Why Obama (Again)?

Later this week, I will be posting about whom I’m supporting at the federal, state, and local elections. In the meantime, I’ve revisited my reasons for supporting Barack Obama four years ago. Here’s the money quote from that post:

I am supporting Barack Obama for president. Why? Because Obama has so many of the qualities that we need in a president. He is committed to uniting the country around a vision for the future, he is committed to foreign diplomacy rather than empty posturing, he plays politics by a different and more noble playbook.

You can read the rest here: Why Obama?. And you can tell me if you think I made the right choice. I still have faith in the president. But I was sure that Hillary would have been too divisive, and now I’m not so sure…

I will say that based on John McCain’s last few FOX News appearances, I am damn glad that he is not our president.

  • Jimmie

    Interesting that you thought Hilary would have been too divisive. Obama has been (and will continue to be) the most divisive president the US has ever had.

    • Curtis

      I might believe you if we could make a list of Republicans who expressed a desire to work with Obama to solve the country’s problems. Do you want to start?

      • Kenton

        I’ll start!

        John Boehner
        Eric Cantor
        Mitch McConnel
        Olympia Snowe
        Susan Collins
        Tom Coburn
        Kay Bailey Hutchison

        That’s 7 prominent ones, anyway. Most of them proposed ideas for health care reform. But when it was all said and done, the president hasn’t wanted bi-partisanship on that issue or any other for that matter. So, yeah, I’d concur that Obama has indeed been our most divisive president.

        • Curtis

          Obamacare implements ideas from all of these people for healthcare. But they still voted against it.

          If Obama listens to Repblicans, implements Republican ideas, but then Republicans refuse to vote in favor of Obama’s plan, that hardly indicates a willingness to work together, and is not Obama’s fault.

          One issue on which the Republicans absolutely refuse to work with the President is taxes.

    • Sven

      More “divisive” than, say, writing off 47% of the country as deadbeats with no sense of personal responsibility?

      When Obama was elected, congressional Republicans made total opposition their #1 priority. More than defense, more than jobs, more than anything else. “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” said Mitch McConnell. Republican Senators in the 111th Congress, under McConnell, shattered the record for the number of cloture votes (aka the filibuster).

      Explain to me how steadfast and absolute Republican opposition somehow makes Obama “divisive”?

    • http://twitter.com/thinking_reed Lee

      Most divisive president we’ve ever had is clearly Lincoln.

  • Patrick S

    Yikes. Fool me once….

  • Frank

    Let’s see: an utter failure for four years… if he gets reelected we can expect the same or worse. Hopefully our country is smarter than that!

  • Kenton

    Tony-

    Do you really think after these last 4 years, that if we give him another 4 years, that our country will be more “united… around a vision for the future”? (Read, “Tony, are you on dope?”)

    “I still have faith in the president.”

    Now, why oh why would you have to phrase it that way? As though there could be any question after these last 4 years why anyone might lose faith in the president? Does the way you phrase it belie the fact that maybe you’re struggling with this faith? Is it possible that you so bought into the message of hope Obama delivered 4 years ago that you can’t admit that maybe, just maybe you were fooled by an empty suit?

    Love you, Tony. I disdain that I’m on Frank the troll’s side here, but I think you are getting you’re getting fooled a second time.

  • http://whoisrobdavis.wordpress.com Rob Davis

    Oh, the irony…the responses as to WHY people disagree with you don’t actually qualify as responses/arguments.

  • Carl

    “And we need a president who has better judgment about military intervention.”

    Hahaha, well, that certainly hasn’t been Obama. Part war-monger, part coward, the guy can’t seem to make up his mind.

    • Curtis

      I will refrain from debating your labels, but isn’t adapting to the situation exactly what we need? Would we better served by a president who is war-monger 24/7?

  • Jason

    Tony – I don’t believe Obama is the right choice. I’m not sure what his vision is for the future (and, that’s his fault). If his vision is to implement “spreading the wealth, then I say no. What people do with their money, is a matter of the heart. And, in my opinion, should not be legislation. The leadership on both sides already squanders billions of dollars in tax money. Niether side would do any more good or help the poor, with additional funds. In my opinion, Obama is no different than any previous administration regarding foreign policy. He still authorizes drone strikes and has added troops to afganistan. Violence is violence, and both republicans and democrats are wrong in their position. I don’t beleive he plays by any more noble of a playbook than other politicians. It seems to me that he still postures, obvuscates, and shades the truth with the best of them; in order to stay in power. In the end, I would rather give Romney a shot, than have more of the last 4 years. Although, it will probably be more of the same, no matter who gets elected. And, that’s not a good thing. (cue the debbie downer music)

  • Charles

    I agree with Tony. I can’t bring myself to vote for the empty suit that is Mr Etch-a-sketch.

    • Bob

      Me neither. That is why I cannot vote for President “Flexibility With the Russians AFTER the Election”

  • Moulder

    As one who does not live in your country and gets to observe from the outside (unfortunatly only via the media), and this is just my opinion, I feel Obama is the better choice out of the two. Romney has this suspect feeling, like he’s out of his depth… Just my 2c…

  • Dean

    Well, Obama’s not perfect, but at least he’s not a pathological liar like Romney. I don’t get why anyone believes a word Romney says, either on the right or the left, he was pro-choice until he was pro-life, he was for Romneycare until it became Obamacare, he was against the Detroit bailout, until it worked, now he was for it all along, he was for an assault weapons ban, now he’s not, if he was a “severe conservative” 6 months ago, can you imagine him saying that now?, he was for tax cuts for the rich, now he wants to reduce rates, but eliminate loopholes so the rich pay the same, he wants to reduce the deficit, but increase military spending. Do people hate Obama THAT much that they would vote for this guy? Even the GOP doesn’t really like him, they were willing to consider Newt, Bachman, Santorum and even the pizza guy over him!

    • Bob

      Pathological liar? Like promising to closing Gitmo, cutting the deficit by 1/2 by the end of his first term, introducing comprehensive immigration reform, the cost of Obamacare ($1.8 billion actual, vs $1 billion estimate), televising healthcare debate on C-SPAN, opposing a healthcare mandate, etc, etc, etc.

      Both candidates lie to get (re-)elected. What you’re really saying is I like my liar over your liar. The fig leaf “nobody’s perfect” does not even begin to cover Obama, unless you’re willing to grant the same fig leaf to Romney.

      • Dean

        All politicians over-promise, it’s not the same thing as saying you believe one thing and then saying the opposite thing. I don’t get why conservatives don’t understand the difference. Obama said he would do this and that, and he just plain couldn’t do it, fine, chalk it up to poor leadership or whatever, but that’s different than saying I’m pro-choice, now I’m not, I am pro-gun control, now I’m not, I’m pro-state mandated health insurance, now I’m not. Obama still wants to close gitmo, he said it on the Daily Show, he still wants to introduce immigration reform, he hasn’t changed his position on those policies. Are you being purposefully dense Bob?

        • Bob

          No, Obama did exactly the opposite of what he said he would do on many occasions. The only difference between Obama and Romney is that you believe Obama’s lies.

          • Dean

            Bob, like what? I gave you several blatant examples of overt, 180 degree Romney flip flops. There’s a reason the GOP was so reluctant to nominate him, they don’t trust him either.

          • Bob

            Gay marriage, just to add one more log to the fire.

          • Dean

            Gay marriage, that’s all you could come up with! I can live with that Bob. Thanks.

          • Bob

            You’ve already expressed that you can live with your liar. Enjoy!

      • Sven

        I think it’s hilarious that conservatives act like Obama lied about Gitmo.

        On his 2nd day in office, Obama signed an executive order to close the facility. IT WAS BLOCKED BY CONGRESS. Thank your Republican Senators for keeping Gitmo open, but it’s not Obama’s fault.

        • Patrick S

          How does Congress block an executive order? That is a new one to me.

          • Sven

            If implementing the order costs money, Congress must approve the funding. They blocked the funding, so the whole thing got squashed.

            Republicans also went on a media blitz at the time, scaring people with wild fiction about releasing jihadists “on American soil”.

          • Sven
          • Curtis

            Congress passed a bill preventing federal money from being used to transfer Guantanamo prisoners to the United States.

          • Patrick S

            Curtis: In order to pass a bill, the Democrat-led Senate had to pass it too and Obama had to sign it. So the Democrats agreed to block Obama — and he signed it into law?

          • Curtis

            After the Republicans launched their fear campaign against moving Guantanamo, then yes, local Democrats responded to political pressure within their district, stirred up by Republicans, and voted accordingly. You’re right, Democrats in congress don’t vote in mindless lock-step with their party leadership. It may be the last hope that our country has.

          • Patrick S

            And Obama signed it into law — a bill to block his executive order?

          • Curtis

            You can go read the history yourself; you don’t have to keep asking me to explain it to you. The provision was attached to a critical military spending bill, that the military was depending on. If you weren’t whining over Guantanamo still being open (which is exactly what Republicans wanted anyway) then you would be whining over Obama not funding the military. There is no way to win with you guys.

          • Patrick S

            Ok, so now I got it: President Obama signed into law a bipartisan bill that prevented his executive order from going into effect. So Republicans, Democrats and the President proved they can indeed work together. Isn’t that what everyone claims they want?

          • Curtis

            Sure, so why do Republicans keep calling Guantanamo staying open a “broken Obama promise” then turn around and claim that Obama never compromises. Guantanamo is open today exactly *because* Obama compromised and did what Republicans wanted. Can’t win with you guys.

          • Patrick S
          • Curtis

            “The provision was part of a bigger military bill that Obama said was too important not to sign.”

            That is what I said.

          • Patrick S

            “By his own power, he could take significant steps to close the prison, or he could issue a so-called signing statement that supersedes the law preventing federal money from being used to transfer prisoners.”
            “Obama can release 87 Guantanamo prisoners who have been cleared, and start proceedings for trials for the other 169 detainees.”
            “President Obama has enough control and power that he can get these men out today if he has the political will to do so. It is a political decision.”
            Asked if Obama still plans on closing Guantanamo, the White House said yes.

          • Curtis

            Right. It is a political decision. That is also what I said. If a few influential Republicans would back the closing of Guantanamo, it would be shut down. But that is not the case. If Obama did overrule everyone and shut Gitmo down, then it would be used as another example of Obama’s failure to compromise. Can’t win.

          • Frank

            Yes indeed Obama cannot win due to lack of leadership and incompetency. Hopefully he can’t win this election either.

          • Patrick S

            Some might call acting despite opposition from the others “leadership.”

          • Curtis

            So where is the Republican leadership on this issue? Obama is there. Has been from the start. Republican leadership seems to consist of saying “no” to everything.

            But maybe we can stop hearing about how Obama is not willing to compromise now.

          • Patrick S

            Come January you will see what Republican presidential leadership looks like. My out-on-a-limb prediction: You’ll also see what Democratic opposition looks like.

          • Curtis

            If that occurs, I doubt the Democrats will live down to the standard the Republicans have set. They care about the country too much to destroy it for ideological gain.

            If Obama wins, what assurance do we have Republicans will behave any different than they have for the last four years?

          • Bob

            You must not remember the Robert Bork confirmation, or Jim Wright and Tom Foley pulling the rug out from under GHW Bush, or the filibusters the democrats enacted under GW Bush. Isn’t it interesting that the NY Times praises Democrat filibusters (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29tue1.html?_r=0, but opposes Republican), but despises Republican filibusters (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/opinion/not-too-late-to-curb-the-filibuster.html?ref=opinion).

            Democrats in glass house should not throw stones.

    • Patrick S

      I don’t remember Romney ever being pro-choice but am happy to be proven wrong. A bit of info on some of the other topics may be of use. He said Detroit should go through a “managed bankruptcy” and the “federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.” That’s about what happened. He never said “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” — the people who wrote the op-ed headline did. He also hasn’t backed away from Romney, as evidenced by the endless hits he took before, during and after the Republican primary. So I guess we could argue about who is lying.

      I don’t hate Obama at all. To say so is just silly. His record proves him an ineffective leader (at best, incompetent at worst) in domestic affairs and worse in foreign affairs.

      • Curtis

        “I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice.” — Mitt Romney, Oct. 26, 1994

        Regarding Detroit, Romney’s “managed bankruptcy” is not “about what happened.” Managed bankruptcy would require the auto industry to raise operating capital from the private markets, instead of from government-backed loans. Even the most conservative economic analysts agree that there is no way that private banks would have come up with loans to a failing auto industry in 2008. Denying the auto industry government loans would have cause the certain breakup of the industry.

        Instead, Obama implemented a process to provide government-backed loans, which succeeded in keeping the auto companies afloat. Romney predicted that Obama’s government loans would result in the demise of the U. S. auto industry. Romney’s prediction has been proven wrong, and economists agree that it is Romney’s proposal that would have caused severe harm to the U. S. auto industry.

        Even the conservative Detroit News has said Obama’s “rescue of General Motors and Chrysler” is an “extraordinary contribution President Obama made to Michigan” and
        “Michigan is better off today because of Obama’s leadership on this issue.”

        What were you saying about ineffective leadership?

    • Jeff

      “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen.” Pres. Obama, 10/22/12

      “So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent — at least Governor Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit — but we’re going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business.” Pres. Obama, 10/23/12

  • Buck Eschaton

    I was definitely naive in 2008. We needed modern day FDR. My hope was that Obama with his rhetorical abilities and his general likability that he would be a transformative leader. That he could begin to turnaround the downward slide of the last 30 years. But no, and here’s where I agree with the Tea Party. Obama was a Trojan Horse, a Trojan Horse for Wall Street. From the very beginning it was save the banks at all costs. To throw trillions of dollars into the sacrificial furnace called Wall Street. Luckily at this point it’s still only dollars that we’re throwing into the furnace, but they all keep harping on Iran so that might change.
    I can’t vote for Obama. We are in a massive financial crisis. The last time something like this happened 100 million people died. I can’t vote for him. The only way out is a Jubilee. A Quantitative Easing for the people. We have to deprivatize the banks. Break them up. They are a black hole. They will suck in everything, even our lives. It is estimated that there’s over a quadrillion dollars in derivatives. The debts that are out there, that the banks have on their balance sheets will never be paid.
    Now Obama wants to work on a “Grand Bargain” to cut social security, cut the safety net and he will do this. It is austerity. Everything must be devoted to the banks and to the financial elites.
    A vote for Romney is ludicrous. I can’t vote for Obama, there’s no reason to vote for Obama. Yes he may be slightly less evil than Romney, but I can’t do that. I guess if I have to make a choice it will be Stein of the Green Party, Rocky might be OK too.

    • Curtis

      FDR did not work with an opposition party who stated their clear, number-one objective, is not to solve the economy. The clear, number-one objective of today’s Republican party is to get Obama voted out of office.

      • Kenton

        For two years, this president has had filibuster-proof control over both houses of congress. Two years! How the freaking hell can you blame the opposition party for getting in the way of this president’s ability for anything?

        • Curtis

          The air is so thick with Republican lies that it is getting hard to breath.

          Obama had a filibuster-proof majority for four months and one week, from Sept. 24, 2009 to Feb. 11, 2010. During those four months Obama did manage to implement the most sweeping healthcare reform in U.S. history, the Republican-based “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”. With all Republican senators voting against it.

          That was after he got done saving the U.S. auto industry.

          • Kenton

            Wow, now you’re saying Obamacare was republican based?

            Who’s lying???

          • Curtis

            The idea of an individual mandate to buy health insurance on the private market was originated by the Heritage Foundation in 1989. Where do you think Romney got the idea?

          • Sven

            Not even! Obama only had a “filibuster-proof majority” if you include Joe “Vote for McCain” Liebermann, an Independent. He was never in Obama’s camp to begin with.

      • Buck Eschaton

        Obama’s clear number-one objective is to transfer as much wealth to the bankers as possible before it all collapses. That is why his first priority for his second term will be to strike a “grand bargain” gutting social security and the safety net. He will do this. Just like his first term was spent “foaming the runways” for the banks (with trillions of dollars).

        • Curtis

          And Romney’s plan to avoid the fiscal cliff is what?

          • Buck Eschaton

            Romney’s plan is to tax the middle class as much as possible. Remove as many middle class deductions as possible. Romney’s career consisted of looting. That will continue. Loot social security (at least if Romney’s in office there may be an opposition to the looting). Romney’s plan is austerity and impoverishment for the middle class and continued looting and possible destruction of the social safety net programs. It’s all pretty much the same as Obama’s plan. They both put forth the same Neo-liberal fantasy of destroying the middle class and enriching the financial elites. It’s a good-cop/bad cop routine.
            What is this fiscal cliff you speak of?

          • Buck Eschaton

            Let me just preemptively state that the weeping and wailing regarding the “fiscal cliff” and the “federal debt” are Republican and Neo-Liberal lies. The Federal government is not a household, and we are not Greece. The USA is sovereign monetarily.

          • Kenton

            Romney’s plan is to grow the economy. Something that BHO is not only incapable of doing, I don’t think he really wants to grow it. He’d rather the economy be “fair” than be strong.

            Grow the economy, grow the tax-base. Grow the tax-base, increase revenue without having to raise taxes. Get people off of welfare and food stamps and get them working productive jobs so they stop being liabilities and instead become assets. 8% unemployment for the length of his tenure and 15% of the country on food stamps is not only ridiculous it’s unsustainable.

          • Curtis

            Romney is going to grow the economy enough to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion before December 31, 2012? What are you smoking?

          • Buck Eschaton

            I don’t know how lowering the purchasing power of the middle class by removing their home and child deductions, effectively raising their taxes, alot, is going to improve the economy. I don’t know how lowering government debt, i.e. decreasing the money supply, is going to improve the economy. I guess the difference between the two candidates is that Obama supports the zombification of the economy similar to Japan’s decades long recession. Romney just wants to throw us into a deflationary death-spiral and make us all slaves to Wall Street.

          • Curtis

            The economic growth rate of Japan, from 1990 to 2000 (or the “lost decade”) was zero. The average economic growth rate of the U.S. since Q4 2009 is 2.25%. According to my arithmetic, 2.25 does not equal zero.

            Want to guess the economic growth rate in the U.S. under the last Republican administration? (hint: it’s worse than Japan’s lost decade)

  • Dean

    I’m 100% convinced that if Obama loses this election it will be because he’s black. It’s the only way to explain the constant vitriol coming from the right, including all the attacks on his country of origin. If Obama really was born in Kenya, then America never had a real black president. That’s a great comfort to many people in this country, I absolutely believe that. The truth is, Obama was handed an economic disaster caused by the policies of the Republican party and a war-mongering president that was bought off by Wall Street (remember who the Secretary of Treasury under Bush was?). So he couldn’t reverse all that damage in 3 years, did you think McCain/Palin could have done better? Obama is a politically middle-left pragmatist, he hasn’t done anything “extreme” at all, in fact, he’s taken the middle road every chance he gets. Obamacare was a compromise from single-payor. He didn’t grant millions of illegals amnesty, but he did a modified Dream act. He pulled out of Iraq, but wanted to leave troops. He did the surge in Afghanistan, but set a timetable for withdrawal. He passed stimulus, but didn’t let the Bush tax cuts expire. He didn’t close gitmo and killed Bin Laden. I get why progressives are disappointed, but why on earth are conservatives upset about? Except for health care, McCain would have done all of these exact same things!

    • Patrick S

      Wow. So I can’t have my own beliefs or disagreements with the current president? Or the only reason I can note 43 months of unemployment above 8 percent, or the disaster in Benghazi now being lied about is because I’m racist? So it must also be true that all those voting for Obama are only doing so because they are anti-Moman bigots. Doesn’t this line of argument seem absolutely clownish?

    • Frank

      What a racist argument. Obama won a good portion of the white vote in 2008. So you think those same people suddenly became racist in the last 4 years? No it’s because he is a terrible president and needs to move on.

      Race has nothing to do with it, unless you are losing, then of course it’s becomes everything right?

    • Patrick S

      Wouldn’t all those voting against Obama solely because he is black have to be…democrats? Republicans and conservatives are voting against him because they are republicans and conservatives and he is a democrat. Ergo all the people voting against him solely because of skin color must be democrats. Sad.

  • Patrick S

    Tony, I think you’ve said you will be voting for Obama. I hope in your explanation you refrain from “the other guy is rotten” as a significant part of your rationale. I also hope you are able to articulate a positive reason for how Obama is going to be a better leader in the next four years than he was in the past four. He will have Republican majorities in at least one House – do you think his mindset will change from his current “I won” stance? I just don’t see it.

    Of course, when Romney wins, Harry Reid will be just as obstinate as the Republicans in the House have been. My prediction is Romney will be disappoint a lot of strong conservatives because he will make a deal with the democrats. Its in his DNA and it is why many conservatives are so wary of him.

    • Curtis

      It is telling that you expect the Democrats in congress to strike a deal with Romney, while nobody holds the same expectation for the Republicans when Obama is re-elected.

      • Patrick S

        So you are saying Reid WILL be as much of a roadblock as the House Republicans. Hmm. Actually what I said is conservatives will be disappointed in Romney because he will get a deal. Obama had a deal with Republicans on the debt — then he demanded $800 billion more and the deal fell through. So republicans were there — until Obama moved the goalposts.

        • Curtis

          No. I said Democrats are expected to strike a deal.

          Regarding the debt deal, you tell the Republican side of the story. Both sides of the story are outlined here http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html

          The negotiations were secret by mutual agreement, so it is dishonest for either party to say they know what really transpired. It was secret, and there are no notes or archives of the negotiation. Anything else is made-up political gamesmanship.

          • Buck Eschaton

            This whole thing about the “Debt” is a lie. There’s no need to deal with it.
            All it is is a scare tactic to loot Social Security. The “Debt” is simply the money supply. The USA is not a household. The only reason to deal with it would be if we were experiencing inflation, and we’re not. So there’s no need to take money out of circulation.

          • Patrick S

            Buck: So when I buy a US Treasury bill (T-bill) for $1,000 and am told I will get paid, say, $1,200 when it matures, I don’t actually get any money?

  • http://coachsusan@quixnet.net susan frederick

    Wow. Just reading these responses scares me. I certainly hope we don’t have to deal with a Romney administration. Personally, I agree with Tony and have already voted for Obama. In 2008 he made campaign promises (like all candidates do) without the information he got later about how deep the recession actually was. He also gave the GOP credit it did not deserve–assuming that they would actually want to help the country. He did not anticipate the record number of filibusters and stonewalling even legislation they themselves had sponsored…all in a strategic attempt to halt anything that might succeed in helping the country and in doing so lead to a second Obama term. That kind of raw partisanship was beyond his imagination. Just like Romney’s bald faced misrepresentations of reality were also beyond him. He is a good man. I trust him. I don’t trust the GOP. I have seen their true colors. If the country is divided, then it is divided for good reason. And I am with Obama. End of story.

    • Buck Eschaton

      It hurts to see that you have no choice. That Democracy is being taken away. Both candidates want to gut social security and cut anything that benefits the middle class. Quantitative Easing Forever!!! Trillions for the financial elites and rentiers, circuses for the everybody else.

      • Patrick S

        When you say “The USA is sovereign monetarily.” what do you mean?

        • Buck Eschaton

          I’m obviously not an expert in economic theory, but the USA Fed govt. creates its own money. The Federal Govt. spends money into existence. It can always pay its debts, because it can create an infinite amount of money. We have a fiat currency. I guess I currently understand economics through the lens of MMT, Modern Monetary Theory.
          See these blogs for continuing discussions re MMT.
          http://neweconomicperspectives.org/
          http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/

          • Patrick S

            It is true the fed prints money but there are consequences to printing our way out of debt problem. Among them: hamburgers would cost $50,000; those who held our debt (including those of us with T-bills) would lose their entire investment; and no one would ever lend the government money again.

            So while technically true, it is practically impossible and would be radically irresponsible. Government actions do not occur in a vacuum. Those who believe we could print our way out of the debt problem only see the debt being wiped out, they don’t take into consideration the impact. Google “hyperinflation” to see what has happened in the past when governments have tried this in the past. It ain’t purdee.

          • Buck Eschaton

            So the Fed can print endless amounts of money and give it to Wall Street, over $14 Trillion now and it doesn’t cause “hyperinflation”…and anyway we’re now like Weimar or Zimbabwe, all our debts are denominated in dollars. Hyperinflation is another lie of neo-liberals and Republicans. Money for us and not for you. There is no need for the government to borrow. Taxes do not fund the government. Taxes control inflation and make the currency valuable. There are no worries re hyperinflation when so many are unemployed. Heck, I think we could invest $50K in every person, man, woman and child in the US and that still wouldn’t cause inflation because so much of that would be extinguished when paying off mortgages, credit cards, student loans.

          • Patrick S

            The “stimulus” spending you mention that Obama did will indeed start causing inflation in about a year or so. Just one more reason not to vote for him.

          • Buck Eschaton

            I don’t believe we’ll see inflation, the truly massive, epic credit bubble burst in 2008. Home prices have undergone an epic deflation. I don’t agree we’ll see much in the way of inflation. It’s been 4 years since “Helicopter Ben” has dropping trillions on Wall Street, and we’ve only been seeing modest/intermittent price inflation in oil and some commodities, that’s only because the super rich have nowhere else to put the money given to them.

  • Jonathan Fillis

    Sitting here in Oxford England I’ll be watching with eager anticipation for Election night and definitely pulling for an Obama win. There are many ways in which he has disappointed viewers from a distance such as myself, his failure to close Guitmo and his use of drone strikes to name but a few. But one can’t help but feel sorry for what he inherited and coming from a place that has tried the austerity route trust me it is worse! He also seems to be a genuine character whereas who knows what you would get with a Romney presidency. It is also nice not having to apologize for liking America and having many American friends. Romney managed to insult about four countries he visited, including mine, in as many days in the early summer and his language on China, Russia and Iran terrifies the rest of the world. I don’t think anyone could argue Obama has been soft in foreign policy but he presents a nuanced reasonable face of American politics and I would be sad to see him go!

  • Jeff

    Tony, you said “he plays politics by a different and more noble playbook.” I hope your pending re-endorsement contains a sober and honest re-evaluation of this assertion that takes into account the way he has governed and the way he has campaigned for re-election.

  • kierkegaard71

    This may have been said, but Barack Obama and his militarism have silenced the anti-war left. Through his massive drone-bombing of Pakistan, innocents have had their lives extinguished. To my mind, although not as much of a warmonger as Romney, Obama, from Libya to Pakistan, has been shown to be a warmonger as well. I am sorry, but I don’t see in Obama a President committed to “foreign policy”, as you put it. And Guantanamo prison remains open.

  • Pingback: The American Spectator : Religiously Returning to 2004


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X