ENGLISH
Home > CASCISCUS > ENGLISH > US ELECTION:Do You Think Barack Obama Deserve a Second Chance to Lead USA?
Total Views: 553 Share : Facebook ShareFacebook Twitter ShareTwitter Google+ ShareGoogle+
Page 1 of 2 |  1 2 > 

Astraios - 22/06/2012 10:50 PM
#1
US ELECTION:Do You Think Barack Obama Deserve a Second Chance to Lead USA?
So guys,as we know US Election just five months from now.There are(for now) two competitors that will fight in a way to become the next US President:
-Barack Obama from Democratic Party
-Mitt Romney from Republican Party

Me myself,disagree if the incumbent president,Mr.Barack Obama lead USA for the second time.My disagreement is based on many facts,like,how USA's economy has been dwindling from year to year.I have an article that will strengthen my argument.Check it out guys YbYb

Spoiler for Article
"The technologies of the industrial revolution favored centralization", writes economist Arnold Kling, "while the technologies of the information revolution shift the balance somewhat more toward decentralization." Those 22 carefully qualified words sum up the changes in America I have observed since I was growing up in Detroit in the 1950s. And they provide a basis for opposing the proposition that Barack Obama deserves re-election.

As president, Mr Obama has advanced, with varying success, policies producing greater centralisation at the expense of market actors and state and local governments. His health-care bill, passed despite public disapproval, centralises control of one-sixth of the American economy. The Dodd–Frank bill locks in too-big-to-fail status for the largest financial institutions and gives them the same kind of advantage over smaller units that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had over other mortgage securitisers—not a happy precedent. The cap-and-trade bill Mr Obama sought also combined centralised decision-making with sectoral deal-making. Thankfully, it did not pass.

It is becoming apparent that these laws were shoddily drafted, not because the drafters were stupid but because they undertook a task that, as Friedrich Hayek taught, was impossible. Even the wisest legislator cannot avoid adverse unintended consequences when regulating activities so complex and involving so many people. Nor can he avoid stifling innovation and locking in current practices. In an information age, the wise way to regulate is to set clear and readily enforceable rules, and let market participants adapt and innovate. This is not Mr Obama's way.

The president's policies are also objectionable as crony capitalism. Mr Obama's vision of America is evidently one in which the leaders of a few large organisations get together around a table and make decisions for a populace deemed too dim to look out for themselves. That is how things worked in Detroit in the 1950s, with the Big Three car companies, the United Auto Workers, the local utilities, and the city and state governments making decisions for everyone else. It seemed to work in the industrial age but foundered as the information revolution got started. Anyone who visits Detroit and Hiroshima today will wonder which side won the war.

Then there is macroeconomic policy. Mr Obama's supporters argue, plausibly, that he inherited a bad economy that was in danger of implosion. His detractors argue, just as plausibly, that his policies have resulted in a sluggish recovery at best. The stimulus package of 2009 was another shoddy piece of work. One-third of its funds were directed at state and local governments, in large part a pay-off for the campaign contributions of public-employee unions. Mr Obama was surprised, he said later, to find there were no shovel-ready projects, but anyone familiar with America's regulatory regime would have known better. Vast tranches of stimulus funds were used to subsidise solar-panel manufacturing firms, most connected to Democratic fund-raisers. Much of that money, like the $535m Solyndra loan guarantee, vanished or seems likely to soon.

Mr Obama's greatest failure is his refusal to confront America's long-term fiscal problems. He has boosted spending to some 25% of GDP from its long-time ceiling of 21%, and is proposing to continue that far into the future. His Ahab-like pursuit of higher tax rates on high earners ignores the fact that America's tax system is, by some measures, already more progressive than those of other advanced countries. The potential exists for bipartisan tax reform, reducing rates and eliminating preferences, but Mr Obama is not interested. He seems determined to get that white whale even if (as he said during the 2008 campaign) higher rates actually produce less revenue for the government, and even as Democrats such as Bill Clinton and Larry Summers say it would be foolish to raise tax rates in a sluggish economy.

America needs to reform its industrial-age entitlement programmes, especially Medicare, to better suit our information-age society. Entitlements are on a trajectory to gobble up all federal revenues and more, and their centralised command and control design leaves no options but death panels and default. Unfortunately, Mr Obama has shown no serious interest in entitlement reform. He ignored the recommendations of his own Bowles–Simpson commission and sabotaged the "grand bargain" negotiations by suddenly demanding $400 billion more in tax increases. He has responded to Republican proposals such as Paul Ryan's budget plan with campaign demagoguery of the crudest sort.

This is not what Mr Obama seemed to promise during his 2008 presidential campaign. He talked of the need for civility and bipartisan comity. But there has been little of this from Mr Obama, and more denunciations of a presidential predecessor than America has seen in 60 years. He depicts the George W. Bush years as a period of unregulated exploitive capitalism, a caricature that cannot stand serious scrutiny. As an unreconstructed defender of an unsustainable mid-20th-century welfare state, perhaps he can think of no other response. It is not a performance worthy of re-election.


So guys,give me ur best arguments and remember based on facts Yb
I hope we have some quality time to discuss it.iloveindonesias
bagfrenly - 23/06/2012 02:39 PM
#2

gosh did u actually read the poll that was taken at the same website from which you got your article from?
in case you didnt well the result is around 60ish percent of readers agreeing to let obama lead the second term and around 30 percent who disagree

as for Obama's economic policies, i agree with what mayor of philadephia michael nutter said:
" President Obama knows that a robust economy is not built from the top down, but from the middle class out. By investing in the middle class and protecting economic security, the President is ensuring future prosperity and putting us on a path to an America built to last. Mitt Romney is proposing failed policies that slash investments in our children's future, let Wall Street run wild, and burden ordinary Americans in order to benefit an affluent few. The President's speech in Cleveland today should send a resounding message to voters across the country: President Obama is moving us forward. Mitt Romney wants to reverse course."

sometimes its not just about short term revenue but also whats right for everyone in the long term, i mean i know in sluggish economy more tax to the rich or even of any kind will lessen govt revenue but USA is essentially about equal opportunities and its not fair to let the middle and lower class pay the same tax as the rich!By doing so he has actually shown that he just want to do the right thing, to hell with offending the big companies and the rich and potentially losing source of campaign money, coz he knows with great power comes great responsiblities (ala spiderman and batman lol) and he should do the right thing for the greater public!
Astraios - 23/06/2012 03:42 PM
#3

Quote:
Original Posted By bagfrenly
gosh did u actually read the poll that was taken at the same website from which you got your article from?
in case you didnt well the result is around 60ish percent of readers agreeing to let obama lead the second term and around 30 percent who disagree

as for Obama's economic policies, i agree with what mayor of philadephia michael nutter said:
" President Obama knows that a robust economy is not built from the top down, but from the middle class out. By investing in the middle class and protecting economic security, the President is ensuring future prosperity and putting us on a path to an America built to last. Mitt Romney is proposing failed policies that slash investments in our children's future, let Wall Street run wild, and burden ordinary Americans in order to benefit an affluent few. The President's speech in Cleveland today should send a resounding message to voters across the country: President Obama is moving us forward. Mitt Romney wants to reverse course."

sometimes its not just about short term revenue but also whats right for everyone in the long term, i mean i know in sluggish economy more tax to the rich or even of any kind will lessen govt revenue but USA is essentially about equal opportunities and its not fair to let the middle and lower class pay the same tax as the rich!By doing so he has actually shown that he just want to do the right thing, to hell with offending the big companies and the rich and potentially losing source of campaign money, coz he knows with great power comes great responsiblities (ala spiderman and batman lol) and he should do the right thing for the greater public!


Thank you,bagfrenly.for your time for posting this great argument.Yea,I've known that the poll back there in the website where I got my article has given us the result where:
-69% voted yes for Obama
-31% voted no for Obama
And I'm in the 31% which means I voted no.I believe in your argument you assert that"President Obama is moving us forward. Mitt Romney wants to reverse course".Well,if we are retrospecting back there in January 2012,there was the table shown as like this:
Spoiler for table
US ELECTION:Do You Think Barack Obama Deserve a Second Chance to Lead USA?


As we can see in there,most of Obama's net approval is "negative" where the society give a big percentage of how important is that issue .And as we can see from the article that I post,it is obviously assert that Obama is spending up to 25% of GDP,from 21% GDP before and his proposing to continue it.

Obama keep saying that the cause of this problem is because of the economy disaster who inherited by him from his predecessor,Mr Bush and where He declares that the economy issue nowadays in America is an issue that has not been in America since Franklin Roosevelt's presidency.
Allf of his statements shown me that he is not eligible to be chosen for the second time.H e,in my opinion,doesnt have this courage to get through this enormous problem in America and keeps saying this is not because of me.
tonnyc - 23/06/2012 04:45 PM
#4

Dude, Astraios, you have no idea what sort of shit the Republicans have been doing.

Why does Obama occasionally say that the problems of the economy is a legacy of the Bush administration? Because the Republican party keeps trying to say that he caused it, which is bullshit, because I still remember the shit happening in 2008, a full year before Obama became president. So whenever Republicans say "the economy is Obama's fault", he calmly says "no, Bush made it, I'm just fixing it".

You remember the bullshit about the debt ceiling last year? That's because Republicans do not want to allow Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to lapse. It was scheduled to lapse, on its own, on mid 2011. The Democrats were saying, "oh, cool, we can use the money to pay this debt problem". The Republicans, on the other hand, insists that the expiration of the tax cuts, something that their own Bush put in the bill, was "the Democrat's ploy to raise taxes". Anyway, the Democrats compromised by "we'll give tax credits for the poor. But the rich should go back to the original tax rate". The Republicans refused and took the economy hostage. Not just the US economy, the world economy. THIS IS WHAT CAUSED S&P TO LOWER THE US BOND RATING. Not the US economy, which are slowly recovering. It's the willingness of the Republicans to destroy their own country's economy rather than lose politically.

Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, got no principles. I've been following the Republican primary since day one, and while he's the most "electable" among them all, it's because he has no ideals whatsoever. He will say whatever he thinks people want to hear, and once he gets power he will do whatever his party wants him to do. That is not the quality you want in a head of government. You do not want a yes-man in the top position.

Warren Buffet has pointed out that his tax rate is lower than his secretary's. The Republicans, including Mitt Romney, has no problem with that. Check his tax statement. The guy pays 13.9% tax rate in 2010 out of $42.5 million income.

There's a lot of stuff that Obama did that I don't agree with (banking bailout) and some more that he didn't do where I regret his failure to act (he didn't close Guantanamo, he didn't tell the Attorney General to refuse settlement for banking scandals and go prosecute the case). But overall, he's good for the US and for the world and I hope the Americans elect him again.

One more thing to consider. President Obama has some familiarity with the muslim world. He knows a bit of Indonesia. He is not xenophobic, and has no trouble with Islam as a peaceful religion. The Republicans? Not so much. The extreme right is practically racist and xenophobic and fundamentalist. Remember the hullaballoo over the banning of a mosque in New York? (Well, actually it's not a mosque, it's an Islamic Center, more cultural in function rather than religious.) Newt Gingrich (oh, man, talk about hate speech) called the mosque offensive. Giulliani called it a desecration. We do not want a Republican, at least not the current ones, to become the president of USA. That will turn America into a xenophobic bully again. "You will do as I say or else!" Indonesia should hope that President Obama gets reelected and continues the much friendlier foreign policies they have now.

Pro-tip, DO NOT WATCH FOX NEWS FOR NEWS. Fox News is more appropriately named Fox Propaganda Channel.
bagfrenly - 23/06/2012 05:49 PM
#5

@astraios:
sure spending has increased but you cant deny bush did cause a lot of damage that needs tending to.Obama's stimulus spending has helped averted an economic depression and saved millions of jobs for the ordinary americans
and your chart only shows how approval for economic issues have decreased and is actually really needless to say that economy is important everywhere but as the opposing view of your article has mentioned, financial collapse is vastly different from cyclical downturns in that recovery are slower so that may have caused the dipping confidence in economic issues but it doesnt mean that it has not been fixed, it just needs more time.
and if he isnt perfect, if you arent satisfied with him blaming that he has inherited a bad situation from bush, well at least he is a democrat who believed in fair taxing and equal opportunities and a solid social safety net(medicare etc) which will be sooo important in the aging babyboomers society unlike republicans whose policies will only benefit the wealthy.
he isnt perfect but he's the best US can get for now.
Nadzejia - 23/06/2012 07:34 PM
#6

Quote:
Original Posted By tonnyc


Pro-tip, DO NOT WATCH FOX NEWS FOR NEWS. Fox News is more appropriately named Fox Propaganda Channel.


Fox News is about as good as Onion News in terms of reliability. I get my real news from the Daily Show by Jon Stewart.
tonnyc - 23/06/2012 08:17 PM
#7

Quote:
Original Posted By Nadzejia
Fox News is about as good as Onion News in terms of reliability. I get my real news from the Daily Show by Jon Stewart.


You too? hahahaha. That guy is a genius. That SuperPAC thing he pulled with Colbert was pure genius.
Ndastol - 24/06/2012 01:12 AM
#8

Oh please dont vote for me anymore...
im so tired taking care of american shit..
now i want to take rest with my family, and make a baby with my wife again..
LelakiMelow83 - 24/06/2012 11:24 AM
#9

who cares D

no matter who will lead the state, it will bring no benefit to US.

the question should be addressed to the Jew. because no one will be able to take the position without granted permit by the Jewish D
tonnyc - 24/06/2012 11:57 AM
#10

Dude, there's no Jewish conspiracy. That's just a bunch of bullshit people made up so they have someone to blame for their fuck-ups.
vangen - 03/09/2012 03:28 PM
#11

honesty, i prefer Obama than romney, Obama now on process to pulling up many American warriors from war area like iraq, and i'm about to seen and read for romney's campaign, and he's smells like "love the war", i don't respect for that \)
Astraios - 03/09/2012 05:16 PM
#12

Quote:
Original Posted By vangen
honesty, i prefer Obama than romney, Obama now on process to pulling up many American warriors from war area like iraq, and i'm about to seen and read for romney's campaign, and he's smells like "love the war", i don't respect for that \)


Hmm talking about war which mainly focused on the middle east countries which are the countries of moslem brotherhood,I hardly think that Obama is making the right move in order to maintain a relationship between USA and those moslem countries.I acknowledge that Obama has changed a little bit USA's behavior toward moslem countries,but I'm still assuming those middle east countries don't give any shit about that.Take a peek at Iran,Iraq,or maybe Palestine.They still have a strong opinion that USA is still a badass.

Well not only that,Egypt which since mr.Sadat's presidential until mr. Mubarak's presidential seemed to create a vehement relationship with USA,turns into a way different story since Morsi became the president of Egypt.Egypt tends to move away from USA and make a new relationship with another superpower country,China,and not only with China,Egypt is making a very controversial relationship with Iran,which I assume will strengthen the brotherhood of moslem countries in middle east.

and fyi,as you can see from the table I posted earlier,wars or terrorism is not the biggest issue for america.USA still have a lot lot more issue to reconsider rather than to spend their whole bucks for weapons or wars which at Obama's regime hasn't yielded many positive signals.The increase of the unemployed,the rising of national debts,and the failing health care reform and with the negative campaign performed by Obama's team..I think it's a game over for Obama
tonnyc - 03/09/2012 07:02 PM
#13

I don't know if it's going to be game over for Obama or not, but for our sake, I hope Obama gets the second term.

America under Romney is likely to return to Bush Jr. policies. Many of those policies are extremely harmful.

Anyway, what are your news sources, Astraios? The stuff I'm watching are all making fun of Clint Eastwood's bad oratory at the Republican National Convention. Heck, from where I'm sitting, it's the Republicans who fumbled their campaign. There's Romney refusal to release his full tax statements, making him an easy target of "what's he hiding?" questions, to Senator Akin's saying that real rape can't possibly make a woman pregnant (factually wrong and shows that he's too stupid to check his facts before opening his mouth), and now we got Clint Eastwood's talking to a chair.
malteses - 03/09/2012 10:08 PM
#14

I don't really know how the politics run there. Heavens, I don't even know how the politics are doing in my own country ngakak
invisiblemode - 04/09/2012 03:11 PM
#15

Well I don't really care who will lead America on the next 5 years. In 5 years before I'm pretty sure that most of people in this world really grateful with Obama's victory in US election. You know, his background successfully convinced almost entire people that he would bring a different in this world through his leadership. He could convince moslem country that he would improve relationship between US and middle east. He could convince the countries that he would create a new image of America which is more tollerant, no longer arrogant and more openly accept criticisms.

But what we can see today, Barack Obama is only the American leader. He makes no difference as what his predecessors had done. Maybe we can find a positive instruction to retreat Ameerican army in iraq. But situation over there has changed a lot. America has already managed to occupy Iraq's oilfield through his imperial companies and put many accomplice in Iraq's 'democratic' governance, which would fight for American's interest.

On the other hand, revolution in some countries of middle east occured in chaos. There was too many human right violence along the chaos, but as a country which claimed itself as the most humanist, USA said congratulation instead, and told them that democracy worthed those sacrifice. What a hypocrite
Astraios - 04/09/2012 09:55 PM
#16

Quote:
Original Posted By tonnyc
I don't know if it's going to be game over for Obama or not, but for our sake, I hope Obama gets the second term.

America under Romney is likely to return to Bush Jr. policies. Many of those policies are extremely harmful.

Anyway, what are your news sources, Astraios? The stuff I'm watching are all making fun of Clint Eastwood's bad oratory at the Republican National Convention. Heck, from where I'm sitting, it's the Republicans who fumbled their campaign. There's Romney refusal to release his full tax statements, making him an easy target of "what's he hiding?" questions, to Senator Akin's saying that real rape can't possibly make a woman pregnant (factually wrong and shows that he's too stupid to check his facts before opening his mouth), and now we got Clint Eastwood's talking to a chair.


Yea,I feel pity to that oldman,I mean he is a legend actor with his killing patois.But really, I dont get what eastwood trying to say.He tried to mock Obama,but as far as I know it turns to be an enormous fail,I mean the Obama's team could easily backlashes this oldman's speech.In conclusion he was talking nonsense which in the end destroyed Mitt Romney's day but still I love that guy

Hmm talking about disclosing his 2008-09 tax's info is a fact,but surprisingly he doesn't disclose his 2006-07 tax.Now we know that something happened in 2008-09 which coincides with the big crash of american housing if I'm not mistaken,and as I read in some articles he was playing with swiss amnesty.But it is not a really big deal isn't it?I mean despite of his reticence of many stuffs,he and his party is starting to take over obama's influence in so many districts.

I must say both of them are making such a negative campaigns over months.But the way i see it,Obama's campaign which using so many ads showing me that they are tend to use the "negative" stuffs about romney and his party rather than to show the americans that Obama and his party is doing such a great job (which I think will not really attract people)

Sources?I often hit on huffington,digg,washingtonpost,economist,foxnews,or whatever website that using english ngakak
MacEnchiez - 08/09/2012 12:50 PM
#17

Obama's term as president was pretty much an extension of Bush policies in many cases (increased drone strikes, interventionist military policies, cracking down on whisteblowers, a "kill list", wiretapping, loose gun control, renewal of the Patriot Act and just overall jingoism).

However, I do think his economic policies are better than the Republican's. The Republican's policy of cutting taxes on the rich (who know how to avoid paying much of their taxes anyway) while making significant cuts to social programs is absurd.

Many successful Republicans like Romney and Ryan (or at least their parents) relied on the government programs that they now want to cut. Essentially crossing the bridge to success and then burning it behind them.

Sadly, both parties are just slaves to corporate interest. Just look at how much money has been paid to politicians in the form of legalized bribes (ie. "lobbying"). With rising economic inequality, America's domestic problems will only get worse.

Overall, I think both candidates suck, but Romney sucks even more. It seems a lot of Americans are voting because they don't like the other candidate and not because they like their man. I really wish that they would allow third-party candidates to debate the 2 main candidates.

If I could vote, I'd choose either Jill Stein (Green Party) or Rocky Anderson (Justice Party).
nugrous - 09/09/2012 11:23 AM
#18

If I were American, I would choose Barack Obama.
At least, he don't flame war in middle east for some ridiculous reason like Bush.
rottentothecore - 18/09/2012 09:16 AM
#19

americans love hear what republic say, Because They want lower taxes then cried when they sending their children/ families for wars to foreign land that they don't even know it existed before.
Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Gualatemala, Afganistan. you name it.
War againts facism, War Againts communism, War againts terrorism
Reagan, Bush, Nixon. All the same.
Just sayyin
bajaj1088 - 19/09/2012 02:35 AM
#20

Let's go back years ago to 911, 15 out of 19 Alleged terrorist were Saudi Arabian then why not invade Saudi instead of Afganistan? Why are Republicans always throw some frivolous reasons to go on war?

Big Defense and Military contractor play huge chunk of role in this one, that's why they want someone who's in their side. Mitt Romney has been saying a lot in this past few months, if he does got elected is his action going to be as good as it was on his campaign? When he knows that he's not getting any close to get elected Oh I know what Republicans are best for; Bad~mouthing them. It happens always in any level of election in the United States and Republicans are well knows for it. You are going to see (towards the election day) some ridiculous political ads, even in national tv.

It's derogatory to the essence of democracy itself. What a shame!
Page 1 of 2 |  1 2 > 
Home > CASCISCUS > ENGLISH > US ELECTION:Do You Think Barack Obama Deserve a Second Chance to Lead USA?