Why I Voted Obama in the 2012 Election

[Hobo1]

I think much off the problem with Republicans is the housing crash, which cause almost a global recession. Plus the US attacked Afghanistan and messed that up miserably. Follow that with an attack on Iraq, which was a neo-con ideological playground - and the while neo-con idea was a failure - and the war still lingers on.

These and many other bad things happened under the Bush Administration - and I am sure left a lot of young people today thinking the Republicans make terrible presidents.

Follow that with Obama's grade C- presidency, and the troops remain, the cost of the wars, a huge debt and an economy that is crawling like an inch-worm out of the recession (or it seems). The true impact of ObamaCare is still unknown. In general, the Democratic President looks better than Bush, and it indeed was better. However, Obama still has the debt, still has our soldiers fighting abroad, and seems generally clueless about taxes and fiscal issues. Plus he likes social programs that make life easier for the young and poor people- regardless of the cost.

I predict by 2016 that the life in the US will remain pretty rough for the middle class people. That is debatable, but unless Obama puts the fiscal condition of the government and the economic condition of the country in better shape, memories of Bush will fade and the campaign will be better balanced.

 

[Openmind]

I think much off the problem with Republicans is the housing crash, which cause almost a global recession. Plus the US attacked Afghanistan and messed that up miserably. Follow that with an attack on Iraq, which was a neo-con ideological playground - and the while neo-con idea was a failure - and the war still lingers on.

These and many other bad things happened under the Bush Administration - and I am sure left a lot of young people today thinking the Republicans make terrible presidents.

Follow that with Obama's grade C- presidency, and the troops remain, the cost of the wars, a huge debt and an economy that is crawling like an inch-worm out of the recession (or it seems). The true impact of ObamaCare is still unknown. In general, the Democratic President looks better than Bush, and it indeed was better. However, Obama still has the debt, still has our soldiers fighting abroad, and seems generally clueless about taxes and fiscal issues. Plus he likes social programs that make life easier for the young and poor people- regardless of the cost.

I predict by 2016 that the life in the US will remain pretty rough for the middle class people. That is debatable, but unless Obama puts the fiscal condition of the government and the economic condition of the country in better shape, memories of Bush will fade and the campaign will be better balanced.

The war in Iraq is over, although some troops (mostly not in uniform) remain.
But that's nothing new. . .did you know that we already had about 20,000 troops in Iran and Afghanistan PRIOR to 9/11/11?
In 2008, there were 294,000 US troops between Iraq and Afghanistan.
Today we have about 68,000 troops in Afghanistan (and the withdrawal continues and will be completed by 2014) and All OFFICIAL troops have been withdrawn from Iraq.
So. . . based on that, I believe your statement "and the war still lingers on" is a very much an overstatement!

I obviously totally disagree with your "C- Grade" for President Obama. He has passed about 90% of the tests. . .which in my eyes is more like a B+ or A-, but in any case a big improvement over the F that Bush deserves!

And, yes, there is still the debt under Obama, and a huge deficit. . .but the SPENDING has been curved (in fact there has been less spending in the last 3 years under Obama. . .just more "servicing" of the debts, debts that were overwhelmingly incured by BUSH and his policies (i.e., the tax deduction, the wars, the corporate subsidies - - also called corporate WELFARE - - and the on-going costs of the wars (i.e., wounded veterans and families of deceased veterans of the wars, which obviously no one with any conscience would argue against the fact that they entirely deserve to be taken care off for as long as is needed!).

The servicing of the debt incured under Bush ALONE amount to about 700 billions a year.
But where does it all come from? How did we get from a budget surplus in 2000 to a huge deficit in 2011?
This may help us figure it out:

n June 2012, CBO summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion. Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011.[38][39]
The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011 can be largely attributed to:

• $3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)
• $1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases
• $1.5 trillion - Increased non-defense discretionary spending
• $1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
• $1.4 trillion - Incremental interest due to higher debt balances
• $0.9 trillion - Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010)[40]

As you can see, not much of that was provoked or under the direct control of President Obama!
Interesting though that the Bush tax cuts (that very much benefited the wealthy)cost just about as much as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. . .and the incremental interest to service that higher debt balance is again very much the same as the Bush tax cuts!

 

[BigRob]

The war in Iraq is over, although some troops (mostly not in uniform) remain.
But that's nothing new. . .did you know that we already had about 20,000 troops in Iran and Afghanistan PRIOR to 9/11/11?
In 2008, there were 294,000 US troops between Iraq and Afghanistan.
Today we have about 68,000 troops in Afghanistan (and the withdrawal continues and will be completed by 2014) and All OFFICIAL troops have been withdrawn from Iraq.
So. . . based on that, I believe your statement "and the war still lingers on" is a very much an overstatement!

I am interested to see your source that we had 20,000 soldiers in Iran (I assume you mean Iraq) and Afghanistan prior to 9/11 -- mostly in the idea that we had a lot of soldiers in Afghanistan prior to this time.

I obviously totally disagree with your "C- Grade" for President Obama. He has passed about 90% of the tests. . .which in my eyes is more like a B+ or A-, but in any case a big improvement over the F that Bush deserves!

And, yes, there is still the debt under Obama, and a huge deficit. . .but the SPENDING has been curved (in fact there has been less spending in the last 3 years under Obama. . .just more "servicing" of the debts, debts that were overwhelmingly incured by BUSH and his policies (i.e., the tax deduction, the wars, the corporate subsidies - - also called corporate WELFARE - - and the on-going costs of the wars (i.e., wounded veterans and families of deceased veterans of the wars, which obviously no one with any conscience would argue against the fact that they entirely deserve to be taken care off for as long as is needed!).

The servicing of the debt incured under Bush ALONE amount to about 700 billions a year.

Your $700 billion a year claim to service "Bush debt" is patently false, and 100% absurd. The Department of Treasury releases those statistics, and none of them come anywhere close to this figure.

You can find them here.

In FY2012, we spent $360 billion to service debt - bear in mind that is the cost to service the debt that is trillions higher now than four years ago.

But where does it all come from? How did we get from a budget surplus in 2000 to a huge deficit in 2011?

Bear in mind that CBO projected this surplus using absurd methodology. For example:

• The CBO projected that revenues would average 20.3 percent of GDP throughout the entire decade-even though that level had been reached only three times in the nation's 225-year history.
• It projected that spending across the decade would average 16.4 percent of GDP, even though Washington had not held spending that low in any year since 1951.
• The CBO projected that discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP would decline by 19 percent (including defense spending declining to 2.4 percent of GDP), and that no new entitlements would be created.
• Most implausibly, the projections assumed the publicly held debt would be effectively paid off by 2009, and the government would instead begin earning interest on its national surplus-new funds that expanded the budget surplus projections yet further.

All of these projections are wildly unrealistic.

This may help us figure it out:

In June 2012, CBO summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion. Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011.

The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011 can be largely attributed to:

• $3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)
• $1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases
• $1.5 trillion - Increased non-defense discretionary spending
• $1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
• $1.4 trillion - Incremental interest due to higher debt balances
• $0.9 trillion - Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010)[40]

This is an arbitrary analysis that is done for political points -- why not point out the following: (From the WSJ)

• Washington set to tax $33 trillion and spend $46 trillion over the next decade, how does one determine which policies will "cause" this $13 trillion deficit?
• Social Security ($9.2 trillion over 10 years)
• Antipoverty programs ($7 trillion)
• Other Medicare spending ($5.4 trillion)
• Net interest on the debt ($6.1 trillion)
• Non-defense discretionary spending ($7.5 trillion)

 

[Openmind]

Yes, I don't believe that the majority of the Republican party holds the views that you seemed to ascribe to them in the above post. I believe that polls back up that assertion.



Just because the base is "old white men", does mean the base is old white racist men who want to force their wives into submission roles -- which you implied.



Certainly there are intelligent young people -- no one disputes that. That said, in a general sense, you cannot expect to find a huge bloc of college age kids who know what it takes to start a business, make pay roll, raise a family etc.

A 19 year old is going to have a different set of priorities than a 50 year old -- that is self evident -- and those priorities will be less likely to line up with Republican ideology in my opinion. It is not condescending to make that point.

I think that college kids are very aware of what it takes to start a business. . .If they are the type who WANTS to start a business. . .they have EXTREME interest in learning about it. I took a year of MBA and gave it to transfer to Social work because I didn't like the "screw your neighbor" education I was getting. I prefered to forgoe the "big pay check" for a MUCH SMALLER pay check as a Social worker because I rather work WITH people than AGAINST them. . .and I was lucky that, thanks to my husband income, I didn't feel pressured (not much at least!) to make the big money.

If you really think that young people do not line up with Republican ideology, and you don't even consider that, maybe it would be smart for the Republican ideology to line up with the FUTURE of this country rather than the past. . .I'm afraid you are missing the boat and if every moderate in the Republican party thinks like you. . .we've seen the end of it!

Let me give you an example that you, as a business man who "understand business" might understand.

The Republican party is betting on "sun down" investment. . .you know, investing in stocks like "Sears, The House of Pancake, and Newspapers."
The Democratic party is investing in "sun up" investimet, stocks like " Anthropology, Outback, and Google."

That's all I'm saying.

 

[BigRob]

I think that college kids are very aware of what it takes to start a business. . .If they are the type who WANTS to start a business. . .they have EXTREME interest in learning about it. I took a year of MBA and gave it to transfer to Social work because I didn't like the "screw your neighbor" education I was getting. I prefered to forgoe the "big pay check" for a MUCH SMALLER pay check as a Social worker because I rather work WITH people than AGAINST them. . .and I was lucky that, thanks to my husband income, I didn't feel pressured (not much at least!) to make the big money.

It is one thing to study business, write the business plan and do your homework. It is something entirely different to the put your own money up, make it happen, and make it profitable.

If you really think that young people do not line up with Republican ideology, and you don't even consider that, maybe it would be smart for the Republican ideology to line up with the FUTURE of this country rather than the past. . .I'm afraid you are missing the boat and if every moderate in the Republican party thinks like you. . .we've seen the end of it!

I think Republicans can attract some level of young people -- Romney carried 40% I believe. I think that we would have more success targeting those in their later twenties however.

Let me give you an example that you, as a business man who "understand business" might understand.

The Republican party is betting on "sun down" investment. . .you know, investing in stocks like "Sears, The House of Pancake, and Newspapers."
The Democratic party is investing in "sun up" investimet, stocks like " Anthropology, Outback, and Google."

That's all I'm saying.

Oh come on -- my point is that I want to maximize ROI for my dollars spent attempting to change minds. I think if I'm targeting young people, I'll see a better response by those in their mid to later twenties than those who are 18-22. That is all I'm saying.

 

[Openmind]

It is one thing to study business, write the business plan and do your homework. It is something entirely different to the put your own money up, make it happen, and make it profitable.



I think Republicans can attract some level of young people -- Romney carried 40% I believe. I think that we would have more success targeting those in their later twenties however.



Oh come on -- my point is that I want to maximize ROI for my dollars spent attempting to change minds. I think if I'm targeting young people, I'll see a better response by those in their mid to later twenties than those who are 18-22. That is all I'm saying.

How short sighted your comment about busness students is! You surprise me!

So, you didn't go to business school before you started your business?
Oh, I forgot, you are one of those Romney talked about when he definitively lost a grand portion of the youth votes!
Remember? When a student asked him how young enterpreneur could get ahead after college, and Romney answered: "Start your own vusiness. . . Borrow from your parents if you must!"

I guess that's exactly what you did, right? You sure risked a lot. . . Just like Romney! No wonder you voted for him! You totaaly related to him! Unlike 95% of the rest of this country!

And you dare criticize the students?

See, your problem (and that of Romney and too many "smart and wealthy" people in the Republican party is to have that focus on money, on maximizing invesrments, in making more, in hoaarding it, believing that money is power and can vuy anything!

Well, as these elections showed, money is NOT everything, in fact, it can put a screen between those who hoard it and the rest of the world, a screen that cuts off human contacts and human sensibilities.

It is that screen that cut Romney from the voters and lost him these elections. It is money that made an android of this man!

 

[dogtowner]

It is one thing to study business, write the business plan and do your homework. It is something entirely different to the put your own money up, make it happen, and make it profitable.



I think Republicans can attract some level of young people -- Romney carried 40% I believe. I think that we would have more success targeting those in their later twenties however.



Oh come on -- my point is that I want to maximize ROI for my dollars spent attempting to change minds. I think if I'm targeting young people, I'll see a better response by those in their mid to later twenties than those who are 18-22. That is all I'm saying.

My kid did not connect the dots that the impending sequestration meant that a number of people near and dear to her are going to lose their jobs (govt contractors in NoVa). Did get other so-called issues that now seem pretty meaningless. 19 really is not quite up for the task all the time.

But the best learned lessons are hard ones. 25 and up there is no excuse for not understanding apart from the lure of sugar daddies be they govt or matrimonial.

 

[BigRob]

How short sighted your comment about busness students is! You surprise me!

So, you didn't go to business school before you started your business?

No, I got a BA in International Relations and an MS in a similar field.

Oh, I forgot, you are one of those Romney talked about when he definitively lost a grand portion of the youth votes!
Remember? When a student asked him how young enterpreneur could get ahead after college, and Romney answered: "Start your own vusiness. . . Borrow from your parents if you must!"

His point of "do whatever it takes" was obviously lost on you.

I guess that's exactly what you did, right? You sure risked a lot. . . Just like Romney! No wonder you voted for him! You totaaly related to him! Unlike 95% of the rest of this country!

And you dare criticize the students?

I am certainly blessed and have gotten a very generous inheritance from my family....but simply having money doesn't make a business work, and it certainly doesn't make it successful. I did that on my own.

I suppose it was also the "money" that came up with my idea that the business revolves around?

See, your problem (and that of Romney and too many "smart and wealthy" people in the Republican party is to have that focus on money, on maximizing invesrments, in making more, in hoaarding it, believing that money is power and can vuy anything!

I sure didn't start any of the companies I am involved with the purpose of not making money. No company starts that way.

Well, as these elections showed, money is NOT everything, in fact, it can put a screen between those who hoard it and the rest of the world, a screen that cuts off human contacts and human sensibilities.

It is that screen that cut Romney from the voters and lost him these elections. It is money that made an android of this man!

I don't believe I ever said money was everything. I also don't hoard my money - I give it to banks to loan out to people, I invest, I give to charity.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

I think Republicans will always struggle to an extent with younger people. Let's face it, many of these people are idealistic, have never really had a job, don't make much money, are saddled with debt, and the perception is that Democrats are "cool" and Republicans are just "old white men."

We need to change the brand's perception to start making inroads here I think.

A deep horrific Depression will go a long ways to do this.
And--it is coming.

 

[BigRob]

A deep horrific Depression will go a long ways to do this.
And--it is coming.

If our strategy to attract voters is to hope for a recession, then we have already lost. I think we can make the inroads without the recession -- I think we can make the inroads even if the economy booms over the next four years.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

If our strategy to attract voters is to hope for a recession, then we have already lost. I think we can make the inroads without the recession -- I think we can make the inroads even if the economy booms over the next four years.

Once again--it is not what I wish for--or--what I want.
It is what I think will happen.
Irrespective of anyone's power or lack thereof to stop it.
It is inexorable.

It is simple economic theory in action.
Go out and write an extra $75,000 in bounced checks this weekend--and see how you credit score is affected.

 

[strongservice]

I think Republicans will always struggle to an extent with younger people. Let's face it, many of these people are idealistic, have never really had a job, don't make much money, are saddled with debt, and the perception is that Democrats are "cool" and Republicans are just "old white men."

We need to change the brand's perception to start making inroads here I think.

Well the republicans have four more years to get ready for another chance, maybe next time they will cater to a younger voter pool.

 

[Pandora]

Well the republicans have four more years to get ready for another chance, maybe next time they will cater to a younger voter pool.

What does that mean? When you say cater to the younger group... Do you mean offer them things they like or? I dont understand

 

[Hobo1]

The Republican Party needs, in my opinion, a good spokesman/woman, to explain the basic principles of the Republican Party. A high-class, professionally produced web pages should be available as support material. I hate all these political websites that use fancy writing to tell you all the good things about one side, and then tell you how bad the other team is.

Since the US population is growing in ethnic groups, such as Hispanic and Asian American, etc. we need to communicate clearly the economic principles of fiscally balanced government income versus expenses. You know the rest... we just needs to explain that social programs means higher taxes on successful people who can grow the economy, including jobs. Young people an ethnic groups need to be educated in macro economics - cause and effects.

 

[dogtowner]

Well the republicans have four more years to get ready for another chance, maybe next time they will cater to a younger voter pool.

or perhaps a les young voter pool will be appalled at their dismal state of affairs and come to basic economic reality.