• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Will Obama Share his Goals for Another Four Years

W

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
14,203
Reaction score
4,664
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It is clear that Obama will not run a campaign asking for four more years due to the great job he did since in office. We can see he will spend his time explaining what a rotten, rich, which, privileged guy Romney is.

The question is will he outline what his goals are if he were to be re-elected. What is his vision for America?
 
"Six trillion is nothing! Let me show you what I can spend given another chance!"
"If in 3 years, I haven't completely abolished congress, you don't have to elect me for a third term."
"I will execute at least twice as many suspected terrorists this time around. With half as many drones!"

/sarcasm


Honestly, I would consider voting for him if he showed a few things. Actual movement in favor of equal rights for LGBT, owning his own mistakes and offering to improve, fixing Obamacare, and a desire to cut spending instead of increasing it come to mind. President Obama has done some good and lots of bad, but Romney doesn't have me running to the booth either.

I understand his desire to skip over the past few years, but instead of attacks, I would need a future plan offered that was not more of the same.
 
washunut said:
It is clear that Obama will not run a campaign asking for four more years due to the great job he did since in office.
Click to expand...

That's clear? Not to me. If you haven't figured out what his vision is after almost four years you're probably not going to figure it out in the next six months.
 
AdamT said:
That's clear? Not to me. If you haven't figured out what his vision is after almost four years you're probably not going to figure it out in the next six months.
Click to expand...

Not for me to figure out genius, rather for him to detail.

Please go somewhere and do not derail this thread.
 
washunut said:
Not for me to figure out genius, rather for him to detail.

Please go somewhere and do not derail this thread.
Click to expand...

Four years, genius -- figure it out.
 
washunut said:
It is clear that Obama will not run a campaign asking for four more years due to the great job he did since in office. We can see he will spend his time explaining what a rotten, rich, which, privileged guy Romney is.

The question is will he outline what his goals are if he were to be re-elected. What is his vision for America?
Click to expand...

He didn't spell out his plans in 2008, either. He sure as hell isn't going to, now. He wants to hang on to his half-ass chance of getting re-elected. :rofl
 
washunut said:
It is clear that Obama will not run a campaign asking for four more years due to the great job he did since in office. We can see he will spend his time explaining what a rotten, rich, which, privileged guy Romney is.

The question is will he outline what his goals are if he were to be re-elected. What is his vision for America?
Click to expand...

Indeed. Obama probably could have run on "It's bad, but without what we did, we would have gone off the cliff." Romney (and every reputable economist) knows that the stimulus prevented a steep aggregate demand drop, but Obama has let the GOP frame the economy. For such a great Orator, he's basically dropped the ball on this one. Healthcare as well.
 
Obama: I'm going to be outspent by Romney, super PACs - POLITICO.com

"I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign, if things continue as they have so far," Obama wrote to supporters. "I'm not just talking about the super PACs and anonymous outside groups -- I'm talking about the Romney campaign itself. Those outside groups just add even more to the underlying problem."
Click to expand...

What does this tell you about his re-election campaign?
 
washunut said:
It is clear that Obama will not run a campaign asking for four more years due to the great job he did since in office. We can see he will spend his time explaining what a rotten, rich, which, privileged guy Romney is.

The question is will he outline what his goals are if he were to be re-elected. What is his vision for America?
Click to expand...

I wonder if maybe he should put up a website to talk about this.....

Barack Obama
 
obvious Child said:
Indeed. Obama probably could have run on "It's bad, but without what we did, we would have gone off the cliff." Romney (and every reputable economist) knows that the stimulus prevented a steep aggregate demand drop, but Obama has let the GOP frame the economy. For such a great Orator, he's basically dropped the ball on this one. Healthcare as well.
Click to expand...

No no no. Obama killed the economy because he spent money(worked for Reagan, but he is special), cut taxes(worked for Reagan but he is special) and because he is a commie socialist from Kenya.
 
AdamT said:
It tells me that the Supreme Court made a horrendous decision in Citizens United, when a handful of billionaires can outspend the the other 99.999% of the country.
Click to expand...

These are some of the Democrate billionair donars that condributed more than $200,000.00 to the 2008 elections:

DEMOCRAT BILLIONAIRE DONORS

George Soros

Charles W. Ergen

Warren Buffett

John Doerr

Ted Turner

Robert FX Sillerman

Neil G. Bluhm

Roland E. Arnall

Robert R. Dyson

Steven Spielberg

George Soros

Stephen L. Bing

David Koch

Carl H. Lindner

S. Daniel Abraham

Bernard L. Schwartz

Haim Saban

Vance K. Opperman

Dwight Opperman

David E. Shaw

Charles W. Ergen

Marc B. Nathanson

Jeffrey Katzenberg

Jonathan M. Tisch

John Davis

Leonard A. Lauder

Gary Winnick

Irwin M. Jacobs

Ron Burkle

John P. Manning

David Geffen

William I. Koch

B. Wayne Hughes Sr.

Thomas H. Lee

William Hambrecht

A. Jerrold Perenchio

Edgar M. Bronfman

Ted Waitt

John L. Tishman

Vinod Gupta

John A. Moran

Charles Kushner

Robert L. Johnson



Maybe you can ask them for some help this time around.



BILLIONAIRE POLITICAL DONORS
 
Last edited:
azgreg said:
These are some of the Democrate billionair donars that condributed more than $200.00 to the 2008 elections:
Click to expand...

More than $200! Wow!

How many contributed more than $10 million?
 
azgreg said:
These are some of the Democrate billionair donars that condributed more than $200.00 to the 2008 elections:

DEMOCRAT BILLIONAIRE DONORS

George Soros

Charles W. Ergen

Warren Buffett

John Doerr

Ted Turner

Robert FX Sillerman

Neil G. Bluhm

Roland E. Arnall

Robert R. Dyson

Steven Spielberg

George Soros

Stephen L. Bing

David Koch

Carl H. Lindner

S. Daniel Abraham

Bernard L. Schwartz

Haim Saban

Vance K. Opperman

Dwight Opperman

David E. Shaw

Charles W. Ergen

Marc B. Nathanson

Jeffrey Katzenberg

Jonathan M. Tisch

John Davis

Leonard A. Lauder

Gary Winnick

Irwin M. Jacobs

Ron Burkle

John P. Manning

David Geffen

William I. Koch

B. Wayne Hughes Sr.

Thomas H. Lee

William Hambrecht

A. Jerrold Perenchio

Edgar M. Bronfman

Ted Waitt

John L. Tishman

Vinod Gupta

John A. Moran

Charles Kushner

Robert L. Johnson



Maybe you can ask them for some help this time around.



BILLIONAIRE POLITICAL DONORS
Click to expand...


MORE that $200.00? WOW. That must've hurt. lol


How about digesting one sitting down are writting a check for a single candidate in a primary for $25 million like Sheldon Adelson did for Gingrich. Then cuts another check for $10 million for Romney's superpac after Gingrich dropped. And then tying the knot with the Koch Brothers with a $10 million check to their right-wing front groups who promise to raise over $400 million for Romney support.

$200.00? lol
 
AdamT said:
More than $200! Wow!

How many contributed more than $10 million?
Click to expand...

it is even more funny/odd that link doesn't even have a home page
 
azgreg said:
Fixed, sorry, lol
Click to expand...

Well that is impressive, given the fact that prior to Citizens United the maximum donation to any candidate was $2,500, and the maximum biennial, all-in limit was $117,000.
 
President Obama has been quite clear. He's a social justice guy who believes in using the federal govt. as the vehicle for the administration of social justice. Toward that end he believes the ends justify the means.

He may very well be reelected. But hard cold reality has a world of hurt it's going to lay down on America. For example, look at the American public schools. President Obama will be unable to change the status quo in which American students can't compete effectively with their foreign competitors. The collapse of public education in America means that the years ahead are going to be bleak.

Any victory by President Obama will be pyhrric for this country. I know my happy talk is hard for Americans to take. But everyone else in the world knows and understands this. Have any of the American members of this forum noticed that the non-American members don't contradict me? There's a reason why. They aren't blind.

Hard cold reality is on its way...it will be knocking on the door soon enough. When the door isn't answered, it will kick the door down and come looking for all of us without exception.
 
I fixed my post, but to clarify my post: Why don't more wealthy Democrates donate to Obama this election than they did last time?
 
azgreg said:
I fixed my post, but to clarify my post: Why don't more wealthy Democrates donate to Obama this election than they did last time?
Click to expand...

I imagine they probably will. But that's not to say he can keep pace with a handful of eight and nine figure donations.
 
AdamT said:
I imagine they probably will. But that's not to say he can keep pace with a handful of eight and nine figure donations.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding (but at the moment I can't find my data) that there are more wealthy Democrates than Republicans so why not?
 
Redress said:
No no no. Obama killed the economy because he spent money(worked for Reagan, but he is special), cut taxes(worked for Reagan but he is special) and because he is a commie socialist from Kenya.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha. These days the "I hate Obama" crowd reminds me of Young Earth Creationists. The mental gymnastics that they do to keep themselves from contradicting themselves is pretty insane. I have yet to met a diehard partisan here who thinks a massive drop in aggregate demand is good for the economy and will create jobs quickly. I've lost track of the numbers of partisans here who've cowardly fled from that question.

Romney himself stated that cutting government spending will slow the economy.

Romney: Spending cuts slow economic growth - First Read
 
obvious Child said:
Indeed. Obama probably could have run on "It's bad, but without what we did, we would have gone off the cliff." Romney (and every reputable economist) knows that the stimulus prevented a steep aggregate demand drop, but Obama has let the GOP frame the economy. For such a great Orator, he's basically dropped the ball on this one. Healthcare as well.
Click to expand...


We averted the falling off a cliff with TARP and Fed actions in my view. The stimulus did help, short term but could have been framed better.
 
obvious Child said:
Hahahaha. These days the "I hate Obama" crowd reminds me of Young Earth Creationists. The mental gymnastics that they do to keep themselves from contradicting themselves is pretty insane. I have yet to met a diehard partisan here who thinks a massive drop in aggregate demand is good for the economy and will create jobs quickly. I've lost track of the numbers of partisans here who've cowardly fled from that question.

Romney himself stated that cutting government spending will slow the economy.

Romney: Spending cuts slow economic growth - First Read
Click to expand...

While you are correct that massive cuts in spending or tax increases will sink the economy, we need to sort of decompress slowly. It could well be that our GDP which has been supported by government and private debt for the last couple of decades is unsustainable. Not sure there are a lot of happy choices.
 
washunut said:
We averted the falling off a cliff with TARP and Fed actions in my view. The stimulus did help, short term but could have been framed better.
Click to expand...

Without question the Obama Administration has done an absolutely TERRIBLE job explaining its accomplishments.

For instance, Romney's claim that women suffered far more job losses during his term is correct. Did the Administration hit him back? No. What would have been the proper response? Highlighting how the stimulus kept millions of women in their jobs to cushion the job losses from men resulting in a far less damaging impact on America families. They could have shown that without the stimulus women and men job losses would have occurred at the same time resulting in double whammies on America incomes. Did they do this? No. It's APPALLING how bad this administration is in explaining things like that. They could then use the job losses to cite why we need certain changes. Did they do this? No.

I hate to say this but the Bush Administration was light years more competent in explaining its accomplishments then the Obama Administration is.

The sad irony of this all is the Republicans take Congress and the White House and enact the Ryan Budget, people are going to wish Obama was back in office. Want a depression? Enact Ryan's ****-for-brains budget. It not only fails by its own math to reign in the deficit but will cause a serious recession. Couple that with deleveraging, weak consumer spending and Europe going down the toilet and we're screwed.

While you are correct that massive cuts in spending or tax increases will sink the economy, we need to sort of decompress slowly. It could well be that our GDP which has been supported by government and private debt for the last couple of decades is unsustainable. Not sure there are a lot of happy choices.
Click to expand...

Indeed. As I said before we need to engage moderate cuts with light tax hikes. Hurt everyone enough to raise money to reduce the deficit without causing serious savings and spending changes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom