Obama for President: Experienced Leader

[Angry Citizen]

If Germany is proof we need more left wing economics, most of the rest of Europe must be proof we don't.

Because the United States, which is the embodiment of right-wing economics with a few modest exceptions, has done so well...

 

[WhoWee]

A pictoral view of the President.
http://www.apimages.com/Search.aspx...le=or&adte=1328199695&pagez=60&cfasstyle=AND&

 

[WhoWee]

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

I thought about this statement during my 7 hours of driving today. I think a good case could be made for both Hillary and Jeb. Hillary spent eight years in the White House and lived through some difficult challenges and decisions. Jeb has twelve years of close proximity and a unique triangular view (for lack of a better description).

 

[WhoWee]

Because the United States, which is the embodiment of right-wing economics with a few modest exceptions, has done so well...

Why don't you elaborate on your description - or support?

 

[phoenix:\\]

I posted employed fraction of population intentionally to show the difference. To be 'Unemployed' in the BLS definition means you have jump through some of their hoops to be considered actively looking. Many people have given up looking, falling off the BLS definition, but the employed to population statistic still shows what's going on. E/P has its flaws too, as people simply retiring will lower E/P.

So, in other words, it's your opinion that 20 million people are unemployed but want work?

Yes it has improved from the bottom. My point is that in all other US recessions the economy has bounced back more quickly. The global economy was impacted by the financial crisis, but other countries, like Germany which shunned a large stimulus despite Geitner's clamoring, have recovered robustly. If it were not for the luck of the recent boom in tight oil and gas I doubt the US economy would have got off the floor at all. Even there, with his rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, he is dragging down the system.

No other recession has been as big as the '07 recession and, the recession is over. Just because we still have the effects that the recession caused still occurring doesn't mean we are still in a recession.

As for the XL pipeline, well:

http://www.engineering.unl.edu/publications/ENonline/Summer11/pipeline.html

http://journalstar.com/news/opinion...6-42fc-5065-a370-f7b371cb1ece.html?mode=story

It is better to stop the pipeline and work out the possible errors in its construction rather than building something that (EDIT) has the potential* to cause more devastation to the ecosystem and cause people to be without water and a place to live because of relocation. It is too risky.

I don't see the system being "dragged" down when it is improving.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Why don't you elaborate on your description - or support?

What manner of support would you like?

The United States has a very poor social safety net that is much less inclusive than other countries, particularly in Europe. We don't have socialized medicine. Our tax rates are much lower, which limits our ability to redistribute wealth. Consequently, our income inequality is the highest in the developed world. Our regulations are much more lax than in Europe. We have signed numerous free trade agreements with countries whose labor forces work at significantly lower wage levels, and then we wonder why our companies ship themselves overseas. These are all the effects of right-wing thought, and is evidence that America is a nation governed by two right-wing parties.

 

[WhoWee]

What manner of support would you like?

The United States has a very poor social safety net that is much less inclusive than other countries, particularly in Europe. We don't have socialized medicine. Our tax rates are much lower, which limits our ability to redistribute wealth. Consequently, our income inequality is the highest in the developed world. Our regulations are much more lax than in Europe. We have signed numerous free trade agreements with countries whose labor forces work at significantly lower wage levels, and then we wonder why our companies ship themselves overseas. These are all the effects of right-wing thought, and is evidence that America is a nation governed by two right-wing parties.

Can you be more specific in your analysis of the US safety net - for instance - are you taking into account the US "Poverty Level" thresholds in comparison to other countries? Since you haven't supplied any actual data - perhaps you'd like to compare the value of benefits received (food stamps, housing, healthcare, education) on a per capita basis to income levels around the world (just a thought)?

 

[MarcoD]

Fukuyama's latest musings.

I'm not a great fan of him. I think he was once one of Bush advisers. But -honestly- I forgot.

(Looked him up. I think I confuse him often with Huntington.)

 

[Pythagorean]

I thought about this statement during my 7 hours of driving today. I think a good case could be made for both Hillary and Jeb. Hillary spent eight years in the White House and lived through some difficult challenges and decisions. Jeb has twelve years of close proximity and a unique triangular view (for lack of a better description).

They're... not candidates...

 

[WhoWee]

They're... not candidates...

Maybe Hillary should be - she has 8 years in the Clinton White House and as much time logged in the Obama Administration as the President.

 

[skippy1729]

Maybe Hillary should be - she has 8 years in the Clinton White House and as much time logged in the Obama Administration as the President.

That would be game over; the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan wouldn't have a chance.

Skippy

 

[OmCheeto]

I posted employed fraction of population intentionally to show the difference. ...

hmmmm...

One less dollar spent on my reading spectacles, and I'd not be able to see the negative slope.

 

[russ_watters]

What manner of support would you like?

The United States has a very poor social safety net that is much less inclusive than other countries, particularly in Europe. We don't have socialized medicine. Our tax rates are much lower, which limits our ability to redistribute wealth. Consequently, our income inequality is the highest in the developed world. Our regulations are much more lax than in Europe. We have signed numerous free trade agreements with countries whose labor forces work at significantly lower wage levels, and then we wonder why our companies ship themselves overseas. These are all the effects of right-wing thought, and is evidence that America is a nation governed by two right-wing parties.

Er, welll sure if we define "doing well" to equal being more socialistic then by definition, we are doing badly by not being more socialistic. Not that that says anything useful, though.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Er, welll sure if we define "doing well" to equal being more socialistic then by definition, we are doing badly by not being more socialistic. Not that that says anything useful, though.

Well, I'm glad you like income inequality. "Socialistic" - *eyeroll* You know, I talk to real socialists all the time, and they think the right's obsession with it is hilarious. Even the most left wing of the European "socialist" states only has half its economy owned by the government.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, I'm glad you like income inequality.

I don't "like" it any more than I "like" gravity. It isn't in and of itself bad or good, it just is. Defining it as "bad" carries with it the implication that a country with more equality is automatically better than one with less even if every single person in the unequal country is richer than anyone in the more equal one. Its beyond silly to focus on inequality in a vacuum.

"Socialistic" - *eyeroll* You know, I talk to real socialists all the time, and they think the right's obsession with it is hilarious. Even the most left wing of the European "socialist" states only has half its economy owned by the government.

Wow, extremist socialists think moderate socialists are actually on the other side of the fence?

Not sure why you even want to pretend like I'm doing some unfair labeling here: you referenced socialism pretty much by name in your post.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I don't "like" it any more than I "like" gravity. It isn't in and of itself bad or good, it just is. Defining it as "bad" carries with it the implication that a country with more equality is automatically better than one with less even if every single person in the unequal country is richer than anyone in the more equal one. Its beyond silly to focus on inequality in a vacuum.

Righty-oh then. If you believe the disparity in overall wealth between the US and, say, Norway is so great as to nullify Norway's huge advantage in terms of income equality, then that's your right - but it's wrong.

Wow, extremist socialists think moderate socialists are actually on the other side of the fence?

Not sure why you even want to pretend like I'm doing some unfair labeling here: you referenced socialism pretty much by name in your post.

No I didn't. Do I suggest government control of the means of production? No? Guess I'm not a socialist then, or even a 'moderate' socialist... I'm a social democrat. I believe in a roughly even mix of 'capitalism' and 'socialism'. It has been seen throughout western Europe as an ideal system. The more a country moves from that ideal, the more it risks falling into economic devastation. The western European nations you would denounce are actually doing much better than we are; and again, we have a significantly more right-wing economy.

 

[russ_watters]

Righty-oh then. If you believe the disparity in overall wealth between the US and, say, Norway is so great as to nullify Norway's huge advantage in terms of income equality, then that's your right - but it's wrong.

What I believe is that the differences in quality of life between most first world nations are too small and reasons too different to be easily distinguished. But when comparing countries with larger wealth disparities, income inequality quickly become meaningless. For example, the US and China have identical income inequalities, yet the US has 6x the per capita GDP. Poverty rates in the two countries are so different as to be impossible to compare.

No I didn't. Do I suggest government control of the means of production? No? Guess I'm not a socialist then, or even a 'moderate' socialist... I'm a social democrat. I believe in a roughly even mix of 'capitalism' and 'socialism'.

Stop playing games. The "socialized" in "socialized medicine" medicine is a reference to socialism and acknowledging that you prefer a mix of socialism and capitalism is a reflection of your belief in some socialistic policies. There was absolutely nothing wrong with my characterization. At the same time, your rejection of the idea (unsolicited) that you are a "moderate socialist" while labeling yourself to be almost in the middle is disingenuous. A moderate anything is a person who is just toward that side of a two sided spectrum. If you're just to the left of center, you're a moderate socialist. If you're just to the right (doubt it), you're a moderate capitalist. But the difference between the two when you're almost exactly in the center (assuming you really are) is virtually nonexistent.

Moreover, you do suggest government control over some some industries, so unless you intend to play more word games with what "production" is your support of socialized medicine most certainly is a socialistic position of yours.

It has been seen throughout western Europe as an ideal system.

You mean until it collapses under its own weight? Regardless, opinions are opinions and you're entitled to believe it is an ideal system regardless of evidence or logical basis.

The more a country moves from that ideal, the more it risks falling into economic devastation. The western European nations you would denounce are actually doing much better than we are...

I'm not denouncing anyone and again, "better" is a matter of opinion and definition (in your case, a recursive one). Please stop with the propaganda language.

 

[Angry Citizen]

What I believe is that the differences in quality of life between most first world nations are too small and reasons too different to be easily distinguished.

Okay. I guess you've never been an uninsured diabetic like me, who, without socialized medicine, would have to pay some five hundred dollars monthly for insulin and needles and test strips. That's a huge quality of life change, and is just one example where America and non-America differ significantly.

You mean until it collapses under its own weight?

Chile is a great example in which laissez-faire economics collapses under its own weight, and Keynesian economics comes to the rescue. Western Europe is not 'collapsing under its own weight'. The Eurozone debt per capita average is twenty percent less than ours, while maintaining significant advantages in quality of life and a much more stable unemployment roster. I will not deny that countries like Greece are in it deep, but much of that has to do with the fact that these countries did not follow Keynesian economics. The debt must actually be paid down in times of plenty. It wasn't. Sucks for those countries - maybe if it weren't for the neo-liberal revolution that has taken place since Reagan?

 

[WhoWee]

Angry Citizen - I'm a bit confused with your postings about the benefits of Socialism in a thread titled "Obama's Candidacy" - how is this on topic? What does the defense of Socialism have to do with President Obama?

 

[WhoWee]

This recent CNN piece speaks for itself-IMO.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/

"Obama: Jesus would back my tax-the-rich policy"


(Apparently the President's proposed tax strategy is faith based?)

 

[mheslep]

...Even the most left wing of the European "socialist" states only has half its economy owned by the government.

Owned? Half? That went out 20-30 years ago. I suppose the UK's NHS (several million employees) constitutes a high fraction of the UK economy.

 

[mheslep]

...never been an uninsured diabetic like me, who, without socialized medicine, ...

What happened to "We don't have socialized medicine". Seems clear to me that US medicine is at least half socialized - Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's being government single payer systems (and unsustainable).

 

[WhoWee]

What happened to "We don't have socialized medicine". Seems clear to me that US medicine is at least half socialized - Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's being government single payer systems (and unsustainable).

Not to wander too far off topic - BUT - Medicare sets the standards for all medical billing and insurance reimbursement. I'm still trying to figure out why we are discussing Socialism in this thread about President Obama's Candidacy?

 

[Char. Limit]

Angry Citizen - I'm a bit confused with your postings about the benefits of Socialism in a thread titled "Obama's Candidacy" - how is this on topic? What does the defense of Socialism have to do with President Obama?

Nice point. He's not a socialist, after all.

(Apparently the President's proposed tax strategy is faith based?)

Well, if it works for the Republicans to claim that their tax strategies have God's will behind them, might as well try the same, right?

/facetiousness

 

[MarcoD]

Clearly a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. It's now the same with tax laws, of course.

 

[WhoWee]

Clearly a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. It's now the same with tax laws, of course.

I'm not certain what the discussion of a monarch has to do with President Obama's Candidacy either?

 

[Number Nine]

This recent CNN piece speaks for itself-IMO.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/

"Obama: Jesus would back my tax-the-rich policy"


(Apparently the President's proposed tax strategy is faith based?)

I interpreted that as a response to christian conservative leaders who apply "biblical" arguments in favour of the tax cuts and the free-market; a "**** you" of sorts to his opponents.

 

[MarcoD]

Excuses. I have to watch my mouth sometimes. I just found the similarity of the arguments of divine monarchy and 'divine taxation' striking.

And in a funny thought, wouldn't that be something, to have Romney as king. The United Kingdom of the Americas!

Forget it, back on topic to Obama, please.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yeah.. it was an obvious backhanded comment. It's very Obama-like. Any argument that it was actually faith-based is either ignorant or deceitful. Ignorance is easy to forgive. I'm pretty ignorant about politics, myself. Social sciences are vastly complex!

 

[WhoWee]

Yeah.. it was an obvious backhanded comment. It's very Obama-like. Any argument that it was actually faith-based is either ignorant or deceitful. Ignorance is easy to forgive. I'm pretty ignorant about politics, myself. Social sciences are vastly complex!

I think the statement was a bit arrogant and dismissive of religious folk - might come back to hurt him?

On the other hand, it's possible he was speaking from the heart (he did spend 20 years in Rev Wright's church in Chicago) and we got a quick look under the tent and now understand the President makes decisions based on his religious beliefs. The alternative is not very nice - is it?

 

[Char. Limit]

I think the statement was a bit arrogant and dismissive of religious folk - might come back to hurt him?

On the other hand, it's possible he was speaking from the heart (he did spend 20 years in Rev Wright's church in Chicago) and we got a quick look under the tent and now understand the President makes decisions based on his religious beliefs. The alternative is not very nice - is it?

I don't think it matters that much. Religious people already seem to think Obama's a bad candidate - at least, every religious person I've seen on TV and in the news seems to think that.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think the statement was a bit arrogant and dismissive of religious folk - might come back to hurt him?

On the other hand, it's possible he was speaking from the heart (he did spend 20 years in Rev Wright's church in Chicago) and we got a quick look under the tent and now understand the President makes decisions based on his religious beliefs. The alternative is not very nice - is it?

Who cares whether it's nice or not? It wasn't arrogant and dismissive of religious folk in general, just a particular subset of religious folk that hold a particular belief. They are in the minority, so his candidacy will hardly be threatened (as you'll see when he's elected a second term... even without my vote).

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't think it matters that much. Religious people already seem to think Obama's a bad candidate - at least, every religious person I've seen on TV and in the news seems to think that.

You mean right-wing, fundamentalist religious folk on fox? Or all religious people on all TV?

 

[Char. Limit]

You mean left-wing, fundamentalist religious folk on fox? Or all religious people on all TV?

Probably the former. I don't watch all TV, after all. Just the bits that make it to my attention, which is mostly right-wing fundies.

 

[Pythagorean]

oops, I said left-wing, meant right-wing. You got the context though : )