What is President Obama promising to do in a second term?

Amerika

Mostly just more of the same old - same old it sounds like. Four more years of what we've just gone through!

Now I know President Obama plans on taxing the rich to pay for more government investment. Yippie… higher taxes and greater spending.

And he has said that the most important policy he could address in his second term is climate change. Looks like more regulatory apparatus to go around Congress.

As for everything else... I guess what Obama cannot accomplish with regulation, he will attempt to get through via executive order, as he has done recently.

Have I missed anything?

Overheal

to play devils advocate, he did already wind up 2 foreign wars and kill bin laden. I don't feel like either would have happened under our other options. I feel like we'd have been more likely to be in a war with Pakistan right now.

The funny thing about promises though by politicians is their fallacious for the most part: A president can't really promises to change taxes, that power lies with the Legislative Branch. He can sign and he can veto. That's the bulk of it.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

to play devils advocate, he did already wind up 2 foreign wars and kill bin laden. I don't feel like either would have happened under our other options. I feel like we'd have been more likely to be in a war with Pakistan right now.

The funny thing about promises though by politicians is their fallacious for the most part: A president can't really promises to change taxes, that power lies with the Legislative Branch. He can sign and he can veto. That's the bulk of it.

"I wound down down 2 wars and killed bin laden (with my bare hands). Other than that there’s not much I can do. But look at the good side, we’re not at war with Pakistan."

Sorry, but that kind of platform doesn’t send tingles up my leg.

Reindeer

What will Romney accomplish for the average American?

Amerika

Reindeer wrote: »

What will Romney accomplish for the average American?

In Romney's second term?

Reindeer

Amerika wrote: »

In Romney's second term?

That was basically the type of answer I was expecting...

Fr Tod Umptious

Reindeer wrote: »

What will Romney accomplish for the average American?

That's not the question being asked.

Why not try answer the OP's question.

Reindeer

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That's not the question being asked.

Why not try answer the OP's question.

I agree with his post.

Now then, what does Romney have on offer for the average American by comparison? That is my question being asked, and judging by the original post, it would seem to be spot on for topic.

Overheal

Reindeer wrote: »

Now then, what does Romney have on offer for the average American by comparison? That is my question being asked, and judging by the original post, it would seem to be spot on for topic.

True story. Thus far, he's been very evasive to discuss any details about his plans for the budget. He talks about downsizing government and lowering expenses and taxes but hasn't really said "Yeah I plan to cut 30% of the military and medicare budgets" has he.

joseph brand

Amerika wrote: »

Mostly just more of the same old - same old it sounds like. Four more years of what we've just gone through!

Now I know President Obama plans on taxing the rich to pay for more government investment. Yippie… higher taxes and greater spending.

And he has said that the most important policy he could address in his second term is climate change. Looks like more regulatory apparatus to go around Congress.

As for everything else... I guess what Obama cannot accomplish with regulation, he will attempt to get through via executive order, as he has done recently.

Have I missed anything?

Climate change is real and very important. The US is experiencing massive drought which isn't cheap. Let's not be so flippant about it. Romney's plans to add as much CO2 and any other climate changing gases to the atmosphere, as he can, through exploring more fossil fuels and ignoring renewable energy doesn't exactly instil confidence in Americans and people worldwide. It affects us all.

Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic bill to repeal about $24 billion in U.S. tax breaks for the nation’s biggest oil companies, three days after agreeing to advance the measure as a way to debate energy.
President Barack Obama, speaking at the White House before today’s vote, had urged lawmakers to pass the legislation. Republicans opposed repealing the tax breaks and blamed Obama’s energy policies for the rise in gasoline costs.

Article here. More Liberal media bias I'm sure. :rolleyes:

Obstructionism or powerful lobbying on behalf of the oil industry?

As regards taxes. Didn't Warren Buffet offer to pay more tax? I know Stephen King (the author) was at a
rally and said that he pays about 28% tax, but he wants to pay 50%. He says he makes up the 'shortfall' by donating to charities and schools in his area. Thoughts of higher taxes, for the rich, make Tea Baggers weak at the knees.

joseph brand

Overheal wrote: »

True story. Thus far, he's been very evasive to discuss any details about his plans for the budget. He talks about downsizing government and lowering expenses and taxes but hasn't really said "Yeah I plan to cut 30% of the military and medicare budgets" has he.

No figures for anything! Just nebulous talk along the lines of "trust me, I know what I'm doing".

He needs to lower taxes. He's paying a massive tax rate of between 0% and 13.9%.

The issue of his tax returns will be the Bain of his election campaign.

Amerika

Reindeer wrote: »

I agree with his post.

Now then, what does Romney have on offer for the average American by comparison? That is my question being asked, and judging by the original post, it would seem to be spot on for topic.

Okay, not a problem, I also think it is a fair question… but I expect you going forward to defend the use of "whataboutery" tactics, and the I]insert your favorite expletive[/I charges that go along with it that are usually thrown my way by the numerous detractors of mine when I do it… Deal?

I feel Mitt Romney’s economic plan is the best to create jobs, restore economic growth, and return us to our tradition of economic freedom. These include: Reduce marginal tax rates on business and wage incomes and broaden the tax base to increase investment, jobs, and living standards. End the exploding federal debt by controlling the growth of spending so federal spending does not exceed 20 percent of the economy. Restructure regulation to end "too big to fail," improve credit availability to entrepreneurs and small businesses, and increase regulatory accountability, and ensure that all regulations pass rigorous benefit-cost tests. Improve our Social Security and Medicare programs by reducing their growth to sustainable levels, ensuring their viability over the long term, and protecting those in or near retirement. Reform our healthcare system to harness market forces and thereby reduce costs and increase quality, empowering patients and doctors, rather than the federal bureaucracy. Promote energy policies that increase domestic production, enlarge the use of all western hemisphere resources, encourage the use of new technologies, end wasteful subsidies, and rely more on market forces and less on government planners.

But this topic is primarily about what Obama offers... Not Romney... OKAY!

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Mostly just more of the same old - same old it sounds like. Four more years of what we've just gone through!

Now I know President Obama plans on taxing the rich to pay for more government investment. Yippie… higher taxes and greater spending.

And he has said that the most important policy he could address in his second term is climate change. Looks like more regulatory apparatus to go around Congress.

As for everything else... I guess what Obama cannot accomplish with regulation, he will attempt to get through via executive order, as he has done recently.

Have I missed anything?

Amerika wrote: »

In Romney's second term?

Amerika wrote: »

But this topic is primarily about what Obama offers... Not Romney... OKAY!

MOD NOTE:

Here's the thing: if you want a serious answer, you have to pose a serious question. The way you have started this thread doesn't suggest that you are actually interested in a discussion.

This thread barely passes the sniff test for this forum: if this is just going to turn into another partisan slug fest that isn't grounded in anything but vague proclamations (from either side) it will not be open for long.

Amerika

joseph brand wrote: »

I know Stephen King (the author) was at a
rally and said that he pays about 28% tax, but he wants to pay 50%. He says he makes up the 'shortfall' by donating to charities and schools in his area.

Yes, Stephen King claimed he was in the 28% tax bracket (he’s actually about 33%). So I asked him about it (through his assistant), and what his effective tax rate was. He checked with his business agent and relayed to me he was told they couldn’t determine what his overall effective tax rate was (I assume because of the complexities from all the business endeavors he is involved with).

Amerika

southsiderosie is correct. I apologize for my style.

I’ll take another shot at it.

The last four years haven’t been good for most Americans. What is President Obama promising, or what will he do differently, to improve the economy and jobs in order to warrant a second term?

joseph brand

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, not a problem, I also think it is a fair question… but I expect you going forward to defend the use of "whataboutery" tactics, and the I]insert your favorite expletive[/I charges that go along with it that are usually thrown my way by the numerous detractors of mine when I do it… Deal?

I feel Mitt Romney’s economic plan is the best to create jobs, restore economic growth, and return us to our tradition of economic freedom. These include: Reduce marginal tax rates on business and wage incomes and broaden the tax base to increase investment, jobs, and living standards. End the exploding federal debt by controlling the growth of spending so federal spending does not exceed 20 percent of the economy. Restructure regulation to end "too big to fail," improve credit availability to entrepreneurs and small businesses, and increase regulatory accountability, and ensure that all regulations pass rigorous benefit-cost tests. Improve our Social Security and Medicare programs by reducing their growth to sustainable levels, ensuring their viability over the long term, and protecting those in or near retirement. Reform our healthcare system to harness market forces and thereby reduce costs and increase quality, empowering patients and doctors, rather than the federal bureaucracy. Promote energy policies that increase domestic production, enlarge the use of all western hemisphere resources, encourage the use of new technologies, end wasteful subsidies, and rely more on market forces and less on government planners.

But this topic is primarily about what Obama offers... Not Romney... OKAY!

Bring back Glass- Steagall!
In the House, 155 Democrats and 207 Republicans voted for the measure, while 51 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 independent opposed it. Fifteen members did not vote.

That's a big shopping list you posted. I don't have time to go through it but it all means nothing when you take into account that Romney lacks conviction and has flip-flopped so often, even his wife doesn't know him.

Almost forgot.
Romney running mate criticises Britain's National Health Service because 'it makes patients dependent on government help'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2188032/Paul-Ryan-Mitt-Romney-running-mate-criticises-Britains-National-Health-Service.html#ixzz24V6cmav6

He even annoyed the Tories.

I'll just quote Father Ted. (Jack thinks like the Tea Baggers)

Father Dougal: Why is jack so scared of doctors?
Father Ted: Well, I think they remind him of illness. He doesnt like to think about his own mortality. That’s why he always hated visiting the sick.
Father Dougal: Oh God yeah, he hates the sick. And the poor. He hates the poor as well.
Father Ted: Oh the poor really get on his nerves.
Father Dougal: And the needy.
Father Ted: Them as well. What was it he used to say about the needy? He had a term for them…
Father Dougal: A shower of bastards.
Father Ted: That was it.

There's always time for Father Ted quotes.

ArtSmart

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, not a problem, I also think it is a fair question… but I expect you going forward to defend the use of "whataboutery" tactics, and the I]insert your favorite expletive[/I charges that go along with it that are usually thrown my way by the numerous detractors of mine when I do it… Deal?

I feel Mitt Romney’s economic plan is the best to create jobs, restore economic growth, and return us to our tradition of economic freedom. These include: Reduce marginal tax rates on business and wage incomes and broaden the tax base to increase investment, jobs, and living standards. End the exploding federal debt by controlling the growth of spending so federal spending does not exceed 20 percent of the economy. Restructure regulation to end "too big to fail," improve credit availability to entrepreneurs and small businesses, and increase regulatory accountability, and ensure that all regulations pass rigorous benefit-cost tests. Improve our Social Security and Medicare programs by reducing their growth to sustainable levels, ensuring their viability over the long term, and protecting those in or near retirement. Reform our healthcare system to harness market forces and thereby reduce costs and increase quality, empowering patients and doctors, rather than the federal bureaucracy. Promote energy policies that increase domestic production, enlarge the use of all western hemisphere resources, encourage the use of new technologies, end wasteful subsidies, and rely more on market forces and less on government planners.

But this topic is primarily about what Obama offers... Not Romney... OKAY!

Amerika wrote: »

southsiderosie is correct. I apologize for my style.

I’ll take another shot at it.

The last four years haven’t been good for most Americans. What is President Obama promising, or what will he do differently, to improve the economy and jobs in order to warrant a second term?

LOL.

Thankfully the Mitt wont be president.

Sadly, he might in 2016, which I assume is his game plan.

could be worse, could be Ryan. lol
we live in fear

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

You posted this:

joseph brand wrote: »

Thoughts of higher taxes, for the rich, make Tea Baggers weak at the knees.

And you were warned about using the term "Tea Baggers".

And then you went and posted this:

joseph brand wrote: »

I'll just quote Father Ted. (Jack thinks like the Tea Baggers)

Don't post in this thread again.

Chuck Stone

Amerika wrote: »

Have I missed anything?

Yeah, you missed the bit where you created a thread, asked a question, and then went on to answer it yourself while having a rant.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

southsiderosie is correct. I apologize for my style.

I’ll take another shot at it.

The last four years haven’t been good for most Americans. What is President Obama promising, or what will he do differently, to improve the economy and jobs in order to warrant a second term?

Your Thesis statement there has a pretty glaring problem, prefacing that the last 4 years haven't been good for most Americans. In what way haven't they been good? Are we talking about 50.01% Unemployment? 50.01% Poverty rate? 50.01% tax rate on the wealthiest Americans? I mean, we just kicked ass at the Olympics, we completed some foreign policy objectives (quite a few in fact), I'm not sure what you are basing that statement on.

Reindeer

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, not a problem, I also think it is a fair question… but I expect you going forward to defend the use of "whataboutery" tactics, and the I]insert your favorite expletive[/I charges that go along with it that are usually thrown my way by the numerous detractors of mine when I do it… Deal?

I feel Mitt Romney’s economic plan is the best to create jobs, restore economic growth, and return us to our tradition of economic freedom. These include: Reduce marginal tax rates on business and wage incomes and broaden the tax base to increase investment, jobs, and living standards. End the exploding federal debt by controlling the growth of spending so federal spending does not exceed 20 percent of the economy. Restructure regulation to end "too big to fail," improve credit availability to entrepreneurs and small businesses, and increase regulatory accountability, and ensure that all regulations pass rigorous benefit-cost tests. Improve our Social Security and Medicare programs by reducing their growth to sustainable levels, ensuring their viability over the long term, and protecting those in or near retirement. Reform our healthcare system to harness market forces and thereby reduce costs and increase quality, empowering patients and doctors, rather than the federal bureaucracy. Promote energy policies that increase domestic production, enlarge the use of all western hemisphere resources, encourage the use of new technologies, end wasteful subsidies, and rely more on market forces and less on government planners.

But this topic is primarily about what Obama offers... Not Romney... OKAY!

What I see in there is a lot of de-regulation. Do you think the private sector can regulate itself when it has no one to answer to but themselves? How has that worked for us lately? How has it worked for Europe lately? This seems to be in contrast to what Obama is maintaining.

Then there's the tax thing. In order to reduce taxes and cut the deficits, there has to be a lot of government cutting going on. I don't think Romney has enough capital hill clout to pass a small fraction of his government gutting platform. But, then again, that's how presidential elections often work. You make promises, then blame congress later on. In other words, you would have to be delusional to believe what you just wrote has a remote chance of coming to fruition. I'm not impressed with that rhetoric. I think Obama has a chance of raising capital gains taxes. I'm not impressed at all with Romney wanting to maintain capital gains right where they are, either. And I think Obama has a better record of reducing middle class tax burdens than Romneys words and actions do. The current tax system still punishes the middle class and the working wealthy that receive their income outside of investments. Continuing the status quo shows where Romney's heart is - and that is not with the average American. Romney is plainly stating that the rich deserve to pay a smaller percentage of taxes than the middle class. How does that make this middle class American feel about Romney's attitude towards me?

Speaking of deregulation, Romney wants to all but dismantle the EPA and USDA - and would do if not for the fact he needs the EPA to be his stamp puppet for future environmental rape. He won't likely accomplish this, but his actions and words show he cares more for profits than quality of life. Yes, I would argue maintaining the environment directly affects ones quality of life. I think Obama expects to keep these two agencies and work with them to find a solution to our energy and trade problems. Romney has no such plans.

Regulation costs money. I won't argue that. But lack of regulation causes recessions and implosions and environmental catastrophes. It always has, and it always will.

How is Romney going to reduce the national debt if he is going to increase the military significantly and decrease taxes significantly - two very large factors contributing to the national debt?

Obama isn't perfect, and I didn't, and I won't vote for him. But Romney is more of the same from the old GOP guard. Romney is making promises even Amerika knows he can't keep. The 'Tea Party' had a good run right up until FDR. But I can't help but to suspect the best route to the future is not to repeal 80 years of American politics and history with outdated and anti-social policies that have been shown to be dangerous. Obama may not be a rock, but he's been working towards the goals he's set. Romney changes his stance depending on what he thinks we want to hear. I know some of his siren song is addictive, but I don't feel the reality will be as sweet. I'm just not sold on Romney.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

"I wound down down 2 wars and killed bin laden (with my bare hands). Other than that there’s not much I can do. But look at the good side, we’re not at war with Pakistan."

Sorry, but that kind of platform doesn’t send tingles up my leg.

What a surprise that you have jumped on this latest soundbite :rolleyes:

To answer the question, i hope he continues the work he has done so far, things were really tough for me and friends when Obama took office when the country was in a dire situation and over the past few years everybody has made great strides, things have greatly improved.
Obviously there are problems and the economy is still very volatile.

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

To answer the question, i hope he continues the work he has done so far, things were really tough for me and friends when Obama took office when the country was in a dire situation and over the past few years everybody has made great strides, things have greatly improved.
Obviously there are problems and the economy is still very volatile.

Then I guess you’re one of the 40% right now who would answer in the affirmative when the question is asked (which has always been asked each election since Reagan beat Carter): "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" (I believe that would also answer Overheal’s question)

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Then I guess you’re one of the 40% right now who would answer in the affirmative when the question is asked (which has always been asked each election since Reagan beat Carter): "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" (I believe that would also answer Overheal’s question)

a little unfair to the topic at hand, imo, but I'll answer your attempt at evasion, and then put you right back on my question to your original fallacious statement:

Yes I am better off. Which wasn't hard to do, given that I was unemployed during the election cycle of 2008. I also had a Learners permit. Now I have a car. I have a steady job and am enrolled in Community College with an awarded Pell grant. I've also lost a shedload of body fat, though I can't say "weight", owing too much respect to Physics. Consequently, I get a lot more attention from the feminine persuasion, but Obama didn't have anything to do with that.

Back to your statement though, it's difficult to say most Americans are worse off, unless you have something empirical to support that argument. You would at least have to base it on something to give such a vague statement a reasonably focused perspective. For instance, you can start with what poll you grabbed that 40% figure from, but I think it's fair to look for more than a couple of sources on this.

I don't believe my answer fulfills this question at all: I am one among +/- 311,591,917 (Jul 2011) people living in the United States. Again, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that just because I am personally better off that I must assume that "surely", most other people are doing the same as me. The same would hold true if I answered the question negatively.

MadsL

Overheal wrote: »

Yes I am better off. Which wasn't hard to do, given that I was unemployed during the election cycle of 2008. I also had a Learners permit. Now I have a car. I have a steady job and am enrolled in Community College with an awarded Pell grant. I've also lost a shedload of body fat, though I can't say "weight", owing too much respect to Physics. Consequently, I get a lot more attention from the feminine persuasion, but Obama didn't have anything to do with that.

Can't resist flippant comment, ignore all below...

Rather than ask the question "Am I better off" how about "Who would you choose as your wingman?"

Can't help thinking Obama would have your back, whilst Romney would be jumping in trying to score...amirite?

Memnoch

The biggest thing Obama can do in a second term is stop the decline of middle America by stopping the GOP's goals of doing everything they can to help the rich get even richer at the expense of ordinary people.

joseph brand

Memnoch wrote: »

The biggest thing Obama can do in a second term is stop the decline of middle America by stopping the GOP's goals of doing everything they can to help the rich get even richer at the expense of ordinary people.

The Buffet Rule. For a start.

If enacted, the rule change would result in $36.7 billion per year in additional tax revenue, according to a January 2012 analysis by the Tax Foundation, a pro-market think tank.

It only impacts 0.3% of voters. What has a president to lose by enacting it? It's not exactly a big voting bloc.

One other thing I'd like to see him do is avoid any Bush wars. It costs a LOT of money, many civilians die and the soldiers who go overseas to get their arms and legs blown off or die, are from poorer families. The rich don't send their children. Mitt was in Paris, sipping wine 7up and Bush went AWOL for Vietnam.

System of a Down have a song about sending the poor. (Iraq war) Never thought I'd be able to plug this band in a politics thread.

joseph brand

MadsL wrote: »

Can't resist flippant comment, ignore all below...

Rather than ask the question "Am I better off" how about "Who would you choose as your wingman?"

Can't help thinking Obama would have your back, whilst Romney would be jumping in trying to score...amirite?

Hmmmm. Interesting question. Perhaps worthy of it's own thread.

Obama would make an excellent wing man. He'd hook you up. He's knows plenty of women. Remember when he sang Al Green? What woman could resist?

Romney on the other hand. He's an awkward mormon. His massive head would be a distraction, as he stood beside you in a club drinking water because there's no alcohol in it, and it's so cheap it's free. Plus, women don't like to hear about the height of trees in different States. :pac:

Duck Soup

Of course, everything is contingent on the make up of the House of Representatives and the Senate after the election.

In a second term, Obama would implement the Affordable Care Act and work with individual states to finance it. I'd also make a risky prediction - in much the same way that many Republican senators and congressmen railed against the stimulus, saying it wouldn't create jobs, and then asked for money on the sly, saying it would create jobs (*coughPaulRyancough*), once the ACA is in place, it will prove as popular elsewhere as it has in Massachusetts as Romneycare and states will be only to keen to have it.

Obama would also get the Dodd Frank Act implemented and there would be much more oversight of financial services.

The Consumer Protection Agency would gain much more influence - despite Republicans having basically bullied the Obama administration out of having Elizabeth Warren heading it - and there would be greater transparency and information for consumers.

He would maintain the Bush-era tax cuts for lower income earners, while letting them lapse for high income earners.

On the other hand...

Romney would repeal Obamacare and millions would lose the chance of health coverage. He would restore the 'cuts' in Medicare - which came 100% out of the providers and left beneficiaries untouched - thereby handing $716bn back to health insurers and drug companies.

Romney would repeal the Dodd Frank Act, and all attendant restrictions and oversights, thereby allowing the financial services industry to play fast and loose with trillions of dollars, safe in the knowledge that the US taxpayer will reimburse them.

He would kill or weaken the Consumer Protection Agency to such an extent that any hope of consumers being given clearer and more comprehensive information disappears. Good for corporations, not so good for customers.

He would cut corporation tax and, as soon as viable, cut income tax further for high earners. Paul Ryan says this would magically pay for itself; most economists say it would blow a hole a mile wide in the annual deficit.

Clear enough choices. Be careful what you wish for.

K-9

joseph brand wrote: »

Hmmmm. Interesting question. Perhaps worthy of it's own thread.

Obama would make an excellent wing man. He'd hook you up. He's knows plenty of women. Remember when he sang Al Green? What woman could resist?

Romney on the other hand. He's an awkward mormon. His massive head would be a distraction, as he stood beside you in a club drinking water because there's no alcohol in it, and it's so cheap it's free. Plus, women don't like to hear about the height of trees in different States. :pac:

You were warned by a mod to stop posting on this thread as you derailed it. 7 day ban for ignoring an on thread instruction.

Amerika

Duck Soup wrote: »

Of course, everything is contingent on the make up of the House of Representatives and the Senate after the election.

In a second term, Obama would implement the Affordable Care Act and work with individual states to finance it. I'd also make a risky prediction - in much the same way that many Republican senators and congressmen railed against the stimulus, saying it wouldn't create jobs, and then asked for money on the sly, saying it would create jobs (*coughPaulRyancough*), once the ACA is in place, it will prove as popular elsewhere as it has in Massachusetts as Romneycare and states will be only to keen to have it.

Obama would also get the Dodd Frank Act implemented and there would be much more oversight of financial services.

The Consumer Protection Agency would gain much more influence - despite Republicans having basically bullied the Obama administration out of having Elizabeth Warren heading it - and there would be greater transparency and information for consumers.

He would maintain the Bush-era tax cuts for lower income earners, while letting them lapse for high income earners.

Thank you! Finally at 29 posts someone presents some things that President Obama has indicated he will do in a second term to warrant reelection… other than the obligatory "tax the rich" and vague personal "hope he does this" ideas. It’s interesting how this thread mirrors the election here. Little on what Barack Obama has and would do… and lots of bashing Mitt Romney.

The ACA isn’t anything new at this point. It would just be execution going forward, right? And has he promised to implement the Dodd Frank Act, or is it also something that will happen because it became law in 2010? Has he promised that the Consumer Protection Agency would gain much more influence, and has he promised to maintain the Bush-era tax cuts for lower income earners, while letting them lapse for high income earners… or are these just more hope he does it type of things?

Duck Soup

Amerika wrote: »

Thank you! Finally at 29 posts someone presents some things that President Obama has indicated he will do in a second term to warrant reelection… other than the obligatory "tax the rich" and vague personal "hope he does this" ideas. It’s interesting how this thread mirrors the election here. Little on what Barack Obama has and would do… and lots of bashing Mitt Romney.

The ACA isn’t anything new at this point. It would just be execution going forward, right? And has he promised to implement the Dodd Frank Act, or is it also something that will happen because it became law in 2010? Has he promised that the Consumer Protection Agency would gain much more influence, and has he promised to maintain the Bush-era tax cuts for lower income earners, while letting them lapse for high income earners… or are these just more hope he does it type of things?

The main provisions of the Affordable Care Act kick in in 2014. This is to give both states and healthcare providers enough time to adapt to the new regulations. All the heavy lifting will be done 2014 - 2016; if it had been introduced all at once, the healthcare market would have been screaming blue murder and his opponents would have joined in.

Same with Dodd Frank Act. By way of comparison, the new British laws concerning financial services - notably separating out speculative investment banking and high street banking - kick in 2019. You can't change everything all at once in something as complicated as banking or there will be chaos.

The Consumer Protection Agency has been blocked at every turn - blocking Elizabeth Warren's nomination to it for example - by Republicans but it's up and running. Interestingly, there's a separate Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. One its main aims is to simplify and clarify financial products. Why would a free marketeer object to that?

Taxes are more straightforward. If he has the votes to do it, the tax code can be changed as soon as it passes congress. You either believe that a wealthier middle class is the starting point for a healthy economy (trickle-up economics, if you like) or that the rich (a.k.a job creators) are the key and wealth 'trickles down'.

Clear enough choices. What Obama is attempting over two terms is major stuff. You either go with that, or go with Romney's idea of binning all the changes and reverting back to the way things were in the Bush era.

UNI4MER

Reindeer wrote: »

What will Romney accomplish for the average American?

It's so simple. Adopt the same economic plan as former President Reagan which really was a no brainer-reduce taxes and encourage growth in the private sector which resulted in the largest growth period in modern US history. Most in Europe have gotten away from capitalism and adopted socialism where the results are so obvious. It is time to remember that government has never been the solution and should get out of the way of commerce.

asherbassad

Amerika wrote: »

Mostly just more of the same old - same old it sounds like. Four more years of what we've just gone through!

Now I know President Obama plans on taxing the rich to pay for more government investment. Yippie… higher taxes and greater spending.

And he has said that the most important policy he could address in his second term is climate change. Looks like more regulatory apparatus to go around Congress.

As for everything else... I guess what Obama cannot accomplish with regulation, he will attempt to get through via executive order, as he has done recently.

Have I missed anything?

He's not going to do anything if he gets a second term. And Romney's not going to do anything either if he gets a first term. Are you still conned by this illusion of elections that keeps you distracted from what the corporations and banks and finance houses will be doing?
Like any legislation is going to be passed in the next 4 years.

Are you for real?

asherbassad

Overheal wrote: »

to play devils advocate, he did already wind up 2 foreign wars and kill bin laden. I don't feel like either would have happened under our other options. I feel like we'd have been more likely to be in a war with Pakistan right now.

The funny thing about promises though by politicians is their fallacious for the most part: A president can't really promises to change taxes, that power lies with the Legislative Branch. He can sign and he can veto. That's the bulk of it.

Really? When did this happen?
US troops are still in Iraq although they're holed up in the Green Zone and can't walk the streets.
10's of thousands of US troops still fighting and dying in Afghanistan with no end in sight.
As for killing Bin Laden, that man died in 2001.

What next? You're going to say that Obama closed Guantanamo just like he promised? :pac:

Overheal

asherbassad wrote: »

As for killing Bin Laden, that man died in 2001.

Your Conspiracy Theories belong elsewhere.

UNI4MER

asherbassad wrote: »

He's not going to do anything if he gets a second term. And Romney's not going to do anything either if he gets a first term. Are you still conned by this illusion of elections that keeps you distracted from what the corporations and banks and finance houses will be doing?
Like any legislation is going to be passed in the next 4 years.

Are you for real?

If BO stays you are right as he is destined to ruin capitalism here and turn us into Greece as he is a Marxist. No way with Romney as there is way to much to lose for the private sector and most Americans who, by the way and despite what you hear in our media, are conservatives.

asherbassad

Overheal wrote: »

Your Conspiracy Theories belong elsewhere.

Really?

Just going along with your "fair and balanced" portal:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

But I'll tell you what, don't search for a conspiracy when human nature, incompetence and stupidity will provide a perfectly plausible explanation.

There's no need.

asherbassad

UNI4MER wrote: »

If BO stays you are right as he is destined to ruin capitalism here and turn us into Greece as he is a Marxist. No way with Romney as there is way to much to lose for the private sector and most Americans who, by the way and despite what you hear in our media, are conservatives.

A Marxist?
Are you familiar with the four factors of production? Have you a clue what Marxism is?
Or Keynesiasm? Or Mallthusian economic logic? Or do you just puke out these platitudes?

I am of the firm belief that you couldn't tell the difference between Marxism and Botulism.

But, I'll simplify things....which of Obama's policies are Marxist? What tenet has he advocated that is Marxist? Because I don't know of one.

I'm missing many of his speeches, obviously.

Wompa1

I think Obama will try and see through his Obamacare craic. Which without him likely won't happen.

I'd bet he'll send troops into Syria and possibly Iran by the end of his second term.

He'll raise taxes on the top earners but I don't think it will be a huge increase.

In hindights it's a shame McCain and Lieberman didn't run together. I voted for Obama but only because I was terrified of Sarah Pailin getting in. I most likely won't vote in November. I don't like Obama much but don't like Romney either.

Overheal

asherbassad wrote: »

Really?

Just going along with your "fair and balanced" portal:

:pac: you must be new here.


and an article from 2001? Right.