Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

You can certainly have your own opinion. And I can have mine that I see a double standard applied to Obama by you and most of the talking heads on the right.

Rogue49 captured it well.

But I agree with you to some extent about full time campaigning.

Unfortunately, with the conservative Court's decision in Citizens United and the subsequent explosion of SuperPacs and other independent organizations loosely tied to a party or candidate and the $hundreds of millions spent (by all sides) spread misinformation with little or no accountability , full time campaigning is the least of the harmful influences on our democracy.

 

First, given the recession it is not abnormal that there be some government deficit spending. Deficit spending is not inherently bad. If a nation recovers from recession in a stronger state than when it went into recession - I would argue that is a sign of fiscal responsibility. I don't think you are arguing Canada is not positioned in a manner for a strong rebound.

The expectation of growth has everything to do with taxes. If a nation actually has a plan, that plan has to be based on some projection of GDP, spending and taxation flows from that.

I disagree. An analogy to illustrate my point (feel free to stop reading), many factors are needed for life on earth as we know it, but without water those other factors are of little consequence.

I rank things and I prioritize things. Just because I rank something high does not mean I would ignore the others. Early in my professional life, a mentor told me always work on the most important things first. That was the best advise I ever got.

No, I don't have anything else to add - assuming what I wrote is understood. I have previously stated that I fully recognize the value of labor - I am not sure why you keep bringing it up as if I do not see labor as a part of the economic equation.

I was specific.

"neoliberalism" - is vague.
"too much political leeway" - is vague.
"the best direction..." - is vague.

In the US one group, perhaps you would call them "neoliberals" want one type of social contract in the US, another group, I call them liberals, want a different type of social contract - the key areas involved include healthcare, social security, regulation, taxation and spending. Some would include social issues, I don't. From this general statement detailed disputes over big policy questions follow. I have no idea of what " neoliberalism having too much political leeway in determining the best direction for America's future" means. If your point is that there are some who disagree with your view, then yes, there are people who disagree with your view. That as a given, the next step is to make your case and persuade those that disagree.
--- merged: Apr 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM ---

I speak for myself. For me this is not a partisan issue. I simply believe our campaign cycle has gotten out of control. I don't think more than 3 months should be required to run for any political office.

I would love to see data on how political spending actually influences votes or changes political views. I have never been influenced by a political ad, have you? Ads simply reinforce what I already believe, one way or the other. I think other factors are much more important in forming a person's political views, I would rank ads near the bottom.

I also doubt that SuperPac spending influences the behavior of politicians. I doubt Obama was influenced or will be influenced by Pac spending. Can you think of a politician who "changed" as a result of PAC activity? I think PAC money goes to those who share the view of the PAC. If it is a chicken or egg question of what comes first, I would say it is the politician's political views that come first.

 

Just so I undertand...

You dont think "Swiftboat" type ads influence voters.

You dont think Limbaugh and Beck and Fox slanted "news and commentary" influence voters.

You dont think the far right "family values" organizations (AFA, FRC, etc) influence voters.

I think you are living in a fantasy world

 

No.

No - but they may influence voter turnout.

No. People interested in those organizations already have a political point of view aligned with those organizations. If by influence you mean, a person has not done their own homework and then vote based on the organizations endorsement, I kinda get what you are suggesting. What I am saying is the endorsement of these organizations is meaningless to those who don't care about the organizations and who are not already aligned politically with them. I see no influence on political views.

Give an example of how you have been influenced? I love anecdotal information, so if you share an example I may get an understanding of your point.
--- merged: Apr 16, 2012 at 6:24 PM ---

Of course.

No. The US has no economic plan. US policy reflects that. Spending reflect that. Tax policy reflects that. If you look at past budgets and associated projections, they have generally been wrong by large margins - both short and long term.

An economic system and an ecosystem share many commonalities. Understanding one helps in understanding the other.

You make my point. You can prioritize the factors. But for example, life in the deepest parts of the ocean, don;t rely on the sun.

We have had this discussion.

Unions is one way for labor to organize and collectively bargain, there are others. One way is for people to share salary and benefit information through a website or professional group. I am not sure when I point these types of things out if it is because you overlook them or ignore them on purpose to support a "union agenda" - as if that is the only way? I often read what you post and I am totally confused because of these types of things. What is the point of "only 12%" in unions - I say so?

 

It is difficult for me to interact with you when you distort what I write.

I disagree with your premise, the entire way that you structure the above point.

What types of corporations have political clout? Are those corporations the majority or minority of all corporations? What are the relationship between labor, management (which is labor), and ownership? Who controls the activities of these corporations?

Of the corporations that do not have political clout, what are the characteristics of those corporations? What is the relationship between labor, management and ownership here?

I am sure you will find some problem with my questions and will shift the focus some how - but your perspective on this subject is different from mine. In order to see this from a different perspective you would need to be willing to indulge a process rather than fight it.

Right.

Have you ever worked with a recruiter or an agent? What purpose do they serve?
Have you ever been a member of a professional group or trade organization? What purpose do the serve?
Have you ever participated in a networking group?
Have you ever used an employment service, perhaps one from the school you graduated from?
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Please, stop with the Ace is ridiculous, Ace doesn't know shit...line - seems every-time you do it I have to give a long list of obvious stuff that you don't consider. Occasionally, I know I have a narrow view of a subject, occasionally I don't know I have a narrow view - one thing I try to do is to make an effort to understand things from the perspective of others - try it, without being insulting.

The market puts a value on certain skills. If a union causes those values to be over-priced, the market responds. In the US unions have not done a good job for labor, which should have been reflective of helping labor develop skills of greater value in the market, and falling union membership reflects that. GM's unions negotiated a two tier wage system, given the lower tier employment is growing, this could have been done before GM face imminent bankruptcy - risking every union job. If you can not see the strategic errors by unions over the past 50 years contributing to the decline, what can I say?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/business/in-detroit-two-wage-levels-are-the-new-way-of-work.html?pagewanted=all

 

I will give it one more try.

Large corporations, Fortune 500 type companies, have political clout. Companies that have monopolistic or oligopolistic market share or control have exceptional power in the market - this power works against consumers, labor, and emerging competition. Your concerns are focused here. Mine is not. 99% of the employers in the US employ fewer than 500 people. Employees in this segment are on a equal footing and occasionally have in advantage in these segments. These employers do not have privileged access to policy makers or political clout.

I will stop here. Do you have questions on the above? Do you disagree, be specific? Do you see the extent of our differing perspectives, just on the above? I own a small business, I employ people - to suggest I have some advantage over labor is simply not true - in fact, especially when I was in California, I was at a distinct disadvantage due to the level of employment regulation. Many other businesses were in the same boat - many left California like I did - employment levels and taxes collected suffered.

 

Numbers dont lie:

* nearly 4 million private sector jobs created in part by the stimulus
* more than 10 million people (young adults, seniors, children w/pre-existing conditions) have added health benefits; all people covered by employer plans have no-cost preventive care
* millions of working women have greater legal protections and recourse against pay discrimination
* the estimated 50,000-100,000 gays in the military can serve w/o fear of discharge (as opposed to the 15,000 who were discharged under DADT)

 

I only asked if you could provide me with evidence to substantiate your claim that Obama spins the truth (we all know he does, he's a politician) in a way that singles him out as the supreme offender

And you give me a twisted GOP talking point about Obama and the Buffet rule (Obama and Democrats hate the wealthy), followed by your opinion on it.

The Buffet Rule failed to make it through the Senate. Strict voting along party lines. Who's surprised?

When I was younger, I really believed that the USSR wanted to wipe the US off the face of the map. It took a lot of de-programming to convince me otherwise.

I also believed that Jesus heard my prayers and cigarettes weren't harmful.

That's for starters.

 

From many polls - 1/3 to 1/2 of Republicans think Obama is not a US citizen or is a Muslim. Nearly 1/3 think he sides with the terrorists, nearly 2/3 think he is a socialist, 2/3 think he wants (or plans) to take away your guns.

But we're to assume that they did their own research and it has nothing to do with what they heard on talk radio, or saw on Fox News, or advocacy ads by right wing groups.

 

It's only natural to look at the president and think "Even though I clearly have no fucking clue what socialism actually is, I know that that man is a fucking socialist." Happens all the time. And Sean Hannity is a journalist.

 

With the revealing of the Obama campaign slogan "Forward" the proof is indisputable that Obama will enact his socialist agenda in a second term.



Breitbart.com’s Joel Pollak explained that the ‘Forward’ “borrows…from decades of communist iconography.”....from Marx, Stalin, and Mao, to Benito Mussolini...

The Washington Times also sees a “rich association with European Marxism,” quoting at length from Wikipedia to prove the point.

Blogger Jim Hoft went straight for Hitler, writing that ‘Forward’ was a “marching song of the Hitler youth,” ...with the Hitler Youth wearing Obama pins.

Even Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard sees only one conceivable precedent for ‘Forward’: Mao. “So if ‘Forward’ is the slogan for the Obama campaign, would ‘Cultural Revolution’ be the slogan for the second term?”