why i support obama

[sd'sker]

i believe huskerxman asked who i support, so here it is (not very well organized):

 

although i am a liberal, that is certainly not why i support obama. first, let me explain why i am liberal. there may have been a time when the greatest threat to personal liberty and freedom was the government, i do not believe that is the case now. today we have multinational corporations that have more money, power, and influence than some nations. as such, the american government is the only entity that can protect us from an unbridled assault on our individual rights. individuals no longer have leverage or bargaining power against such large corporations, yet we need their services and employment. as i see it, we need the gov't to enact mutually beneficial regulations and offer the citizens some leverage against big corporations. we see how corporations use its leverage at the state level. states, in need of employers, bid away all workers' rights and protections to get jobs. but at that point, what are the jobs worth? there is a balance and we need the federal gov't as a counter.

 

so that is one reason i am liberal and think democrats help more than republicans. i also think democrats help the middle class more than republicans. this is where i really like obama over romney. tax cuts to the rich do nothing to help the middle class or the county. tax cuts should be reserved for the middle class and only to corporations if incentivized (my word). here is a good gop plan that tries to benefit both sides: Robert Dold's Unemployment Bill Offers $7,000 Subsidy For Hiring Long-Term Jobless. that is a pragmatic plan, but i generally find it hard to trust republicans. their ubiquitous solution of tax cuts (which disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and often on the backs of the middle-class) make them seem like nothing more that shills for the opulent minority. also, i do not like how they sellout our environmental protections or want to privatize everything. this is interesting and helps explain our current state of politics: corporations spend more on lobbyists to fight taxes than they actually spend on taxes.

so, the economy is getting stronger and will be stronger under obama (frankly, or romney. the economy is at a point where it will recover and whichever person is president will get credit). i saw a deb fischer ad where she mentioned tax cuts and paying down the debt in the same sentence. this is a common talking point for republicans. well, how will that work? we need revenue to pay down the debt and fix the deficit. you get revenue from taxes and enabling the middle class to spend (which generate tax revenue). also, the gov't needs to spend money because no one else will. corporations are sitting on huge cash reserves because it the middle-class is not spending nor are they. people like the analogy that when a household is in debt it cuts spending. well, the american government is not a household. surpluses are the time for austerity, not recessions. there needs to be money flowing into the economy to grow the economy so it can rebound. once the economy is jump started it should stabilize without any further help from the gov't and tax revenue will grow. that is the time to make cuts and worry about deficit/debt. now is not the time and the republican solutions will only lead to a weaker economy and more hardships for the middle class.

 

also, wise spending can help generate more revenue at a lower cost. allocate more money to job training and green jobs. create a sector we can be a world leader in with jobs that can not be outsourced. car manufacturing jobs are not coming back, we need to find a replacement. invest in this new sector and invest in people who would otherwise be on food stamps and unemployment. they will have jobs to go to that help the economy by limiting our dependence on foreign energy and putting money in the middle-class. these are the solutions we need and that obama is willing to invest in. green energy is the future, if we are to have a future at all, and it is an industry we could be world leaders in. spend money on employing people modernizing our energy grid or building light-rails or getting high-speed internet accessible across the nation. these ideas have multiple benefits to the economy. they put people to work (money in middle-class consumer's hands), cheaper, more efficient energy, our economy is dependent on the internet and infrastructure, we could create a product to be exported to industrializing countries.

 

along with investment ideas i agree with, i am a strong advocate for aca (obamacare). it is a pragmatic solution to a serious problem. many people have never known the pain of thinking their medical care will be covered by their insurance only to find out they were denied coverage and may go bankrupt because of a medical emergency (or a broken leg, for that matter). obama's plan was responsible and will be effective. i would have preferred a single-payer system, but this is far better than the alternative. the major complaint is the mandate, but that is what makes it so great. the idea is that a larger pool will mean smaller premiums, but that means everyone has to buy in. with such a large pool, insurance companies can do away with pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps. and if the insurance company spends less than 80 percent of premiums on medical care it must rebate the excess. that is a 1.1 billion dollar insurance rebate. this was a great solution with roots in responsibility and conservatism.

 

finally, there are the obvious issues of environment and gay rights. i like obama much better on these and will extrapolate if anyone is interested.

 

so basically, i think obama is better for the middle-class, offers a stronger (not bigger), more competent gov't for the people, and honestly i do not know what to expect from romney. there used to be an argument between the republicans and democrats over the role of gov't, not it is if there should be a gov't. the gov't is not the answer, but it is not the problem.

[carlfense]

Good post sd'sker.

 

I had a similar post in an earlier thread:

 

I'll be casting a vote for Obama in a few weeks. I didn't vote for him last time.

 

I've seen a lot of things from his presidency that I don't support . . . that I think are wrong for America. I've also seen slow (too slow!) improvement in our economy and 24 straight months of added jobs. I've seen a healthcare bill that is full of compromises but is far better than doing nothing. I've seen the decimation of the leadership of the group responsible for the worst terroristic attack in our country's history. I've seen the end of an extremely ill-advised war in Iraq. I've seen a relentlessly moderate administration that approaches controversial issues with caution . . . but ultimately reaches the correct decision in things like marriage equality and ending DADT. I've also seen extensions of legislation that truly threatens the freedom of Americans . . . like the Patriot Act. I've seen attacks ordered on US citizens in foreign countries.

 

(Edit: I should add that much of this happened during the most obstructionist Congress in modern history.)

 

In short . . . I'll vote for him . . . but it's not because I think that he's great. It's because he's better than the alternatives that I've seen. I simply cannot bring myself to vote for a man like Romney who will do or say anything (even if it's the complete opposite of something that he said earlier) to attain power. I can't and I won't.

 

I didn't say the biggest reason why I support Obama: Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[sd'sker]

Good post sd'sker.

 

I had a similar post in an earlier thread:

 

I'll be casting a vote for Obama in a few weeks. I didn't vote for him last time.

 

I've seen a lot of things from his presidency that I don't support . . . that I think are wrong for America. I've also seen slow (too slow!) improvement in our economy and 24 straight months of added jobs. I've seen a healthcare bill that is full of compromises but is far better than doing nothing. I've seen the decimation of the leadership of the group responsible for the worst terroristic attack in our country's history. I've seen the end of an extremely ill-advised war in Iraq. I've seen a relentlessly moderate administration that approaches controversial issues with caution . . . but ultimately reaches the correct decision in things like marriage equality and ending DADT. I've also seen extensions of legislation that truly threatens the freedom of Americans . . . like the Patriot Act. I've seen attacks ordered on US citizens in foreign countries.

 

(Edit: I should add that much of this happened during the most obstructionist Congress in modern history.)

 

In short . . . I'll vote for him . . . but it's not because I think that he's great. It's because he's better than the alternatives that I've seen. I simply cannot bring myself to vote for a man like Romney who will do or say anything (even if it's the complete opposite of something that he said earlier) to attain power. I can't and I won't.

 

I didn't say the biggest reason why I support Obama: Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

never underestimate scotus vacancies. that is why i voted for bush in '04 (first time i could vote, i was naive). crazy to think that roberts ended up saving the day.

 

also, i like how you said it better. good post.

[ShawnWatson]

aww.

[Ziggy]

Just read about the first paragraph and wanted to make a quick comment. So your a liberal because big bad companies are taking away our rights? Do you shop at Walmart, CVS, Walgreens, Target, Safeway, Lowes, home depot, a mall? Every time you do that you make those multinational companies that much stronger. Every dollar you spend at the big box store is a dollar you could spend at a mom and pop store that will use that dollar locally and support other local businesses.

[sd'sker]

Just read about the first paragraph and wanted to make a quick comment. So your a liberal because big bad companies are taking away our rights? Do you shop at Walmart, CVS, Walgreens, Target, Safeway, Lowes, home depot, a mall? Every time you do that you make those multinational companies that much stronger. Every dollar you spend at the big box store is a dollar you could spend at a mom and pop store that will use that dollar locally and support other local businesses.

that is true, but my point is not that they should not necessarily exist. it is that they have too much leverage for the average american or group of americans to bargain with. only a competent, strong gov't can regulate and keep them in check.

[Ziggy]

What regulations should the government impose?

[sd'sker]

What regulations should the government impose?

i really was not talking about specifics. but only the gov't can protect the environment, workers' conditions, wages, that the products are safe (e.g. that they do not have lead in them). all i am saying is that people do not have enough power on their own to bargain or protect their interests against multinational corporations without the help of a competent, strong gov't. corporations have all of the rights of a person with none of the liability. what is worse is that corporations can dictate all of the terms because we do need the products and jobs.

[Junior]

What regulations should the government impose?

i really was not talking about specifics. but only the gov't can protect the environment, workers' conditions, wages, that the products are safe (e.g. that they do not have lead in them). all i am saying is that people do not have enough power on their own to bargain or protect their interests against multinational corporations without the help of a competent, strong gov't. corporations have all of the rights of a person with none of the liability. what is worse is that corporations can dictate all of the terms because we do need the products and jobs.

 

Very true. Consumers have no recourse any more. If the law doesn't help us, the corporations will run roughshod over the people.

[sd'sker]

here is another good reason to support obama:

 

Triumph of the Wrong?

 

For leading Republicans have very much tied themselves to the view that slashing spending in a depressed economy — “fiscal consolidation,” in I.M.F.-speak — is good, not bad, for job creation. Soon after the midterm elections, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives issued a manifesto on economic policy — titled, “Spend less, owe less, grow the economy” — that called for deep spending cuts right away and pooh-poohed the whole notion that fiscal consolidation (yes, it used the same term) might deepen the economy’s slump. “Non-Keynesian effects,” the manifesto declared, would make everything all right.

 

Well, that turns out not to be remotely true. What the monetary fund shows is that the countries pursing the biggest spending cuts are also the countries that have experienced the deepest economic slumps. Indeed, the evidence suggests that in brushing aside the standard view that spending cuts hurt the economy in the short run, the G.O.P. got it exactly wrong. Recent spending cuts appear to have done even more harm than most analysts — including those at the I.M.F. itself — expected.

 

Which brings us to the question of what form economic policies will take after the election.

 

If Mr. Obama wins, he’ll presumably go back to pushing for modest stimulus, aiming to convert the gradual recovery that seems to be under way into a more rapid return to full employment.

 

Republicans, however, are committed to an economic doctrine that has proved false, indeed disastrous, in other countries. Nor are they likely to change their views in the light of experience. After all, facts haven’t gotten in the way of Republican orthodoxy on any other aspect of economic policy. The party remains opposed to effective financial regulation despite the catastrophe of 2008; it remains obsessed with the dangers of inflation despite years of false alarms. So it’s not likely to give up its politically convenient views about job creation.

 

And here’s the thing: if Mitt Romney wins the election, the G.O.P. will surely consider its economic ideas vindicated. In other words, politically good things may be about to happen to very bad ideas. And if that’s how it plays out, the American people will pay the price.

[Moiraine]

What regulations should the government impose?

Limiting how much money big companies can pay politicians to pass laws that benefit only big companies. But you can see the quandary there.

 

They could not let this happen:

 

Wal-Mart:

Pre-tax earnings: $24.4 Billion

Tax Provision: $7.9 Billion (33%)

 

Actual Taxes Paid to U.S. federal government: $4.6 Billion (19%)

Wal-Mart paid $4.6 billion to the U.S. federal government in 2011 and deferred paying an additional $1.4 billion. It paid $743 million to state and local government, $1.4 billion to foreign governments.

 

 

Do you shop at Walmart, CVS, Walgreens, Target, Safeway, Lowes, home depot, a mall?

No.

[NebraskaHarry]

I'm curious... Do you think that couples making over $250,000 a year and individuals making over $200,000 or more should pay more in taxes even though I've seen a statistic that 53% of those who do account for over a million jobs? If I'm wrong, please correct me.

 

My point is that from what I've heard and seen regarding this is that this is for income taxes. Now this be the case, many individuals and couples who do own small businesses that do make over $200,000 or 250,000 would get hit hard by increased income taxes since they don't file their income taxes as corporations. You could take a case example of an individual in the construction business who employs a half dozen individuals. And of course there is property taxes. This individual has to leave a check to the state for that. (Depending where you live... Nebraska property taxes suuuuck)

 

Is raising the amount on income taxes for these people a good idea?

 

P.S. I'm not talking about myself here. I'm make considerably less than 200,000 a year.

[tschu]

I'll also be voting for Obama. Similarly to the last election where I purposefully voted against Sarah Palin, this time I'll be voting against Mitt. I can't trust a word he says. He comes across as arrogant, elitist, manipulative, and fake. He's a smooth-talker, a regular snake-oil salesman who will obliterate anyone in his path. At least with Obama, you get a genuine guy, whether you like his policies or not (not an obamacare fan, but i'll take obamacare over romney)

 

Mitt's tax plan is also atrocious, I could go into great lengths about it and quote a bunch of material about why it's atrocious but drunken tschu probably wouldn't put together a very coherent statement.. And I hate discussing politics so this will likely be my last post on the matter.

[KJ.]

also, wise spending can help generate more revenue at a lower cost. allocate more money to job training and green jobs. create a sector we can be a world leader in with jobs that can not be outsourced. car manufacturing jobs are not coming back, we need to find a replacement. invest in this new sector and invest in people who would otherwise be on food stamps and unemployment. they will have jobs to go to that help the economy by limiting our dependence on foreign energy and putting money in the middle-class. these are the solutions we need and that obama is willing to invest in. green energy is the future, if we are to have a future at all, and it is an industry we could be world leaders in. spend money on employing people modernizing our energy grid or building light-rails or getting high-speed internet accessible across the nation. these ideas have multiple benefits to the economy. they put people to work (money in middle-class consumer's hands), cheaper, more efficient energy, our economy is dependent on the internet and infrastructure, we could create a product to be exported to industrializing countries.

 

along with investment ideas i agree with, i am a strong advocate for aca (obamacare). it is a pragmatic solution to a serious problem. many people have never known the pain of thinking their medical care will be covered by their insurance only to find out they were denied coverage and may go bankrupt because of a medical emergency (or a broken leg, for that matter). obama's plan was responsible and will be effective. i would have preferred a single-payer system, but this is far better than the alternative. the major complaint is the mandate, but that is what makes it so great. the idea is that a larger pool will mean smaller premiums, but that means everyone has to buy in. with such a large pool, insurance companies can do away with pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps. and if the insurance company spends less than 80 percent of premiums on medical care it must rebate the excess. that is a 1.1 billion dollar insurance rebate. this was a great solution with roots in responsibility and conservatism.

 

 

 

finally, there are the obvious issues of environment and gay rights. i like obama much better on these and will extrapolate if anyone is interested.

 

For someone that doesn't even know what extrapolate means (junior high math term), you sure do have a lot of opinions on the inner workings of the economy and health care - two things that are highly mathematical.

 

You can have all the "this is why i'm liberal" reasons you want, but the fact of the matter is you have no idea what you're saying and are regurgitating some bullsh#t you've heard somewhere else. Don't sit there and tell me how a change in variable A affects the price of insurance, and don't act like you know the components of claim costs. You have absolutely no idea what goes into these things, but you either a) think you do, or b) don't care. Whichever it is, you fit in with all your other clueless liberal buddies.

[ObamaRocks91]

also, wise spending can help generate more revenue at a lower cost. allocate more money to job training and green jobs. create a sector we can be a world leader in with jobs that can not be outsourced. car manufacturing jobs are not coming back, we need to find a replacement. invest in this new sector and invest in people who would otherwise be on food stamps and unemployment. they will have jobs to go to that help the economy by limiting our dependence on foreign energy and putting money in the middle-class. these are the solutions we need and that obama is willing to invest in. green energy is the future, if we are to have a future at all, and it is an industry we could be world leaders in. spend money on employing people modernizing our energy grid or building light-rails or getting high-speed internet accessible across the nation. these ideas have multiple benefits to the economy. they put people to work (money in middle-class consumer's hands), cheaper, more efficient energy, our economy is dependent on the internet and infrastructure, we could create a product to be exported to industrializing countries.

 

along with investment ideas i agree with, i am a strong advocate for aca (obamacare). it is a pragmatic solution to a serious problem. many people have never known the pain of thinking their medical care will be covered by their insurance only to find out they were denied coverage and may go bankrupt because of a medical emergency (or a broken leg, for that matter). obama's plan was responsible and will be effective. i would have preferred a single-payer system, but this is far better than the alternative. the major complaint is the mandate, but that is what makes it so great. the idea is that a larger pool will mean smaller premiums, but that means everyone has to buy in. with such a large pool, insurance companies can do away with pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps. and if the insurance company spends less than 80 percent of premiums on medical care it must rebate the excess. that is a 1.1 billion dollar insurance rebate. this was a great solution with roots in responsibility and conservatism.

 

 

 

finally, there are the obvious issues of environment and gay rights. i like obama much better on these and will extrapolate if anyone is interested.

 

For someone that doesn't even know what extrapolate means (junior high math term), you sure do have a lot of opinions on the inner workings of the economy and health care - two things that are highly mathematical.

 

You can have all the "this is why i'm liberal" reasons you want, but the fact of the matter is you have no idea what you're saying and are regurgitating some bullsh#t you've heard somewhere else. Don't sit there and tell me how a change in variable A affects the price of insurance, and don't act like you know the components of claim costs. You have absolutely no idea what goes into these things, but you either a) think you do, or b) don't care. Whichever it is, you fit in with all your other clueless liberal buddies.

 

I had to join this board just to respond to you, as you are the insensitive type of person that is ruining this country. First of all, Mr. Math, I assume just because you can do the crazy math Romney does, you assume you know it all. Do you even know what an integral or derivative is? I doubt it!

 

Gay rights should be at the forefront of this election and I'm sure your conservative agenda wants to make it about jobs. The unemployment rate is lowest since Bush ruined the economy because of Obama's policies. The point is, gays have been treated like the blacks were in the 1960's and there should be similar actions and protests in this country until everyone is treated fairly. I'm not a homosexual, but I certainly believe they are what is best about this country; being able to express yourself as yon please. Everyone deserves a fair shot in this great country and it's sad you don't feel that way, KJ.

 

And I have no idea how you can even argue that green energy is our future. Obama is the only one who has the vision to see that and it's a joke to think anyone could actually argue that!