Does Obama Deserve To Be Re-Elected?

[WinePusher]

Do You Think Obama Deserve Re Election?

If Yes: Please cite significant things he has done that have benefited this country and it's citizens.

If No: Please cite significant things he has or hasn't done that would lead you to vote for another candidate.

[ChaosBorders]

GOP has done nothing for middle and lower classes...I find this interesting to me. From my short personal experiences the upper class is independent and does not rely on anyone, while the lower class seems to expect to be given everything and is dependant.

Where is this personal experience coming from? Certainly one of the benefits of wealth is not having to depend on others, but the question usually is 'how did they arrive at that wealth in the first place?' From what I can tell, the answer more often than not isn't one of hard work and self-reliance.

There are also certainly those among the lower class who expect to be given things, which is an unfortunate attitude. But there are many who do not have such an expectation, and are grateful for any help they do receive because circumstances are such they would genuinely not make it on their own, no matter how hard they tried. The latter may well be dependent on the help of others, but it often isn't their fault.

[Kuan]

GOP has done nothing for middle and lower classes...I find this interesting to me. From my short personal experiences the upper class is independent and does not rely on anyone, while the lower class seems to expect to be given everything and is dependant.

Where is this personal experience coming from? Certainly one of the benefits of wealth is not having to depend on others, but the question usually is 'how did they arrive at that wealth in the first place?' From what I can tell, the answer more often than not isn't one of hard work and self-reliance.

Well, my dad was poor as a child, grew up and got into college, barely. He then took classes he was only interested in such as business. Then he quite college and got a job working for a medical company. Then he started his own business and invented a medical device. Then he sold the company and started some more and is repeating the process right now. My dad always complained about how the government was out to take all his hard earned money.

On the other hand, I have a uncle who started out middle class as a child and now has nothing. He always uses the same arguments that debunkem has proposed here.

Those are my personal experiences.

There are also certainly those among the lower class who expect to be given things, which is an unfortunate attitude. But there are many who do not have such an expectation, and are grateful for any help they do receive because circumstances are such they would genuinely not make it on their own, no matter how hard they tried. The latter may well be dependent on the help of others, but it often isn't their fault.

And I agree. But DeBunkem is claiming that the upper class is more welfare dependant than others which is not true. He also claims that the upper class is selfish which I disagree with. I know many upper class people who have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars plus there time to help at homeless shelters and other places.

[WinePusher]

GOP has done nothing for middle and lower classes...I find this interesting to me. From my short personal experiences the upper class is independent and does not rely on anyone, while the lower class seems to expect to be given everything and is dependant.

I agree. The myth and lie that progressives have created is one in which the citizen is reliant upon the government and that hard work and self reliance are futile.

Government handouts only provide temporary relief, and tend to create an atmosphere and sensation of entitlement and apathy. And then we generally hear that poverty is a result of the American Capitalist system, not the result of a lack of perserverence and diligence of the individual, which shifts the burdenof responsibility onto the American System rather then the individual.

I agree with you mormon boy, and your sentiment is proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the stubborness of Liberals to extend the Bush Tax Cuts.

[ChaosBorders]

Well, my dad was poor as a child, grew up and got into college, barely. He then took classes he was only interested in such as business. Then he quite college and got a job working for a medical company. Then he started his own business and invented a medical device. Then he sold the company and started some more and is repeating the process right now.

And that is great for your dad. However, it should be noted that the majority of new businesses are not successes, and even the ones that are usually are not to such an extent as your dad's. Often times this has little to nothing to do with the skill or effort put into it by the person who started the business.

My dad always complained about how the government was out to take all his hard earned money.

Guess that depends on what income bracket your dad is in. The highest ones pay a greater income tax, but when you consider all other taxes, the middle class actually pays a greater percentage of their over all income in taxes than the highest income brackets.

On the other hand, I have a uncle who started out middle class as a child and now has nothing. He always uses the same arguments that debunkem has proposed here.

DeBunkem can be a little excessive and abrasive about how he approaches the issue, but a fair number of the things are technically true.

Those are my personal experiences.

Unfortunately, I think they're leading you into engaging in availability heuristic thinking. I would encourage doing more research on this issue because I think you'll find that your personal experiences are more so the exception than the rule.

Per Wiki's article on Economic Mobility.
42% of those born to families with the lowest 25% income will never be able to get out of the bottom 25%. 42% will make it to the second and third quin-tiles, but only 18% will ever reach the top 25% income.

Meanwhile, 39% of those born to the richest 25% families will stay there, with only 22% falling to the bottom.

Perhaps more importantly, of those born to the lowest 25%, there is only 1% who will move into the top 5% (sounds like this might be the case for your dad, perhaps?) Whereas for those born in the top quarter, 22% of them will make it the top 5%.

Further, there is increasing income inequality. From 1979 to 2004, "the real, after-tax income of the top 1% earners has grown by 176% percent during that time, compared to a 69% rise for the top 20%, and an increase of 9% for the lowest 20%."

And I agree. But DeBunkem is claiming that the upper class is more welfare dependant than others which is not true. He also claims that the upper class is selfish which I disagree with. I know many upper class people who have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars plus there time to help at homeless shelters and other places.

I guess that depends on what is meant by welfare. In the strictest sense of the word, he is not correct. However, most of the wealthiest individuals pay a smaller percentage of their total income to taxes, and at least some of the reason for that is the existence of considerable numbers of deductions and loopholes that benefit the highest earners more than those of lower income.

Also, though many wealthy people are quite generous (and some notable examples like Buffet are incredibly so), on average I think there's been some research indicating they donate a smaller percentage of their income and time to charity than those of lower income brackets.

So they pay more taxes and they give more to charity, but in comparison to what they have at their disposal to pay and give, many of them could certainly be viewed as selfish.

Luke 21

1 As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 “Truly I tell you,� he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.�

[Kuan]

Well, my dad was poor as a child, grew up and got into college, barely. He then took classes he was only interested in such as business. Then he quite college and got a job working for a medical company. Then he started his own business and invented a medical device. Then he sold the company and started some more and is repeating the process right now.

And that is great for your dad. However, it should be noted that the majority of new businesses are not successes, and even the ones that are usually are not to such an extent as your dad's. Often times this has little to nothing to do with the skill or effort put into it by the person who started the business.

Yes this is true, to an extent.

My dad always complained about how the government was out to take all his hard earned money.

Guess that depends on what income bracket your dad is in. The highest ones pay a greater income tax, but when you consider all other taxes, the middle class actually pays a greater percentage of their over all income in taxes than the highest income brackets.

There are some issues I have with the current tax system we have.

On the other hand, I have a uncle who started out middle class as a child and now has nothing. He always uses the same arguments that debunkem has proposed here.

DeBunkem can be a little excessive and abrasive about how he approaches the issue, but a fair number of the things are technically true.

Fair number and technically are different.

Those are my personal experiences.

Unfortunately, I think they're leading you into engaging in availability heuristic thinking. I would encourage doing more research on this issue because I think you'll find that your personal experiences are more so the exception than the rule.

Per Wiki's article on Economic Mobility.
42% of those born to families with the lowest 25% income will never be able to get out of the bottom 25%. 42% will make it to the second and third quin-tiles, but only 18% will ever reach the top 25% income.

Meanwhile, 39% of those born to the richest 25% families will stay there, with only 22% falling to the bottom.

Perhaps more importantly, of those born to the lowest 25%, there is only 1% who will move into the top 5% (sounds like this might be the case for your dad, perhaps?) Whereas for those born in the top quarter, 22% of them will make it the top 5%.

Further, there is increasing income inequality. From 1979 to 2004, "the real, after-tax income of the top 1% earners has grown by 176% percent during that time, compared to a 69% rise for the top 20%, and an increase of 9% for the lowest 20%."

I still think that a majority of the poor can increase their wealth by harder work and applying themselves more. Also you have to take into account the large amounts of immigrants who come into the US and add to the poor.

And I agree. But DeBunkem is claiming that the upper class is more welfare dependant than others which is not true. He also claims that the upper class is selfish which I disagree with. I know many upper class people who have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars plus there time to help at homeless shelters and other places.

I guess that depends on what is meant by welfare. In the strictest sense of the word, he is not correct. However, most of the wealthiest individuals pay a smaller percentage of their total income to taxes, and at least some of the reason for that is the existence of considerable numbers of deductions and loopholes that benefit the highest earners more than those of lower income.

Also, though many wealthy people are quite generous (and some notable examples like Buffet are incredibly so), on average I think there's been some research indicating they donate a smaller percentage of their income and time to charity than those of lower income brackets.

So they pay more taxes and they give more to charity, but in comparison to what they have at their disposal to pay and give, many of them could certainly be viewed as selfish.

This is true but who can judge if someone is being selfish? The point of giving is not a competition. The rich give a large amount of money and think that they have done a great contribution.

Luke 21

1 As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 “Truly I tell you,� he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.�

And this is true and I believe the philosophy from this verse acceptable whether you believe in the bible or not. But you need to look at it in multiple ways. The copper coins might count for more but it doesnt mean for everyone to go out and give up all they have. Only give away what is within their means. Dont look at this verse as literal, but rather philosophically. The rich can afford to give more, yes, but this is true also,

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

I think that giving is great but if we focused more on creating jobs and ways for the poor to be independent we wont have to focus on giving so much.

[ChaosBorders]

I agree. The myth and lie that progressives have created is one in which the citizen is reliant upon the government and that hard work and self reliance are futile.

Maybe not futile for everyone, but unless your assertion is that over 40% of those born to the lowest income bracket families just don't work hard enough, it is most certainly the case that many people work very hard and don't get anywhere as a result.

Government handouts only provide temporary relief, and tend to create an atmosphere and sensation of entitlement and apathy.

That depends entirely on what is being handed out. Sometimes you are correct. Other times you are mistaken. The system could use significant improvement, certainly, but it has also helped a lot of people get on their feet and move forward with their lives in tough times that might have completely destroyed them otherwise.

And then we generally hear that poverty is a result of the American Capitalist system, not the result of a lack of perserverence and diligence of the individual, which shifts the burdenof responsibility onto the American System rather then the individual.

Ehhhh, sort of yes and sort of no. Income disparity is the result of a capitalist system. Poverty itself is not the result of a capitalist system, but nor does a capitalist system necessarily address the issue. Or more accurately, a capitalist system may promote less poverty in absolute terms over the long haul, but from decade to decade the business cycle can crush tens of millions of people through no fault of their own. The government has developed the inclination that allowing millions of its citizens to suffer horribly isn't a good thing and tries to lessen the hardship. This also has the effect of reducing the good in good times, but tries to make growth fairly steady for everyone.

The idea is sound. The execution, unfortunately, has been less than stellar and needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, no one is willing to let go of their favorite programs or compromise on an overhaul.

I agree with you mormon boy, and your sentiment is proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the stubborness of Liberals to extend the Bush Tax Cuts.

Clearly persuasive definitions of proven, reasonable, and/or doubt are being used here... Because otherwise that is a total non-sequitur.

[ChaosBorders]

I still think that a majority of the poor can increase their wealth by harder work and applying themselves more.

If they work themselves half to death, anyone can increase their wealth more. But if most of their money is still going towards living expenses they will never be able to become wealthy. Making enough to save and earning interest on it is one of the only ways to become significantly wealthier over a time unless one is gifted with the skill sets necessary to start their own business and make it successful (and don't get unlucky).

I'm not saying there aren't poor people who aren't lazy and who could dramatically increase their lot in life if they tried harder to, because there are. But even then in many cases they've had the misfortune to be born with inherent mental qualities (personality types, IQ levels, etc.) that make that very difficult.

Meanwhile you have people like me. I was born to a lower middle class household and will almost certainly be wealthy unless I am incredibly unlucky. It's not because I'm particularly hard-working by most standards, but because I was born with a genius IQ and learned important financial concepts early in life. There are many, many people who work three times as hard as me and still don't get as good a grades even going to my school. They'll be fine financially, but there are a lot of people in the lower class who could work five times as hard as me and they won't be able to come close to doing what I can. And that's not their fault.

So yes, I do agree that there are many people who could improve their lot in life through harder work. But I do grow tired of it when certain people act like that is the only issue, or even the main issue, keeping people in poverty. I also grow weary when the people whining about it (and I'm not talking about you here in case I come across like I am) have been blessed with gifts and resources that the people they are talking about haven't been and will probably never have access to in their lives.

Also you have to take into account the large amounts of immigrants who come into the US and add to the poor.

You're right, but that kind of just makes the numbers worse. If there is an influx of very poor coming in, that moves everyone else up relatively. If 42% of those born to poor households are STILL ending up in the bottom quarter, that means even more are not really increasing much relative to that of their parents.

I think that giving is great but if we focused more on creating jobs and ways for the poor to be independent we wont have to focus on giving so much.

Yes, creating jobs is preferable by far to handouts. However, there are a lot of difficulties in this. We're not a socialist nation, so the only thing government can do is try and encourage the creation of jobs or end up expanding itself to create more jobs. Unfortunately, both of those have their own sets of major drawbacks. I have read they are trying to shift welfare more and more to retraining and having more of a focus on getting people hired, but this is still really hard to do when the people with money aren't really wanting to hire a lot of people in an economy like this.

One of the greatest issues that seems to be overlooked is that it doesn't matter how hard a worker you are if there's no one willing to pay you to work for them.

[Kuan]

I still think that a majority of the poor can increase their wealth by harder work and applying themselves more.

If they work themselves half to death, anyone can increase their wealth more. But if most of their money is still going towards living expenses they will never be able to become wealthy. Making enough to save and earning interest on it is one of the only ways to become significantly wealthier over a time unless one is gifted with the skill sets necessary to start their own business and make it successful (and don't get unlucky).

I'm not saying there aren't poor people who aren't lazy and who could dramatically increase their lot in life if they tried harder to, because there are. But even then in many cases they've had the misfortune to be born with inherent mental qualities (personality types, IQ levels, etc.) that make that very difficult.

Meanwhile you have people like me. I was born to a lower middle class household and will almost certainly be wealthy unless I am incredibly unlucky. It's not because I'm particularly hard-working by most standards, but because I was born with a genius IQ and learned important financial concepts early in life. There are many, many people who work three times as hard as me and still don't get as good a grades even going to my school. They'll be fine financially, but there are a lot of people in the lower class who could work five times as hard as me and they won't be able to come close to doing what I can. And that's not their fault.

So yes, I do agree that there are many people who could improve their lot in life through harder work. But I do grow tired of it when certain people act like that is the only issue, or even the main issue, keeping people in poverty. I also grow weary when the people whining about it (and I'm not talking about you here in case I come across like I am) have been blessed with gifts and resources that the people they are talking about haven't been and will probably never have access to in their lives.

Also you have to take into account the large amounts of immigrants who come into the US and add to the poor.

You're right, but that kind of just makes the numbers worse. If there is an influx of very poor coming in, that moves everyone else up relatively. If 42% of those born to poor households are STILL ending up in the bottom quarter, that means even more are not really increasing much relative to that of their parents.

I think that giving is great but if we focused more on creating jobs and ways for the poor to be independent we wont have to focus on giving so much.

Yes, creating jobs is preferable by far to handouts. However, there are a lot of difficulties in this. We're not a socialist nation, so the only thing government can do is try and encourage the creation of jobs or end up expanding itself to create more jobs. Unfortunately, both of those have their own sets of major drawbacks. I have read they are trying to shift welfare more and more to retraining and having more of a focus on getting people hired, but this is still really hard to do when the people with money aren't really wanting to hire a lot of people in an economy like this.

One of the greatest issues that seems to be overlooked is that it doesn't matter how hard a worker you are if there's no one willing to pay you to work for them.

So maybe instead of both sides arguing whos right we could get together and actualy talk about it. Both sides have great points as you have shown. We cannot overlook that there are some who cannot do anything about there circumstances, yet we also have to consider the fact that there are those who will take advantage of the system.

It is hard to create jobs for many reasons and you have pointed out some. How to create more jobs is debatable.

[ChaosBorders]

So maybe instead of both sides arguing whos right we could get together and actualy talk about it. Both sides have great points as you have shown. We cannot overlook that there are some who cannot do anything about there circumstances, yet we also have to consider the fact that there are those who will take advantage of the system.

Yes. Meeting in the middle ground and talking would be nice. I, for one, am quite in favor of overhauling the system to improve it and help eliminate the problems it currently has. However, it is difficult to have a discussion when one side refuses to recognize why such a system has a reason for existing in the first place and the other often refuses to admit the problems it does have.

[Kuan]

So maybe instead of both sides arguing whos right we could get together and actualy talk about it. Both sides have great points as you have shown. We cannot overlook that there are some who cannot do anything about there circumstances, yet we also have to consider the fact that there are those who will take advantage of the system.

Yes. Meeting in the middle ground and talking would be nice. I, for one, am quite in favor of overhauling the system to improve it and help eliminate the problems it currently has. However, it is difficult to have a discussion when one side refuses to recognize why such a system has a reason for existing in the first place and the other often refuses to admit the problems it does have.

Very true, doesnt have to be limited to just this though, there are other debates this could apply to.