+ years. But the best approach is everyone under 50 has the choice whether or not to continue and everyone under 30 has to switch to an IRA based retirement plan.

 

"Nuke all enemies" is not an acceptable method of handling defence.

A nuke obliterates everything in its blast radius, and poisons the ecosystem surrounding it for decades. A large barrage of nukes could render an entire country uninhabitable.

Do you honestly believe that if China were to attack us we would be justified in the genocidal slaughter of billions of human beings?

 

Say that China attacks India. Would you nuke them then?

They've taken over India and are massing arms. How about now?

They've taken Japan. Well?

Their warships are cutting off our sea trade and preventing us from trading. Any ships they catch are confiscated. Will you nuke them?

They invade Mexico. Shall we nuke?

Canada falls. Is it time?

When do you draw the line? At what moment does it become permissable to obliterate an entire people?

 

And this isn't even getting into the small stuff, like dealing with pirates and protecting ambassadors.

I'm not addressing the rest of the stuff right now, but to say that a country does not require a military is dangerously nieve.

[Kaida23]

yeah they are. and if China was to launch an invasion against the united states what weapon would be used to fight them? Stealth bombers or nukes? probably nukes

Yes, lets all use weapons that will turn large parts of the world into uninhabitable wastelands for the rest of forever.

 

There's a reason they were only used once...well, technically twice but you know what I mean.

[Giordano]

I don't see where you got 40% from.

What the Laffer curve shows is that in some situations, lowering the tax rate can increase revenue, and increasing the tax rate can decrease revenue.

 

Moar info:

http://www.manhattan.../html/ir_22.htm

I know what it shows me, but I'm not suggesting to put the tax rate past the point of no return. Upper-ended tax brackets should get taxed more, but more importantly, shouldn't be allowed to use the loopholes where they pay significantly less. Hell, maybe closing the loopholes would help so damn much that we wouldn't need to increase the tax rate.

[obfuscator]

yeah they are. and if China was to launch an invasion against the united states what weapon would be used to fight them? Stealth bombers or nukes? probably nukes

 

with the othes you probably never heard of lodge practice until now, and i doubt you even read the article ot see how it was destroyed. You probably have some belief that the great recession was caused by lack of regulations. Social security would be a challenge because of current obligations to people whove paid into it 20+ years. But the best approach is everyone under 50 has the choice whether or not to continue and everyone under 30 has to switch to an IRA based retirement plan.

 

If china ever invaded the United states and nukes were used, there would be no world left to worry about. If anything you should be pushing for dismantling the nuclear weapons program rather than the military.

 

I think that the size of the US military could be reduced...but a country that large cannot maintain a completely isolationist foreign policy which is what they'd have to effectively do if they had no military.

 

The recession was not caused by lack of regulation, but lack of regulation certainly contributed.

 

[Estonian dude]

Well, you seriously need to fix federal tax system... Top 12 most profitable companies in the USA paid $0 in taxes this year... Freaking loopholes and thousands of pages of tax regulations...

Take our example: everyone pays 20%. Nice and simple, equal for everybody. My country has possibly the lowest amount of debts in the whole EU. Flat tax rate rules!

[Kaida23]

My god, what I would give to only pay 20% income tax.