Discussion on:

Should Barack Obama be reelected?

Great for those americans on waiting list looking for jobs.

If Romney can prove he is able to realize some important steps forward for the people, he will be at an advantage amid the retrograding US economy that Obama is running.

was entirely vacuous.
You have a great future, in politics or in clairvoyance.

it doesn't matter who the hell is in the White House. Nowhere in history has printing money ever done anything but take down an economy.

It's what they do. They also take money out of circulation.
But maybe you're referring to the Rich-get-richer QE3 scheme? Fat chance of that stopping under money-mitten Romney.

Now that the debate is over. But I repeat myself. Again.

All that's left is the debate.
And then the debate.

I think it was the first time that people really got to hear from Mitt Romney himself about his ideas for the country. Up until now, he has been unfairly portrayed in the media as some kind of evil monster. In truth, he is a very successful businessman and I think he has some solid ideas that will put this country back on the track of fiscal sanity. I'm glad that he got the chance to set the record straight.

I don't know what happened to Obama last night. He was just a shadow of his former self from the 2008 election. I would think that the President of the United States that was our "hope and change" candidate from 2008, could at least offer some kind of inspiration for the future. Instead, he looked defeated. Maybe debates is not is forte, but for someone that has never been at a loss for words, his performance was flat. Or, maybe it could be that he didn't like the idea of having to compete with someone for his job and felt he was above it all.

AV

in a speech the person gets to prepare exactly what is said and hours to sort their thoughts out before giving the speech. In a debate they have to respond to the details of issues as they come at them, thus they don't have time to do a lot of research and get briefed on how best to present what they want to say. Thus a debate is more likely to show their true capabilities and thoughts and not those of their minders.

Obama wasn't up to it and he should have been able to defend his record. Instead he looked down and took notes.

AV

had set out in the notes.

there are three debates, and who wins the first one don't matter.

you can make the assertion, but I disagree. This first debate (of three) made a huge difference.

But what do I know compared to you? Your perspective on the whole thing, both literally and figuratively, must be much closer and clearer than mine! (I say after having had to avoid the traffic jams around the debate area - I must be too damned close to see it for what it really is!)

The future is open for prediction, until it has happened.
I make a claim about the future. No manner of arguments of close or distant can change the fact that only time will tell.

But then, I doubt the first debate changed your mind.

He was looking down, yes. But no, he was not taking notes. He was just standing there looking down like a little school boy being scolded.

Beyond words there have to be some achievements and actions at least. While saying some goals can be appealing, they should be proven to be actualizable and illustratable in detail.

An army of straw men, riding a convoy of platitudes, armed with nothing but demagoguery and divisiveness. Regurgitated campaign slogans that Obama used to fill 2 minute debate answers.

Of course, that's all he's ever brought to anything!

Why Big Bird of course! They turned what Mitt Romney said about eliminating wasteful programs to not increase the deficit into a joke about Romney firing Big Bird. Thats important, isn't it? And, of course, Big Bird is now what Obama talks about in his campaign speeches. Thats just embarrassing.

AV

But Romney and his anti-science, anti-smart goons are of course displeased with that. The ignoramuses prefer Fox, obviously, and their voting is predictable.

The anti-science agenda that Republicans adhere to, the idea that education should be reserved for the elite, that is one of the big reasons why Romney manages to make Obama the lesser evil.
And that's insane, considering Obama's PATRIOT act renewal, Drone Wars and RIAA whole-sale sell-out.

..... towards Mitt Romney. For a non-American who's proven his ignorance about such things, you sure do like to spout a bunch of nonsense. You spew nothing but meaningless pejoratives to support your more meaningless platitudes.

And you wonder why I don't take you seriously? Not only do I not take you seriously, but I'm put-off by everything you show about yourself.

Here's the best reason to vote for Obama: Get a free f*&^$%#$ phone!

http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

That's bound to be something European Socialists, like you, can relate to!

Not socialist, but also not a small or large l Llibertarian.

I can't abide stupid. I can't abide neoconservatism putting all that's good in conservatism through the garbage shredder... stealing societal wealth to redistribute it to the wealthy and the corporations. That's not what conservatism is about, because, in the long run it's a locust scheme. It's a scorched earth strategy on the home ground. It's not viable.
Conservatism is about being viable, staying viable.

You have none of that on either side of your gravy curtain.

An example is to teach English language over Internet-based conference to the rest of the world (which constitute a vast demand), or instill advanced american principles/mindsets/technologies to those lagging countries, thereby earn a living (imported revenues) from foreign countries.

As disappointing as O may be, the Republicans have run clear of logic and evidence and are now pedaling through thin air. It's a party that can put forward blatantly unqualified characters like Bachman or Palin as serious representatives, can indulge in birther fantasies and fetus-firstism, promote bad tax math, and venerate authoritarian government and guns in the same breath as they deplore Democrats for being America-hating communists. The crackpot fringe has become the crackpot center, and there's no reason to trust them with more government than they already control.

What happened to the party of Eisenhower? I really wish I had a choice, other than to re-elect this ineffectual egotist.

Well, Delbert, you already know Obama has done nothing but spend, spend, spend over the past four years. We are running in place and deeper in debt than ever. Why put him back in the Whitehouse? He doesn't deserve to be re-elected because he hasn't produced any results.

Undoubtedly, there are some in the Republican party that have more extreme ideas and the same can be said of the Democrats, but Mitt Romney is more of a moderate voice. Romney is a very successful man. He is far more qualified than Obama in every way. At this point, we need someone with new ideas because what Obama has tried hasn't worked.

We desperately need someone in the Whitehouse that can work with Congress. Obama has proven he can't do it. Romney has a much better chance of making that happen. He has worked across the aisle in the past and he can do it again. I look at him as someone like Chris Christie in NJ. A fiscal conservative that can get things done.

AV

You are correct, he has done nothing but spend, spend, spend. But he has also tried, numerous times, to increase government revenue to cover some of that spending. With the exception of his first two years, when he had a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, no economic proposal he has made ...not a one...has passed into law. Our government relies on compromise to work; when one party will not compromise, then our government cannot work.

We desperately need people in Congress willing to work with the President. There's something seriously wrong with our political system (and the country) when one of the two major political parties says, and demonstrates, that it is more interested in ensuring the failure of a President than it is in the success of the country, and people who call themselves "patriotic Americans" still support that party.

Where...no...what are Romney's new ideas? I don't see anything from him that I haven't seen neocons pushing for the last several decades: cut taxes on the rich, screw the working man, bugger the poor. Trickle-down doesn't work. The evidence is all over the place that it didn't work for Bush. It didn't even work for Reagan, but he, at least, still believed government shouldn't run a deficit and asked Congress to raise taxes (11 times!) to try to cover the shortfalls. Republicans today are still all over Democrats about "tax and spend", but they won't even tax. They just spend. Right now, Democrats are better at fiscal responsibility than Republicans because they aren't afraid to admit that not only is spending too high, revenue is too low. When the phuque did Republicans abandon fiscal responsibility?

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I can't consider anybody supporting either of the two major parties today as being sane.

do NOT spend the money and then go looking for a way to get more revenue. Nor do they spend the money and just run up the debt if they're wise. The other thing to look at is what he's spending the money on, and why (which is the most important).

However, to me, as a non-USA person, the scariest things I see about Obama is his disrespect of the US Flag, the US National anthem, and the way he is ignoring the federal laws.

As long as Obama keeps trying to raise taxes on the rich, Congress will never agree to any of his legislation. I get the message, but why doesn't he? Why keep trying the same failed approach to working with the Republican Congress over and over again and then cry to the American people that he can't get anything done because they won't let him. That is just idiotic and all it shows is his lack of leadership. Its his job to find a way. I can.

If Republicans won't raise taxes than why not look at revising the tax code to get revenue. The truth is, so much more money will be raised in revenue by eliminating tax loopholes than raising taxes on the rich by 3 percent. Thats the Republican plan, Obama knows that, yet why hasn't he ever pursued that avenue instead of beating the dead horse of raising taxes on the rich? I think its divisive politics and shows a president that is out of ideas. His only hope is to get re-elected by dividing this country on that issue. Could be, but I hope not.

What Obama illustrates is a lack of leadership and no understanding of how to work with whomever is elected to Congress. People didn't elect him to only work with like-minded individuals, he's supposed to build relationships. Compare him to Bill Clinton. Same party, huge difference, because Clinton knew how to build relationships across the aisle. Obama doesn't know how to do that. Clearly, the wrong man is in the Whitehouse. He just doesn't have the leadership ability to get the job done.

I wouldn't call Romney a neocon, he's pretty moderate. Romney has some real plans for turning things around. He will revise the tax code and get rid of most of the tax loopholes. For the most part, the wealthy use those tax loopholes. Just think of how much money that will bring in, especially considering that some companies pay little or no taxes and make billions in profits. It will bring in way more revenue than raising their taxes by 3%. He will lower the corporate tax rate of 35% to around 20 - 25% so we can compete in the world market. He will lower personal tax rates as well. The tax code will be fairer. I think thats a good plan. What is Obama's plan? More battles with Republicans in Congress and getting nothing done?

Romney will also cut the size and scope of government because he, unlike Bush, is a real fiscal conservative. There is no way we should be sending any money to PBS or other companies like that. It should be privately funded. There is so much more, but in short, Romney has a plan to fix this country and I'm sure he can work with both sides of the aisle to accomplish his goals. He did it in MA. Obama has proven he can't get anything done, can't work across the aisle and all he does is look for sympathy from the American people. That is just not acceptable and to me, he doesn't deserve to be re-elected.

AV

When you're facing financial collapse, you better have a government that is willing to spend money, or else the fear-induced lack of demand will drive economic activity down and unemployment up in a vicious cycle. We haven't gotten out of it yet, and if we clamp down on spending like the austerity fans all want, we'll head into a deep recession... and guess what that will do? It'll give us an even bigger deficit.

Back in 2008, the only option was to let everything collapse at once or go with the TARP program that Bush came up with. I think TARP saved our financial system, but then Obama's stimulous program, almost $1Trillion, was a total waste. Cash for Clunkers, temporary road projects, etc., was a government giveaway that didn't create anything but temp jobs or in many cases no jobs. See for yourself. Even Oprah Winfrey got some money http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx. Its absolutely shameful how the stimulous was mismanaged and did nothing to create real jobs.

Obama can keep spending until the money runs out, but it will never stimulate the economy. He needs to get business to spend their money and invest here. He needs to lower the corporate tax rate and get rid of his taxing the rich mantra. Thats a non-starter and no Republican will ever agree to it. Instead, he should work on revising the tax code and closing the tax loopholes that the rich take advantage of. Republicans agree with that and don't consider it raising taxes, yet all we continue to hear from Obama is lets raise taxes on the rich. He knows darn well that even if we did that, it still wouldn't be enough revenue.

If Romney gets elected he will get more revenue from revising the tax code and then lowering the corporate tax rate and personal income tax rate. That will encourage growth and more consumer spending. He will also shrink the size of government. We have a lot of wasteful spending and useless programs that have no right being funded by taxpayers.

Why is the federal government contributing $430 million to PBS and other media stations? Is that what our government should be doing with our taxpayer dollars? It makes me mad. Sure its just a small amount in the scheme of things, but if you look under the budget rug, you'll find a lot more wasteful spending than that.

AV

The stimulus was not a waste. It was not big enough; it it had been, the economy might have been rolling on its own by now. It was not structured well; a third of it was tax cuts, not spending.

Lowering corporate and individual tax rates, as Romney proposes, won't cause more money to come into the government; it will lead to exactly the opposite. If there was a good reason to expect that lower taxes would lead to a sudden explosion of economic activity, resulting in more jobs and more money and hence more to tax, then I'd be all for it. There is no reason to think so, though. The economy has been swimming in cheap money for a couple of years, and it hasn't caused companies to invest in growth or rich people to make risky bets on expansion. If you allow them to keep more of the profits instead of taxing them, then they'll just have more money, with no more reason to take a risk and hire more people and bet that somebody will be willing to buy the extra production. They won't invest, take risks, because they're scared, and they won't make expansionary bets until they are confident it will pay back. That's why banks and rich guys are buying government bonds that pay 2%. It's safer, and being safe trumps trying to get richer, these days. Besides, productivity has gone up, and a fixed number of more productive workers leads to more profit. Greed ain't the incentive it used to be.

In an atmosphere like this, the only thing that will make companies hire more people is a sure thing, like a government order for goods and services. Is that wasteful? If the money is spent for roads and maintenance on public structures, or for putting people through productive occupational education, then it's an investment that ought to repay itself in a more efficient infrastructure and workforce. It it's spent to finance tax cuts, then it's less clear what good is being done. What's clearly a waste is if people don't go back to work, whether for government or private industry, whether for stimulus or for the sake of private investment.

Though Obama would have suspended them for the "rich", in reality, that would not be enough revenue anyway.

If the stimulous wasn't big enough, why is there still money left? In 2011 the cap was increased to $840B http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx

The only sensible thing to do is to revise the tax code and make it more fair. Romney would lower tax rates, but close tax loopholes and that is where the revenue would come from. Though there aren't specifics as to which ones he would close, for the most part, the wealthy take the greatest advantage of tax loopholes. I would think it would raise quite a lot more money than just raising taxes on the rich by 3%.

If Romney lowers the corporate tax rate it would be to make the US more competitive in the world and attract more companies to invest here. The reason I think we have a stagnant economy is because there is so much uncertainty. Companies won't hire and consumers won't buy. Everyone is hoarding their money waiting for the next shoe to drop.

Some of the stimulous paid for road maintenance, but those were only temporary jobs. We need sustained employment in a variety of fields and that can only be achieved by providing certainty and incentives to private businesses. If companies start hiring again that would provide certainty to individuals and they will open their wallets.

Obama has not provided any leadership. That is whats needed. He says things aren't good, but he's trying. He looks defeated and that attitude is an economy killer. We need a change at the top to reinvigorate this country and provide a good environment so that businesses can prosper here. If we don't get it, its four more years of listening to Obama's excuses and high unemployment.

AV

companies are worried because Wall Street managed to screw the pooch to within an inch of its life.
The US needs other countries and US citizens to buy US products... and they don't seem to be able to.
Everybody is waiting to see how the chips fall, and this crisis will take a long while to settle down.

needs to produce products for people to buy, first. *snark*

... for a while.
That's "products" isn't it?

I did fast forward through all the nonsense that was Obamney during the debate. There are other voices out there... It might be time to send the Dems/Reps a clear message by giving a huge percentage of the vote to third parties.

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2012/10/4/expanding_the_debate_watch_democracy_nows_full_three_hour_special

The two-party system will never work again, it only worked as long as both parties had some interest in consensus, but I don't think neoconservatism or religiously motivated asshattery or tea-flavoured willful stupidity are going away.

So, the only way to get it to work again is to get a real popular movement going to bit by bit undermine the two-party system. There are ways to change the election processes of individual states, it's hard work, but there is no salvation from anywhere else. And of course, general strikes and other pressure techniques can come in handy in the states where no avenue for popular initiatives exist. Setting up bi-partisan candidates who are in on the project also helps.

If the American People wants to change things, they can. They just gotta realize that they have no choice.

was never intended by our Constitution. It became a de facto function once the DNC/RNC gained control of the Presidential debates in 1988.

We have choices. They're just hard to find thanks to the fact that we're becoming, if not already have become, a corporate state. Pisses me right off.

and you can smoke those nasty little stinkers straight out of D.C...
Look at what they did in Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/104495868343034960513/posts/PACqK1U4pmF

http ://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/we_have_been_duped_the_story.html

I wonder why the media exaggerated so much for a hype that Romney beats Obama in their debate, actually not overwhelmingly.

That's Cesar Chavez.


Not Hugo.


Once again, a vote for Romney is a vote for Stupid.

I am looking forward to the second debate that can shed some insight into the captioned subject. E.g. the shift of military and diplomatic emphasis to Asia as a practice of alliance militarism and more strategic meddling the business sectors by politics.