ptown_trojans_1;810556 wrote:Wrong question and that question can get you in trouble.
The correct question is what can the other candidate do, concrete policies, that would merit them the honor of being President?
Broadly, the President can be bad, but if he still has better ideas and policies than the other guy, he should win.

It's the bear saying. I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.

No no no, ptown...I won't let you dodge, dip, dive and dodge.

You can't change the question. What has he done so well that merits a 2nd term? For example, do you think the Stimulus Package was such a resounding hit that we should keep doing it? Do you believe QE1 and QE2 were superlative and you can't wait for QE3? Do you like 3 wars (is Yemen a 4th??) more than 2 and want us to police more of the world? Seriously, what has he done that should be repeated?

The 2012 election is a clear referendum on ObamaKare, Obamanomics, and ObamaDebt. If we want more centralized government, more government meddling in our lives, a larger regulatory state, more loss of control over our energy future, more environmentalists in power, and most importantly, more Progressive liberals on the Supreme Court to create a new Constitution via fiat, then vote for the current occupier. The choice is very clear.

BGFalcons82;811006 wrote:No no no, ptown...I won't let you dodge, dip, dive and dodge.

You can't change the question. What has he done so well that merits a 2nd term? For example, do you think the Stimulus Package was such a resounding hit that we should keep doing it? Do you believe QE1 and QE2 were superlative and you can't wait for QE3? Do you like 3 wars (is Yemen a 4th??) more than 2 and want us to police more of the world? Seriously, what has he done that should be repeated?

The 2012 election is a clear referendum on ObamaKare, Obamanomics, and ObamaDebt. If we want more centralized government, more government meddling in our lives, a larger regulatory state, more loss of control over our energy future, more environmentalists in power, and most importantly, more Progressive liberals on the Supreme Court to create a new Constitution via fiat, then vote for the current occupier. The choice is very clear.

Well stated. And you could have added obama's appointments to the NLRB -- a bunch of radicals that are now asserting themselves as probably the most anti-business, anti-job creation, anti-investment bunch in history. Oh, and the casualty rate in Afghanistan is 5 times what is was under W ---- of course you won't see that in the major left-stream media. Change we can believe in!

Someone please explain to me the logic behind making a grand announcement that we're going to be removing all these troops from Afghanistan AND telling the enemy our timeline for doing so?

I can see drawing down, I just don't see how it benefits anyone (least of all our military) but putting our plans out there for the enemy like this.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-23/house-s-cantor-pulling-out-of-biden-debt-reduction-talks-citing-impasse-.html

Nov 2012 cannot arrive soon enough.

Writerbuckeye;811060 wrote:Someone please explain to me the logic behind making a grand announcement that we're going to be removing all these troops from Afghanistan AND telling the enemy our timeline for doing so?

I can see drawing down, I just don't see how it benefits anyone (least of all our military) but putting our plans out there for the enemy like this.

Such is the modern state of war & politics. Notice the timeline also: 10,000 troops out this year, then 23,000 by next fall, just in time for . . . wait for it . . . the 2012 elections. Just in time for Obama to say, "See, I ended that worthless war in Afghanistan . . . vote for me".

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304657804576401653113017130.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

You want hope; here it is.

BGFalcons82;811006 wrote:No no no, ptown...I won't let you dodge, dip, dive and dodge.

You can't change the question. What has he done so well that merits a 2nd term? For example, do you think the Stimulus Package was such a resounding hit that we should keep doing it? Do you believe QE1 and QE2 were superlative and you can't wait for QE3? Do you like 3 wars (is Yemen a 4th??) more than 2 and want us to police more of the world? Seriously, what has he done that should be repeated?

The 2012 election is a clear referendum on ObamaKare, Obamanomics, and ObamaDebt. If we want more centralized government, more government meddling in our lives, a larger regulatory state, more loss of control over our energy future, more environmentalists in power, and most importantly, more Progressive liberals on the Supreme Court to create a new Constitution via fiat, then vote for the current occupier. The choice is very clear.

Sure, those are questions to ask. But, to me it is more important to ask what the other is GOING to do to fix the current policies. Just saying, he did this or that, but offering nothing in return is not the way to go and can get you in worse trouble.
I'm against the whole concept of an election as a referendum. The choice should be the policies of the President vs. the policies of the challenger. If the R candidate can't make any sense and can't articulate any concrete policy options, then why pick them as President? Saying, I want anyone that is not Obama can really mess us all up. The new person could be an even bigger failure and sink us even more, because the emphasis was on anyone new and not what the person brings to the table.

I'm not saying we should forget about what the President has done to merit a second term, I'm saying it should be weighed against what the R candidate says they want to do in concrete terms.
But, that's me being a policy wonk and hating politics.

To answer the question, has the President merited a second term? So, far, against the bland, broad statements without policy specifics, I have heard from Romney and the like, yes.

Writerbuckeye;811060 wrote:Someone please explain to me the logic behind making a grand announcement that we're going to be removing all these troops from Afghanistan AND telling the enemy our timeline for doing so?

I can see drawing down, I just don't see how it benefits anyone (least of all our military) but putting our plans out there for the enemy like this.

30,000 support troops really.
We will still have over 68,000 combat troops there and will past 2014.
Plus, our plans are still the same, COIN in the south and Counter terrorism in the east, with drone strikes in Pakistan. The 30,000 aren't that big a deal in the long run. The enemy is not to rejoice, because we are still targeting them.

The speech was a speech. It was a political speech for and foremost. It needed to be more on the strategy of Afghanistan and in the Oval Office (Side note, the President hasn't had one Oval Office address yet, what the hell?)

That all said, unless we can figure out Pakistan, we can throw a million troops and it won't matter.

ptown_trojans_1;811820 wrote:To answer the question, has the President merited a second term? So, far, against the bland, broad statements without policy specifics, I have heard from Romney and the like, yes.

Roll on BHO, eh? Oh well, what the hell. We can handle 4 more years of policy specific "we must spend our way to prosperity" lunacy, right? I suppose it is far better than buying off on the bland.

I'll take an unknown over what I am certain we'll get if Obama has a second term -- any day.

Writerbuckeye;811983 wrote:I'll take an unknown over what I am certain we'll get if Obama has a second term -- any day.

So would I. Apparently there are actually some who think 4 more years of Obamanomics is the best option. That's a sad indicator of the true state of the union.

ptown_trojans_1;811820 wrote:To answer the question, has the President merited a second term? So, far, against the bland, broad statements without policy specifics, I have heard from Romney and the like, yes.

MEGA fail.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/geithner-taxes-small-business-must-rise

Absolutely stunning. When does the freak show end?

Nov 2012 cannot arrive soon enough.

QuakerOats;812530 wrote:http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/geithner-taxes-small-business-must-rise

Absolutely stunning. When does the freak show end?

Nov 2012 cannot arrive soon enough.

Did you read the article or just the headline? Do you care to argue against any of Secretary Geithner's points and articulations; points which economists from previous conservative administrations anywhere to the left of Cato have agreed?

BoatShoes;812552 wrote:Did you read the article or just the headline? Do you care to argue against any of Secretary Geithner's points and articulations; points which economists from previous conservative administrations anywhere to the left of Cato have agreed?

I read it. Here's my take:

Geithner represents the administration's policies. He speaks for Obama and the rulers in the White House. He is offering that NO spending cuts are acceptable, only tax increases on the wealth producing small businesses and middle class. It's the same lingo we heard from Biden in the past few days and caused Cantor, McConnell, etc. to walk out on the "negotiations" because the Left requires tax increases to "offset" spending "cuts". See...the Obama administration has no intention of cutting spending nor reducing big government bureaucracies and control. Hell....look at his original budget and his Mulligan budget. No serious cuts. No elimination of anything...other than the military.

We have a spending problem. 24% of GDP is government spending. It is historically supported at 16 to 19% but we flew by those targets in the past 2 years. You keep claiming he's no socialist...and yet here are his minions clamoring for the spending status quo and more wealth confiscation from those earning it. Four more years of this guy and we'll all consider being like Manhattan Buckeye and moving far away....or seceeding. That's not a joke.

Yes, I did read the article, thank you. I am embarrassed as an American that this person is the head of Treasury. In fact, that is a rather odd situation considering this person and this administration have done more to RAID the treasury and saddle future generations with crushing debt than anyone else in history. Federal spending is increasing at exponential rates relative to the growth in revenues and the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost. I, for one, will not allow my children and grandchildren to continue to be saddled with evermore debt, just so this radical administration can placate it radical base and buy votes from the unproductive public sector, liberal unions, and the dependency class. IT'S OVER!

Doggie doesn't get it -- or he does, and agrees that we need to tax and spend ourselves into oblivion -- much like our Western European neighbors have already done. Perhaps he even wants us to end up like Greece or Portugal: with so many entitlement obligations we have to depend on the grace of others not to default (we're headed there, anyway).

The basic principle that separates people like doggie from me and others is pretty simple: they believe our money is not ours; it's only a weigh station until the government decides how much of it should be confiscated for the good of the state.

QuakerOats;812530 wrote:http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/geithner-taxes-small-business-must-rise

Absolutely stunning. When does the freak show end?

Nov 2012 cannot arrive soon enough.

This was pretty much the tip of the iceberg for me:

“We're not doing it because we want to do it, we're doing it because if we don't do it, then, again, I have to go out and borrow a trillion dollars over the next 10 years to finance those tax benefits for the top 2 percent, and I don't think I can justify doing that,” said Geithner.

Imagine that, the government having to borrow money to pay for . . . citizens and small businesses . . . keeping more of their own personal property?!?!?!

Another example of:
1. Liberals standing on their heads and telling everyone else the world is upside down.
2. Liberals never thinking that what they're doing is wrong- they just haven't been allowed to do enough of it yet.

BGFalcons82;812565 wrote:We have a spending problem.

Here....let me fix this for you:

We have a spending problem.

believer;812927 wrote:Here....let me fix this for you:

We have a spending problem.

what's getting cut first? would you be ok with some of your benefits being cut in order to slash spending? just curious.

derek bomar;812981 wrote:what's getting cut first? would you be ok with some of your benefits being cut in order to slash spending? just curious.

We might as well give up now, this attitude is rampant throughout society. Anything but MY benefits, this country is fucking screwed.

derek bomar;812981 wrote:what's getting cut first? would you be ok with some of your benefits being cut in order to slash spending? just curious.

First cut: ObamaKare. Nuff said on that one.

Then I'd tackle military spending. I would create a team of financial, military, and industrial experts to investigate and report on the waste, inefficiency, corruption, and competitive bidding issues within the military procurement process. The report would be presented to a bipartisan commission of senators and congressmen to draw up a bill that includes the relevant parts found in the team's report. Subsequent laws would be implemented to insure military procurement is done well within fair market value (including foreign bidders) and make it highly illegal to waste taxpayer dollars on patronage purchases designed to line the wallets of politicians and corporate execs.

I'd withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya within the next year. I would phase-in a highly-trained, well-equipped Rapid Deployment Force style military team comprised of the best Marine, Army, Air Force, and Navy units and then conduct major downsizing of CONUS military units and bases. I would then withdraw all American military personnel from Europe and downsize our presence in Korea. We would stop funding NATO until all NATO countries contribute their fair share. We would make it known to the world that the United States will not seek UN, NATO, or allied approval when we feel the need to deploy American forces and that we will not hesitate to deploy small tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to quickly achieve military goals. Call me insane Ptown, but the nukes will be necessary to put teeth in our newly downsized yet lean and mean military structure.

Next we would take the federal government out of the welfare business and will no longer subsidize state welfare programs. PERIOD

We would then look long and hard at the waste, fraud, and abuse running rampant with the Medicare/Medicaid system. We would begin phasing out federal control of these programs and allow the participant to route Medicare/Medicaid dollars to a competitive privatized health insurance system over the next 2 or 3 decades.

Finally, we would create a gradual phase out of Social Security over the next few decades by providing tax incentives to employees and employers to participate willingly in expanded and more lucrative private 401K-style savings programs. We would also make a federal law that makes it illegal for fucktard politicians to dip into the alleged "trust fund" to fund patronage projects for their home districts.

believer;813036 wrote:First cut: ObamaKare. Nuff said on that one.

Fair. I'd like a do over on that myself.

Then I'd tackle military spending. I would create a team of financial, military, and industrial experts to investigate and report on the waste, inefficiency, corruption, and competitive bidding issues within the military procurement process. The report would be presented to a bipartisan commission of senators and congressmen to draw up a bill that includes the relevant parts found in the team's report. Subsequent laws would be implemented to insure military procurement is done well within fair market value (including foreign bidders) and make it highly illegal to waste taxpayer dollars on patronage purchases designed to line the wallets of politicians and corporate execs.

Sounds like a good idea. It has been tried in the past, late 90s, and failed obviously.
The key to any program like that is limiting Congress (pork and protecting pet projects) I mean the F35 is produced in like 20 states.
As someone in the Defense contracting business now, I can say it is some shady stuff here and there.

I'd withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya within the next year. I would phase-in a highly-trained, well-equipped Rapid Deployment Force style military team comprised of the best Marine, Army, Air Force, and Navy units and then conduct major downsizing of CONUS military units and bases.

Interesting. That is a fundamental shift in the way we fight. No way, logistically that will work in a year.

I would then withdraw all American military personnel from Europe and downsize our presence in Korea.

Withdraw from Ramstein? Hmmmmm.
Also, not sure I want to leave all of our forces out of Asia, especially Korea and Japan. China is already flexing their muscle in the South China Sea. The last thing we need are the South Koreans and Japanese freaking out because we are withdrawing.

We would stop funding NATO until all NATO countries contribute their fair share.

Not sure our Eastern European allies would like that very much.

We would make it known to the world that the United States will not seek UN, NATO, or allied approval when we feel the need to deploy American forces and that we will not hesitate to deploy small tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to quickly achieve military goals. Call me insane Ptown, but the nukes will be necessary to put teeth in our newly downsized yet lean and mean military structure.

I didn't know we sought approval anyways? When was the last time we didn't send in force because the UN or NATO said no? It's a nice thing to have, but not required.
On tac nukes, we already have some deployed in Europe under NATO (Germany, Belgium, Turkey, Italy) and we are updating those weapons through 2030. But, actually using them to offset a conventional imbalance since we are pulling out, I don't want to cross that bridge. Once that norm is set, anyone can use nukes with that excuse (see Russia and North Korea).
We can use and keep them for deterrence, but only as a last result will we use them, not to offset us withdrawing.

Next we would take the federal government out of the welfare business and will no longer subsidize state welfare programs. PERIOD

Sounds like a nice goal, but one that will take time. Otherwise, it could be an economic disaster and actually lead to violence and more crime.

We would then look long and hard at the waste, fraud, and abuse running rampant with the Medicare/Medicaid system. We would begin phasing out federal control of these programs and allow the participant to route Medicare/Medicaid dollars to a competitive privatized health insurance system over the next 2 or 3 decades.

Agree. I'd just put some major oversight over the private sector to ensure they do not screw us over.

Finally, we would create a gradual phase out of Social Security over the next few decades by providing tax incentives to employees and employers to participate willingly in expanded and more lucrative private 401K-style savings programs. We would also make a federal law that makes it illegal for ****tard politicians to dip into the alleged "trust fund" to fund patronage projects for their home districts.

Agreed. Maybe other options than a 401k, but I'm with ya.

tk421;812988 wrote:We might as well give up now, this attitude is rampant throughout society. Anything but MY benefits, this country is fucking screwed.

wtf are you talking about? I didn't say I wouldn't be willing to make a sacrifice.

ptown_trojans_1;811820 wrote:Sure, those are questions to ask. But, to me it is more important to ask what the other is GOING to do to fix the current policies. Just saying, he did this or that, but offering nothing in return is not the way to go and can get you in worse trouble.
I'm against the whole concept of an election as a referendum. The choice should be the policies of the President vs. the policies of the challenger. If the R candidate can't make any sense and can't articulate any concrete policy options, then why pick them as President? Saying, I want anyone that is not Obama can really mess us all up. The new person could be an even bigger failure and sink us even more, because the emphasis was on anyone new and not what the person brings to the table.

I'm not saying we should forget about what the President has done to merit a second term, I'm saying it should be weighed against what the R candidate says they want to do in concrete terms.
But, that's me being a policy wonk and hating politics.

To answer the question, has the President merited a second term? So, far, against the bland, broad statements without policy specifics, I have heard from Romney and the like, yes.

Why not? That is exactly why most voted for Obama and Obama himself went after that vote. The "anyone but Bush" vote.