• 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.

The Economist endorses Barack Obama, and so do I

Camlon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
2,854
Reaction score
567
Location
Oslo, Norway
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Economist endorsed Barack Obama a few days ago arguing that while Barack Obama has been a disapointment, the recovery has been decent compared to Europe, and Mitt Romney is either lying or proposing terrible economics.
Our American endorsement: Which one? | The Economist

What he is currently proposing is to label China as a currency manipulator, risking an uneccecary trade war. He wants to increase the deficit by 7 billion by decreasing tax rates and increasing spending. This is supposedly going to be paid by closing loopholes. But what kind of loopholes, child benefits, mortage deduction? Do we honestly believe he will find 7 billion in tax deductions? Or will he increase the deficit instead like Bush did. One of the reasons I don't like Obama much is his lack of effort to reduce the deficit. Then voting for someone who is likely to increase it even more does not make sense.

Some people will say it doesn't matter. He is just lying to get the dumb vote. However, it is a little hard to turn around on every proposal. The republican party expects him to follow through. His base won't be very happy if he breaks all his promises. Hollande in France kept the 75% tax rate despite the fact it will lead to less revenue, not more. There is no guarantee he won't follow through and become sane after the election. Are we willing to take that risk?

I believe Mitt Romney is an embarrsment for the Republican party and conservatives. He is constantly lying and changing positions to win the electorate. His economic plan does not make sense at all. He keeps making gaffles. He is unable to inspire or connect with people and he made a fool out of himself when he went abroad. Do we really want a guy like that to represent us?

Yes, Obama has been a disappointment, but at least he has some form of consistency, he can much easier negotiate with other countries, his economic performance is not that bad. Since 2010 there has been created 4.8M jobs. In the same period in Europe they have lost 200K jobs. Unemployment has dropped by 3% since the peak in 2009/2010. In Europe it has increased by 1%. It could have been a lot worse, and my feeling is that Obama has learned a little since 2009/2010.

Hence, I think Obama will be the best choice for this election. Better wait till 2016 so that a better candidate can be nominated.
 
Back
Top Bottom