Obama Adminstration Meta Discussion

VelociMama

As an Obama supporter, I will say I don't agree with his stance on education. Higher education should not be available for everyone, having nothing to do with money. Community colleges are filled people who shouldn't be there because they are simply incapable of doing the work. But open enrollment is open enrollment. Also, it is not the job higher education, community colleges in particular, to supply the workforce with good workers. Public education's focus should be to produce an informed electorate capable of thinking critically.

This customer service, privatized, attitude towards education is nice downward spiral.

I have mixed views on this. I believe that our public education system is a total and complete failure at preparing people to live as independent free-thinking people. I say this as someone who is a college-level educator. I've seen kids come into top tier universities without the ability to logically reason, who are sorely lacking in basic language skills, and who are so far behind in math that it's not even funny anymore. Almost all of these kids have a 3.5 high school GPA or higher and top 20 percentile ACT/SAT scores. It's just sad. Our graduate institutions are more and more reaching for foreign students despite it costing them more, because American students lack the skills coming out of secondary school (the deficiencies often carrying through undergrad) to compete.

Unfortunately, without open enrollment at a lot of public community colleges, kids coming out of these horrible secondary programs don't get a chance to do better. That being said, it's expensive, and a lot of these kids don't end up doing well there either or don't take it seriously. Like I said... mixed views there.

As it relates to this topic, I would like to see more democrats discussing the big changes we need in funding for education and how we run our education system in America. It's not a hot-button issue, but it's becoming a huge problem when we look at what other countries are doing and how their children are out-competing our own.

Since becoming pregnant with my first, I've been doing a lot more research into this than I ever did before, and my husband and I may end up cutting a lot of our household budget to send this one to a private schools so he/she gets more of the level of education they deserve to have a chance at the highly-skilled high-paying jobs of the future. The public schools in our area are supposedly "good" but still fall way behind where they should.

alpha2omega

alpha2omega says:

It is, at best, a joke to think Obama ever wanted to or even has the ability to be partisan.

A Freudian slip?

I also think it interesting that A2O uses "fundamentally idealistic" as an insult. Or maybe that was a typo as well.

lol Nice catch.

When Obama puts his philosophy before the well being of the American people, yes, it is insulting.

Examples?

Here is one example regarding his intent on bankrupting the coal industry.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-advances-plan-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-with-new-co2-limits/


There are about 174,000 full time jobs directly related to the coal industry in the US.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

And herein lies the essential contrast in approach to the discussion. One of the points of this thread was to try to elevate the level of dicussion to a more intelligent and nuanced level, where people could explore their positions in more depth and in a way more reflective of the complexity of the issues surrounding us, instead of relying on empty cliches, talking points, lies, etc. You have seen some of the comments posted already from people who support Obama in general, but have specific criticisms of some of the actions of his administration.

You have chosen to take the opposite approach.

Your source of "information" represents the paranoid, delusional, bat-*kitten* crazy wing of the Republican party and conservatives.

Here is another view on the same subject:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2012/08/18/obama-and-romney-energizing-their-bases-by-muddying-coal-and-wind/

I strongly urge everyone to read both articles and compare the approaches to the same subject. It speaks volumes about who is really behind the so-called "polarization" of the electorate.

You criticise me for citing "paranoid" information yet you cite some left wing hack. Here, is this better for you?

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/mar/14/ohio-coal-association/ohio-coal-industry-says-obama-promised-bankrupt-co/

The fact is Obama wants to kill more jobs through government regulations.


I would agree that Romney is weak on a number of issues. He has flip flopped almost as much as Arlen Specter and he is in an extremely weak position to try and debate on healthcare, however, he is, by far, more qualified than Obama to lead this country out of the fiscal mess it is in. Romney has strong executive experience and that is what is most needed for our country, at this time.

alpha2omega

alpha2omega says:

It is, at best, a joke to think Obama ever wanted to or even has the ability to be partisan.

A Freudian slip?

I also think it interesting that A2O uses "fundamentally idealistic" as an insult. Or maybe that was a typo as well.

lol Nice catch.

When Obama puts his philosophy before the well being of the American people, yes, it is insulting.

Examples?

Here is one example regarding his intent on bankrupting the coal industry.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-advances-plan-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-with-new-co2-limits/


There are about 174,000 full time jobs directly related to the coal industry in the US.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

So you would rather continue polluting instead of actually taking steps toward cleaner energy?

I find this to actually be taking into account the well-being of the country and world.

42% of the electricity in the US comes from coal fired power plants. How do you propose we make up that deficit if coal is no longer a viable source of energy?

alpha2omega

alpha2omega says:

It is, at best, a joke to think Obama ever wanted to or even has the ability to be partisan.

A Freudian slip?

I also think it interesting that A2O uses "fundamentally idealistic" as an insult. Or maybe that was a typo as well.

lol Nice catch.

When Obama puts his philosophy before the well being of the American people, yes, it is insulting.

Examples?

Here is one example regarding his intent on bankrupting the coal industry.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-advances-plan-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-with-new-co2-limits/


There are about 174,000 full time jobs directly related to the coal industry in the US.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

Without bothering to read the articles, aren't you making an a priori assumption that the use of coal ( and by extension the coal industry) does more good than harm? And if we agree that that assumption is debatable, calling Obama's "intentions"--again subject for debate--insulting sounds closer to inflammatory name-calling than honest discourse.

Agreed. I will choose my words more carefully, going forward.

treetop57

42% of the electricity in the US comes from coal fired power plants. How do you propose we make up that deficit if coal is no longer a viable source of energy?

The same way Romney proposed in 2003: "a flexible market-based regional cap and trade system."

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Letter-from-Romney-to-Pataki-RGGI.pdf

alpha2omega

42% of the electricity in the US comes from coal fired power plants. How do you propose we make up that deficit if coal is no longer a viable source of energy?

The same way Romney proposed in 2003: "a flexible market-based regional cap and trade system."

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Letter-from-Romney-to-Pataki-RGGI.pdf

I'm all for it. Romney wants to cut emissions by 10%. Obama wants to cut emissions by 50%.

treetop57

I'm not sure where you get the 50% number.

Romney's target was 10% reduction from 2003 to 2008, or 2% a year. The Obama goal I've seen is 17% reduction from 2005 to 2010, just over 1% a year.

But just to be clear, you seem to be saying that, like Romney (Version 2003), you support cap and trade. Yet you now support Romney (version 2012), who opposes cap and trade.

alpha2omega

I'm not sure where you get the 50% number.

Romney's target was 10% reduction from 2003 to 2008, or 2% a year. The Obama goal I've seen is 17% reduction from 2005 to 2010, just over 1% a year.

But just to be clear, you seem to be saying that, like Romney (Version 2003), you support cap and trade. Yet you now support Romney (version 2012), who opposes cap and trade.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/27/coal-obama-coal-emissions-environment

If Romney wants to support Cap n Trade or not is fine with me since what he proposed would not have been catastophic to the coal industry. Either way its not a game changer for me.

DoingItNow2012

I'm not sure where you get the 50% number.

Romney's target was 10% reduction from 2003 to 2008, or 2% a year. The Obama goal I've seen is 17% reduction from 2005 to 2010, just over 1% a year.

But just to be clear, you seem to be saying that, like Romney (Version 2003), you support cap and trade. Yet you now support Romney (version 2012), who opposes cap and trade.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/27/coal-obama-coal-emissions-environment

If Romney wants to support Cap n Trade or not is fine with me since what he proposed would not have been catastophic to the coal industry. Either way its not a game changer for me.

I am not well versed on the complexity involved with the coal debate. But after reading the article that you posted, I don't see the problem with the requirement. "Still, the new limits will make it impossible to build new plants that are not drastically more efficient.". I don't see efficiency as a bad thing.

"The proposed new rules will make it nearly impossible to build new coal power plants, unless they are outfitted with carbon capture and storage systems, a technology is still not in use on a commercial scale." again don't see the problem with incorporating new technology. It only applies to new plants (about 15). And old plants have "decades" to catch up.

Like you, this is not make or break for me, but it was good information to be aware of.

Azdak

alpha2omega says:

It is, at best, a joke to think Obama ever wanted to or even has the ability to be partisan.

A Freudian slip?

I also think it interesting that A2O uses "fundamentally idealistic" as an insult. Or maybe that was a typo as well.

lol Nice catch.

When Obama puts his philosophy before the well being of the American people, yes, it is insulting.

Examples?

Here is one example regarding his intent on bankrupting the coal industry.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-advances-plan-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-with-new-co2-limits/


There are about 174,000 full time jobs directly related to the coal industry in the US.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

Without bothering to read the articles, aren't you making an a priori assumption that the use of coal ( and by extension the coal industry) does more good than harm? And if we agree that that assumption is debatable, calling Obama's "intentions"--again subject for debate--insulting sounds closer to inflammatory name-calling than honest discourse.

Thanks for putting it better than I did.

Azdak

alpha2omega says:

It is, at best, a joke to think Obama ever wanted to or even has the ability to be partisan.

A Freudian slip?

I also think it interesting that A2O uses "fundamentally idealistic" as an insult. Or maybe that was a typo as well.

lol Nice catch.

When Obama puts his philosophy before the well being of the American people, yes, it is insulting.

Examples?

Here is one example regarding his intent on bankrupting the coal industry.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-advances-plan-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-with-new-co2-limits/


There are about 174,000 full time jobs directly related to the coal industry in the US.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

And herein lies the essential contrast in approach to the discussion. One of the points of this thread was to try to elevate the level of dicussion to a more intelligent and nuanced level, where people could explore their positions in more depth and in a way more reflective of the complexity of the issues surrounding us, instead of relying on empty cliches, talking points, lies, etc. You have seen some of the comments posted already from people who support Obama in general, but have specific criticisms of some of the actions of his administration.

You have chosen to take the opposite approach.

Your source of "information" represents the paranoid, delusional, bat-*kitten* crazy wing of the Republican party and conservatives.

Here is another view on the same subject:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2012/08/18/obama-and-romney-energizing-their-bases-by-muddying-coal-and-wind/

I strongly urge everyone to read both articles and compare the approaches to the same subject. It speaks volumes about who is really behind the so-called "polarization" of the electorate.

You criticise me for citing "paranoid" information yet you cite some left wing hack. Here, is this better for you?

Since that is not a road I want to go down at this point, I'll just invite people to read both links and make their own decisions about who is reasonable and who is a hack.

Azdak

One topic not yet mentioned yet is that of foreign policy (as opposed to national security/"war" on terror which really needs to be separate as it involves domestic issues as well).

With his lack of direct foreign policy experience, many people felt that this would be Obama's primary weakness. After reading many of Obama's speeches and position papers during the 2008 campaign, I was certain that Obama had an excellent grasp of the realities of 21st century foreign policy and would perform quite well, and I believe events have proved me correct.

A broad challenge of the 21st was and is how to deal with a changing world in which not only the Cold War model no longer exists, but the high-infrastructure, set piece military posture is much less relevant as well. The type of playing field that most Americans grew up with no longer exists. There is no standing military threat to the United States. When military conflicts do occur, they tend to be regional, or local, with as much conflict between citizens and their governments as anything else. New strategies and techniques in asymmetrical warfare, along with increasing globalization, have significantly limited the amount of influence a single country can have by projecting military force alone. Gunship diplomacy ain't what it used to be.

Obama understands this. An article I found described his overall approach as:

he has tried to move U.S. foreign policy away from active balancing in favor of allowing regional balances of power to maintain themselves.

Obama is following a general opinion among many foreign policy analysts that active balancing and intervention, such as the US practiced after WW2 and during the subsequent 40-50 years, often resulted in more destabilization than stabilization and led to an increase in anti-American sentiment across the globe.

The result is that the US has been less willing to overtly interject itself into regional conflicts. We have seen this more specifically I think in the response to what was called the "Arab spring". The US played an important background role while allowing other nations with a more direct presence in the region to be more public.

Another thing that has impressed me is how Obama has conducted military operations. He has engaged in detailed processes of developing strategies, processes that are inclusive and fact-based -- as opposed to the "make the facts fit the ideology" approach that led to the disaster in Iraq.

Obama was up front during the 2008 campaign about his intentions in Afghanistan, so not one should have been surprised at the escalation of the conflict there. I disagreed with that plan in 2008, and I haven't really changed my mind since. It is one serious disagreement that I have.

The other is the increased use of drone assassination warfare against alleged terrorist targets. It's ironic that when Republicans use their stock criticism that Obama is "tarnishing the image of the US", the fact is that the most tarnishing Obama has done has been when he has followed actions and policies that are most like those from the Bush administration.

I think there has been some global disenchantment with Obama for the same reason there has been some in the US-- he has not been able to translate his rhetoric into the transformational change that many had hoped for. I think part of this has been due to inexperience, partly due to the restraints put on any President by the adolescent expectations of US citizens, and partly due to preoccupation with the economic meltdown that occurred 4 months before his inauguration.

The contrast between Obama and Romney on foreign policy is one of the starkest in the campaign--and one that has the most frightening implication (IMO) if Romney is elected.

First of all, Romney's knowledge of foreign policy issues--based on what few statements he has made--seem ill-informed and almost Palinesque. He not only has referred more than once to the "Soviet Union", but has also stated that he considers it still a primary threat to our national security. He has, as usual, offered little in the way of specifics, only criticized Obama for "not communicating America's strength and resolve". He seems to still live in a world where he thinks the US can basically wade into any part of the world it wishes and demand submission to our "resolve". It's a particularly insidious fantasy that, the last time it was lived out, cost us tens of thousands of dead and wounded soldiers, millions of Iraqi deaths, and $ trillions in cost.

Despite our current deficits and despite the fact that the US spends more on military spending than just about the rest of the world combined, Romney wants to increase military spending to 4% of GDP (up from the current 3+%). Estimates say that would add an additional $175 billion in military spending per year for the next 6 years. With absolutely no stated plans on how that money will be raised or spent.

All of this is bad enough, but the guys in the shadows are even worse. You've met them all before--the D!ck Cheney wing of the Republican party, led by none other than John Bolton. Enough said.

VelociMama

Despite our current deficits and despite the fact that the US spends more on military spending than just about the rest of the world combined, Romney wants to increase military spending to 4% of GDP (up from the current 3+%). Estimates say that would add an additional $175 billion in military spending per year for the next 6 years. With absolutely no stated plans on how that money will be raised or spent.

This right here is why a lot of people don't take Romney's budget seriously. Most independent voters like me are sick of excess military spending. I'm a veteran's wife, and my husband knows about some incredible wastes of money when he was in. DOD spends billions of dollars "because they have to" not because they need to on all sorts of wasteful projects and items. DOD is a moneypit, and the generals, admirals, and top brass know it. They've even told Congress on multiple occasions that they really don't need this much money to operate a top-notch defense-ready military. Congress even tried to get them to spend more on M1 Abrams tanks that the Army told them point blank that they don't want or need. Why? Congress was heavily lobbied by the manufacturer of the M1 Abrams to keep the contract with their company.

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120307/DEFREG02/303070011/U-S-Army-Congress-No-New-Tanks-Please

The notion that Romney wants to blow MORE cash on DOD without any plan for that money while claiming to "balance the budget" is absurdly stupid. We should be cutting DOD spending and putting that money back into education and other departments and programs that have been suffering badly because of depleted funding for a decade.

lour441

I am going to look at some of this without rose colored glasses.

1. Prevented a second Great Depression--no small feat, although no one seems to remember that.

Did you really just compare what we went through to anything close to what the Great Depression was? At it's peak unemployment during the Great Depression was ~25%. Loss of GDP was around -25% as well. Our top unemployment was ~10% while our lost GDP was ~5%. I didn't live during that time but I am pretty sure my Great Grandmother would have a field day with this arrogance.

You can't prevent what Economists generally agree wouldn't have happened.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/25/news/economy/depression_comparisons/index.htm

All that being said... The recession "ended" 6 months after Obama was sworn into office. The only legislation he signed between the time he was sworn into office and the recession ended that could have an effect was the bail out in Feb 2009. I agree that the bail out did have a positive effect on the economy but that alone did not end the recession. Bush policies (TARP) and the Federal Reserve actions had a big part in it. I know the liberals on this board love to blame past policies on the mess we are in right now. It works both ways. When something good happens at the beginning of your term in office a lot of it might have been seeded before you took over. I have no reason to believe the recession wouldn't have ended at the same time had McCain been elected.

2. Stabilized our national banking infrastructure.

Are we talking about TARP here? This was signed by Bush. 50% of the money was spent before Obama took over. I will give him 40% credit!

3. Saved the American auto industry.

He bailed out 2 mismanaged auto companies. Ford planned well and refused help. I don't disagree with the action. I think it needed to be done. In the end, I think there is a black mark on Chrysler and GM. Time will only tell how this plays out. I can tell you now that my Charger will be the last car I purchase from Chrysler or GM although the Camaro might seduce me /sigh.

4. Achieved (although the battle is not yet won) the beginnings of a fundamental reform of our health care system, something that no President had been able to pull off in my lifetime.

I am not against everyone having health insurance. I think it is a good thing.
Herein lies my biggest issue with Obama. He added the largest entitlement to government since Medicare? with no way to pay for it. Sure the bill has a funding plan but when you are running a $1 Trillion deficit is anything really funded especially new spending? I would have liked to see some talk of fiscal responsibility even if it is in the form of cuts to the bloated DoD budget. Instead all I see is more spending.

5. Managed an orderly end to the war in Iraq (acknowledging that the process was set in place by the Bush admin, but had to stay the course in spite of calls in military to maintain a longer presence); has managed the war in Afghanistan with planning and preparation). Has shown flexibility in responding to different international crises--choosing the appropriate response based on the circumstances of each event, rather than a cookie cutter approach.

Obama has been an all star with regards to foreign policy. I do not disagree with anything he has done here. Maybe this is because I have a crush on Hilary. If I could see anything changed here it would be sending less (no) money to countries that are our enemies. Sending countries like Pakistan money to fight terrorism is a joke. I would actually prefer to send money to no one until our economic house is cleaned up.

Azdak

am not against everyone having health insurance. I think it is a good thing.
Herein lies my biggest issue with Obama. He added the largest entitlement to government since Medicare? with no way to pay for it. Sure the bill has a funding plan but when you are running a $1 Trillion deficit is anything really funded especially new spending? I would have liked to see some talk of fiscal responsibility even if it is in the form of cuts to the bloated DoD budget. Instead all I see is more spending.

?? You say the bill has a "funding plan" but that there is "no way to pay for it". Isn't that the definition of a "funding plan"? And the ACA is designed to reduce spending over time.

I kind of understand where you are going on this, but, I guess I look at it like this--if you had an old furnace that was heating only 2/3 of the house and was so inefficient it was increasing your electric bill by an additional 10% - 15% a year, you could make a case that it was worth replacing, even if you hadn't put it the budget that year. You can't always choose when opportunities will arise, and that was a prime opportunity.

I do get annoyed at the baseless implication that there was "no talk of fiscal responsibility". Obama was clear from day 1 and repeated in virtually every speech he gave on the subject that he considered health care reform an integral part of controlling long-term spending and getting our financial house in order. Obviously there is continuing debate about whether or not that will actually occur, but to imply that there was "no talk" is being willfully obtuse, IMO.

treetop57

I'm all for [cap and trade]. Romney wants to cut emissions by 10%. Obama wants to cut emissions by 50%.

Comparing the link I gave with Romney's discussion of his cap-and-trade proposal with the link you gave to Obama's proposed limits on emissions from new coal power plants, I see that you are comparing apples and oranges.

Romney (Version 2003) wanted to cut total Massachusetts greenhouse gas emissions by 10% from 2003 to 2008. Obama wants to cut emissions from new coal power plants by 50%. Not at all comparable.

But you've already said you support cap-and-trade like Romney (Version 2003) and Obama (Version 2008 and 2012) rather than oppose it like Romney (Version 2012). So you must be voting for Romney for reasons other than energy policy.

alpha2omega

I'm all for [cap and trade]. Romney wants to cut emissions by 10%. Obama wants to cut emissions by 50%.

Comparing the link I gave with Romney's discussion of his cap-and-trade proposal with the link you gave to Obama's proposed limits on emissions from new coal power plants, I see that you are comparing apples and oranges.

Romney (Version 2003) wanted to cut total Massachusetts greenhouse gas emissions by 10% from 2003 to 2008. Obama wants to cut emissions from new coal power plants by 50%. Not at all comparable.

But you've already said you support cap-and-trade like Romney (Version 2003) and Obama (Version 2008 and 2012) rather than oppose it like Romney (Version 2012). So you must be voting for Romney for reasons other than energy policy.

If Romney wants to support a cap n trade policy, that would not be detrimental to the coal industry, then I would not have an issue with him pursuing it.

I do not support President Obama's version of cap n trade because he has specifically said his policy would make it impossible for companies to operate coal based electrical plants at the current price to consumers. The price of electricity will have to skyrocket(also explicitly stated by the President) for these energy companies to stay in business which hurts the consumer and will eventually lead to more job loss.

treetop57

Fair enough. I don't think it's unreasonable for the price of electricity to reflect all the true costs, including the environmental externalities. And I think cap-and-trade is the right way to do that, even if it results in coal-fired electricity increasing in price. Right now, the price doesn't reflect the environmental damage coal causes. If coal can't compete if the environment costs are included in the price, then the market will reflect that.

alpha2omega

Fair enough. I don't think it's unreasonable for the price of electricity to reflect all the true costs, including the environmental externalities. And I think cap-and-trade is the right way to do that, even if it results in coal-fired electricity increasing in price. Right now, the price doesn't reflect the environmental damage coal causes. If coal can't compete if the environment costs are included in the price, then the market will reflect that.

If the environmental cost could be objectively quantified, I would have no issue using it as a basis for an additional cost, I just don't see how that could be accomplished.

Just some additional info. Currently, there are roughly 7,000 coal plants in the world, per worldcoal.org. The US has around 600. That equates to 8.6% of the world's coal burning plants. As of 2009, the US also had the largest proven coal reserves in the world. The International Energy Agency estimates that fossil fuels will account for 85% of the energy market by 2030. My point is there wont't be a viable market for renewable sources of energy for many years to come. If by chance the US was able to generate sustainable alternative energy so that coal energy was no longer needed, we would have affected the worlds CO2 output by, at most, 8.6%.

I'm not saying the issue should be completely disregarded, however, it seems trivial when compared to other domestic issues such as unemployment, our national debt and the budget crisis.

treetop57

Agreed. Which makes me wonder why you brought it up.