Thank You, America. - by Nicker
Gryzemuis on 7/11/2012 at 09:50
Congratulatons.
Bronco Bama is far from being an ideal president. But if Romney would have made president, you'd be in for another 4 bad years like the Bush years. Neocon foreign policy, more wars (Iran), and no improvement in the economy. And probably a few more bad surprises. The bad thing about Obama is that his financial/economic team are just a bunch of lapdogs from Goldman Sachs. But I doubt Romney would be more tough on financial institutions.
I think economic problems in the US, and in Europe, are not caused by "the economy". In other words: how hard people work, how much is produced, how much innovation there was, etc. But solely by how the money has been handled. Mortgages, savings, pensions, investments, Greece's financing of it's deficit (thanks, Goldman Sachs!), etc. So the major thing that needs to change is to kick banks and the financial sector down to the ground, and stop them skimming all profits and progress that "the real world" makes. I doubt Romney would have done that. Unfortunately I am also sure that Obama wouldn't do it.
Let's hope Obama can realize more of his promises.
ChaozFlame on 7/11/2012 at 10:00
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
Let's hope Obama can realize more of his promises.
(
http://www.cracked.com/article_20134_8-election-myths-you-probably-believe.html) Number 8
For instance, during the 2008 campaign, Obama made 508 distinct promises for his term in office. As of right now, he's successfully followed through on 193 of those promises. That sounds a little low, but you have to take into account the fact that "president" doesn't mean "dictator." A president can't just do anything he wants -- he has to work with Congress, and because Congress isn't exclusively populated by Obama's friends, it means that he needs to compromise. Which he did, on another 79 of those promises. Another 44 have stalled, while 102 are still "in the works." Add all that up, and you'll see that Obama at least made the effort to fulfill some 418 of his 508 campaign promises. Nearly half of those efforts have, so far, been successful.
Romney lost, that's all I really care about.
DDL on 7/11/2012 at 10:02
Quote Posted by Peanuckle
his policies supremely favor the worker while screwing the employer. It's incredibly risky and expensive to hire someone already, and you can bet that people will get more "protections" that really just prevent them from getting jobs.
To be fair, there are a fuckton more workers than there are employers, so policies that favour "screwing the workers" are going to win fewer voters than policies that favour "screwing the employers". :p
There seems to be a fiercely independent libertarian-esque streak to both your and Nuth's posts, the "AIN'T NO GUBMINT STOPPIN' ME WINNING" attitude that views government as nothing but an interfering busy body that takes all your money and stamps on free enterprise. While this is perhaps understandable, it's also shortsighted. You are where you are today
because of government: education programs, drinking water on tap, power-supply frameworks, policing, etc. All of these are publicly funded things that let you thrive in a rich, safe, healthy environment. It is government support that has
allowed you to be where you are today, decrying government support. Government is not always
great, and is often actually pretty awful, but it does
work, and you, me and everyone else are evidence of this fact.
Sure, you could demand that the government stop interfering in your life and just let you rise to enormous success as the awesome person you are, but that willfully ignores the role government has already had in putting you here, and neglects to consider the fact that not everyone is an awesome person destined for enormous success. (Or maybe you DO consider that fact, and just don't care? In which case that's
worse) For every great success, there will by definition be losers. Often lots and lots of losers.
Lone wolf-style fiercely independent strategies can and do work, certainly, but at huge cost to all those who are not clever enough, strong enough, are not raised under the right conditions, and are not plain lucky enough to thrive.
Personally, I would tend to favour policies that make the world "less awesome than it could be" for the few, but "more awesome than it currently is" for the many. Not least because statistically one is more likely to be in the latter category, but also because it just seems like the decent human thing to aim for. We're a social species, after all. It would be nice to live in a world where we
can excel if we're driven and lucky enough, but where we also have the comfort of a reliable safety net should we fail. If the cost of that is higher taxes, then hell: higher taxes it is.
Now Obama and the current democratic platform are not exactly that, but jesus: compared to
anything on the republican side they're lightyears ahead.
Azaran on 7/11/2012 at 10:03
Quote Posted by heywood
One thing I've never really understood is why non-Americans have been so interested in this particular election cycle. It's not like there were significant differences between Obama and Romney with regards to foreign policy.
Obama is much less likely to go out and start new wars. Romney was itching to attack Iran, and if he won Israel would probably jump at the opportunity the first day, knowing they'd get his support.
Muzman on 7/11/2012 at 10:04
Quote Posted by heywood
One thing I've never really understood is why non-Americans have been so interested in this particular election cycle. It's not like there were significant differences between Obama and Romney with regards to foreign policy.
Ultimately probably not. But Romney makes more sabre rattling noises to please his base. Obama makes more diplomatic ones to please his. This difference represents a chasm in international relations, even if the policies are effectively the same. Obama is actually (relatively) popular with Muslim youth in the middle east and africa.
Anyway; The pain of a squillion neo-cons makes this great for me (shameful joy notwithstanding). At least initially. After a while it'll get tiresome to hear the same bad psych and economics all the while and...oh it's here already.
DDL on 7/11/2012 at 10:12
Plus more generally, Obama seems to "get" the rest of the world. Or at least, a hell of a lot more than Romney does. When you're looking at a nation as powerful and war-happy as the US, the rest of the world would prefer a leader that seems to weigh up the concerns of the world as well as the concerns of their own nation.
Azaran on 7/11/2012 at 10:17
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
The weird thing in the US is that Republicans keep calling the Democrats "socialists". They are not. Both parties are right-wing, in the opinion of the rest of the world. You have absolutely nothing in the US that resembles socialism. The Democrats are far-right-wing, and the Republicans are extreme-right-wing, with an even larger dose of (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessionalism_%28politics%29#Netherlands) Confessionalism. The problem with the Republican economical strategy is that 1) trickle-down-economics doesn't work, and 2) they only say they want smaller government, but they increase government and spending more than the Democrats ever did, 3) in the end they only serve the military-industrial complex, fuck over the majority of their own voters. But the voters don't seem to care, as long as they keep their guns. It's weird.
This.
They complain about spending, but they don't mind if it goes to buy bombs or to fund the military ($1 trillion in Iraq, if I remember correctly). But free healthcare or education (which they
could afford to provide with all the money they throw away)? Never, that's Communism!
jay pettitt on 7/11/2012 at 11:08
phew.
Nicker on 7/11/2012 at 11:43
Quote Posted by heywood
One thing I've never really understood is why non-Americans have been so interested in this particular election cycle. It's not like there were significant differences between Obama and Romney with regards to foreign policy.
To quote Canadian ex-Prime Minister Supreme, Pierre Trudeau, "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."
Plus it's been on heavy rotation for weeks. Unavoidable in fact. And it goes on forever. It seems like three years of campaigning for every one year of government. It's like a frame by frame train wreck.
But mostly it was wondering if you'd really put a Mormon in charge of the big red button.
