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]

I dont care what anybody says, if I could save 2.8 billion dollars id do it!

While hurting people who have already been devastated by medical injuries?

I get 2.8 billion right? Im in!

Just kidding, the problem I see is that republicans claim it will save a ton while democrats claim it wont save anything at all. From what I know, ill stand behind tort reform. But I will be watching this debate closely.

In fairness, the more recent report indicated something like ten times as much savings may be possible than previous reports did. So at the time the democrats may have been saying that, they may well have had reason to believe it was more or less true when compared to the overall costs. Saving a tenth of half a percent is hardly anything at all when costs are still rising by several percent a year.

Plus it was one of the only things Republicans were willing to recommend or consider. Even with the upwardly revised estimates, it isn't even close to enough of a reform to make any real long-term difference, and comes at the expense of a lot of people who've been genuinely hurt due to errors and malpractice. So though any democrats saying that may not quite have been right in terms of absolutes, in terms of thinking "this won't do that much and you need to stop pretending it will fix a whole lot," they were completely correct.

[micatala]

Well, on the good side, we now have:

1) Repeal of DADT.

2) A new START treaty

3) Extension of unemployment benefits.

4) Extension of tax cuts for the middle class, and an additional pay roll tax cut. These could both be good for the economy, but . . . .


On the down side

1) . . . . bad for the deficit, as is the extension of the tax cuts on the upper end, which I do not buy help the economy.



As a side note on a previously cited good thing Obama did, helping (along with Bush) prevent financial collapse, this article might be found interesting to thread participants.

http://www.propublica.org/article/the-s ... r-own-firm

It goes into some of the shady practices at Merrill Lynch, and how some of those affected AIG. It also underscores the need for financial reform, which come to thinkg of it . . . .




on the good side,

5) a qualified good is the financial reform legislation. I am not convinced it does all that needs to be done, but is clearly a big step in the right direction.

[Lux]

I would like to add to Obama's pro list that he has outlawed waterboarding in military facilities, and has publicly spoken against it.

Although the Pentagon still hasn't clarified whether or not they actually stoped doing it, I consider it a big improvement that our president is not advocating for the use of torture.

[WinePusher]

1) Repeal of DADT.

I'll ignore this one for the time being, I don't feel like turning this into another gay rights thread.

2) A new START treaty.

Yes, a treaty with an unclear preamble on missile defense and provisions that don't completely guarantee Russian Compliance. Everything that this administration does must be done immediately or else there will be severe consequences. A treaty of this magnitude should be ratified by a Senate that the people just elected, not a bunch of lame duckers who lost their vote of confidence.

3) Extension of unemployment benefits.

Unemployment benefits, for a short period of time, is ok. Extending unemployment benefits for unusually long periods of time as Obama has done makes people dependent on them and discourages them from finding work. The key word here is "extension."

Here's what I'll give Obama as pros:

1. A heavy drone campaign aganist terrorists in the Middle East
2. Escalated Warfare in Afganistan
3. A continuation of most of Bush's national security policies, specifically keeping Gitmo open.

The fact is even a liberal like Obama realizes (when he got into the White House and got a full briefing of what terrorism actually is and the threat is poses to us) that the defense policies liberals draw up on their chalkboards at Harvard Law don't actually work in real life.

[micatala]

1) Repeal of DADT.

I'll ignore this one for the time being, I don't feel like turning this into another gay rights thread.

Fair enough. There are plenty of threads on that issue.

2) A new START treaty.

Yes, a treaty with an unclear preamble on missile defense and provisions that don't completely guarantee Russian Compliance. Everything that this administration does must be done immediately or else there will be severe consequences. A treaty of this magnitude should be ratified by a Senate that the people just elected, not a bunch of lame duckers who lost their vote of confidence.

Firstly, I find the idea that the Congress should just pack up and go home after the election a bit ridiculous. I am also quite sure if the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans would be just fine doing all they could in the lame duck session if they were the ones losing seats or a house. Finally, they wouldnt't have had to do all this after the election if the Republicans had not taken obstruction to several whole new levels. This treaty has been on their desk since April, and John Kerry, at the Republican's request, delayed debate and hearings several times. They had ample, ample, ample opportunity to review the treaty and bring up objections long, long ago. If they are upset at the timing, then they have only themselves to blame.


On the merits to the treaty, I will simply note that it passed 71-28, had the support of every single living Secretary of State, and the support of military leaders. The only reason it did not get 80 or 90 votes is pure partisanship. I believe at least one Republican Senator basically said they were voting against this because DADT got brought up for a vote. How petty can you get.

3) Extension of unemployment benefits.

Unemployment benefits, for a short period of time, is ok. Extending unemployment benefits for unusually long periods of time as Obama has done makes people dependent on them and discourages them from finding work. The key word here is "extension."

The claim that unemployment insurance encourages laziness or lack of motivation to find work I believe is without any empirical support. Please provide some if you have any. I'll agree this might happen for a few people, but economists I have heard speak on this tend to disagree. They also tend to be of the opinion, pretty much across the board, that this type of spending is very stimulative to the economy, and not doing this is clearly unwise for that reason along, never mind the humanitarian aspects.

I would agree we want to get people off unemployment as soon as we can. However, given this was the biggest recession since the 30's, I think it is better to err on the side of keeping this going, even if we need another year's worth when this round of extensions run out.

Here's what I'll give Obama as pros:

1. A heavy drone campaign aganist terrorists in the Middle East
2. Escalated Warfare in Afganistan
3. A continuation of most of Bush's national security policies, specifically keeping Gitmo open.

I generally support 1 and 2. I disagree on 3, even if just for symbolic reasons. We kept a lot of people there for a long time who we had no business keeping that long. Some of them we will have to keep. Where should be determined by what can be done most securely and inexprensively AND we need to not repeat the PR mistakes of mistreating prisoners.

On the other hand, I would be OK keeping people at Gitmo, as long as the problems of treatment and lack of due process were addressed. I can understand why Obama made the promise, but in retrospect, I think it would have been better if he had not, or at least hedged it with the caveat of having a feasible alternative. He boxed himself into a corner by not having a good option ready to go.

The fact is even a liberal like Obama realizes (when he got into the White House and got a full briefing of what terrorism actually is and the threat is poses to us) that the defense policies liberals draw up on their chalkboards at Harvard Law don't actually work in real life.

I think some of this may be fair. However, Obama has always been clear about fighting terrorism, and has been clear that the issues are not whether to do so, but how to do so. He has selectively changed policies when a good case can be made that these policies were not productive, or were even counterproductive (like torture). The simplistic conventional wisdom that liberals are always weak on defense or anti-terrorism has never held much water with me.

However, I agree that Presidents, liberal or conservative, for that matter, are almost always faced with realiities that make their plans infeasible or impossible.

This will apply in 2012, whoever gets elected, with respect to the deficit. All the talk of earmarks and this and that pork is mostly irrelevant. YOu have to tackle the fact that demographics are driving entitlement spending to unsustainable levels. However, the Republicans are fooling themselves if they think privatization or some huge overhaul that eviscerates these programs will get anywhere with the public. They'll have to do what Reagan did and save the program, probably by a combination of tax increases, raising the benefits age for Social Security, possibly means testing, and perhaps some small targeted reductions in benefits.



One final comment on terrorism. I agree, we need robust anti-terrorism programs. However, I would like to see an analysis of how much we are spending, especially "per life saved." That would be hard to do, since quantifying how many people you are saving is far from an exact science. Still, I think it is absolutely appropriate to compare spending on this versus spending on other threats or even other preventable causes of death. We lose five times as many people every year from murder as we did on 9-11. That rate has been going down, but there is a possibility we could make it go down further.

We lose I believe about 13 times as many people every year from auto accidents. We lose way more than that from staph infectiions in hospitals. We lose six times as many every year from lack of health insurance.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/hea ... deaths.htm


In my view, we need to deal with terrorism rationally. We might even consider talking about it like a form of natural disaster. Something that is going to occur no matter what you do, but something you can ameliorate the effects of.

[East of Eden]

I can't think of any possible GOP candidate I wouldn't prefer to Obama. I don't see unemployment coming down much in next two years, which will make it very difficult for him to be re-elected no matter who runs against him.

He ran as a bridge-building moderate and governs like the left-wing extremist that he really is.

[nygreenguy]

I can't think of any possible GOP candidate I wouldn't prefer to Obama. I don't see unemployment coming down much in next two years, which will make it very difficult for him to be re-elected no matter who runs against him.

He ran as a bridge-building moderate and governs like the left-wing extremist that he really is.

Left wing extremist? Why are you conservatives always so overly dramatic. Have you listened to what most liberals say about obama? You would think hes worse than Bush.

[East of Eden]

I can't think of any possible GOP candidate I wouldn't prefer to Obama. I don't see unemployment coming down much in next two years, which will make it very difficult for him to be re-elected no matter who runs against him.

He ran as a bridge-building moderate and governs like the left-wing extremist that he really is.

Left wing extremist? Why are you conservatives always so overly dramatic. Have you listened to what most liberals say about obama? You would think hes worse than Bush.

Many Democrats also think he is too liberal. For the record, Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate, even more so than socialist Bernie Sanders.

This is a center-right country. Self-described conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1 and it's been that way for decades, although I suspect Obama is creating more conservatives.

[nygreenguy]

Many Democrats also think he is too liberal.

Many? How many is many? Do you have a hard number for this?

For the record, Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate, even more so than socialist Bernie Sanders.

But hes not a senator now. We are talking about President Obama. Either way, we hear this about everyone. The same thing was said about Kerry. Got a source for this?

This is a center-right country. Self-described conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1 and it's been that way for decades, although I suspect Obama is creating more conservatives.

Source?

[East of Eden]

Many? How many is many? Do you have a hard number for this?

57% of Democrats want their leaders to be more moderate.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-l ... aders.html

But hes not a senator now. We are talking about President Obama. Either way, we hear this about everyone. The same thing was said about Kerry.

He probably was, before Obama arrived.

Got a source for this?

Here's a blurb from Democratic Underground saying Obama was the most liberal Senator in 2007, voting conservative 1 time out of 66 opportunities. If this isn't left-wing extremism nothing is. Biden was the third most liberal Senator, Sanders was fourth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 32x4501043

Source?

From NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =120132141