This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Please post your response to post 1 here. Please be specific in your praise or criticism of your classmate's post. Please state who you are responding to. If you use or refer to sources please be sure to cite them in your post.
posted by Ms. Aby @ 9:09 AM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
35 Comments:
@Matt K
I think that many of the reasons that you oppose Bachmann are also reasons that you shouldn’t be excited about Ron Paul. In fact, I feel like Ron Raul is the crazier of the two and has and even looser grip on “the economy in the modern world.” You cite yourself Paul’s desire to abolish the IRS and completely eliminate the income tax. He goes on to say that he would do away with the corporate gains and death taxes, the entire Federal Reserve System, the gas tax and any unbalanced budgets [1]. All of his policies are prime examples of the Austrian school of economics [3], which basically means that he favors less government involvement, less inflation and therefore a more stable economy. However, Austrian economics and Ron Paul’s policies are doomed to fail. First, Ron Paul’s tax cuts will only lead to less money circulating around the system, leading to less growth. The reason for this is that people will save their money, which means less money spent on goods and services, which are necessary to create demand for jobs [2]. Additionally, Paul is willing to forgo history in order to support his theories- multiple depressions in the United States and around the world have been made worse by cutting taxes when growth is needed [2]. I know that your response will be that you don’t support his economic policy, I am merely pointing out that his economic policies are much more wrong that Bachmann’s. The article that you cite about her rejection of the minimum wage is taken out of context- she has clarified her position to show that she wants to restructure minimum wage, not abolish it [4]. The article that you claim shows her “little to no experience in conservative economic theory” is written by a self-proclaimed Marxist who makes unsubstantiated claims and fails to realize that every other conservative in the race (besides Ron Paul) agrees with her view on Keynesian economics [3].
However, I know what you truly want to discuss is foreign policy, so let’s transition that way. I believe that Ron Paul’s foreign policy, especially with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan, seems to be in support of a more limited, specific counter terror strategy [5]. I believe that this strategy is ultimately doomed to fail and will ultimately lead to more foreign involvement for a couple of reasons. First, a strategy that relies heavily on intelligence gathering and limited strikes, such as Paul’s, will ultimately run smack into the problem that the only way to gather information is from local villagers [6]. Michael O’Hanlon points out that terrorists don’t rely on cell phones and that most of the communication is by word of mouth. Therefore, in order to understand what the enemy is up to we need to win the hearts and minds of the people [6]. Unfortunately, airstrikes haven’t exactly inspired confidence among the local populations in the Middle East and Central Asia [7]. In fact, O’Hanlon argues that the only way to gain trust, and to therefore win the war through intelligence gathering, is to put boots on the ground [6]. It would therefore seem that if Ron Paul is right that we need better intelligence, he is certainly wrong that we can pull out all our troops and achieve that goal.
[1]http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/economy/
[2] http://www.tnr.com/article/john-judis/93287/obama-administration-economy-recession?page=0,0
[3] http://thisiscommonsense.com/?tag=austrian-school
[4] http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h0Dc8ZW7qr-vXnh-uyyusx6-StrQ?docId=882254e4f31144358d543ffba099c605
[5] http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/
[6] http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/riedel-counterterrorism-wont-work
[7] http://presstv.com/detail/197602.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
@Sam
I would like to preface what I am about to say by thanking you for writing about Jon Huntsman. It’s nice to see a post about someone other than Obama, Bachmann or Perry. That being said, I think that your hope that Huntsman will bring about some shift in conservative thinking is misplaced at best. Huntsman has appeared to take a more moderate approach to many policies, like global warming, as you point out. However, the question that we must ask is why Huntsman would argue that global warming is anthropogenic. I believe the reason for Huntsman’s statements regarding global warming is nothing more than a ploy to steal attention away from other Republican candidates, such as Rick Perry [1]. Most of his positions that you applaud don’t take much political courage to make. Anthropogenic global warming is supported by a huge consensus of scientific groups, including the prestigious National Academy of Science [2]. Compared to Ron Paul, who is willing to take on bi-partisan issues, Huntsman is using liberal ideas as fodder to gain national attention, something he sorely lacks, as evidenced by his low public support numbers [3]. Furthermore, Huntsman hasn’t laid out a single policy that he would implement to act on global warming [5], which seems to prove that his “campaign” against global warming is nothing more than a ploy. (Note: he came out for global warming in a tweet- that’s less than 140 characters of substance to go on [5]). That being said, Huntsman’s experience seems to be in foreign policy, not the environment. Does that mean that he will bring about a positive change in that area? I think not.
Huntsman likes to trump up his foreign policy experience, but I believe that there are several flaws in his reasoning in the international arena. First, look at Huntsman’s press release and subsequent interviews regarding the occupation of Afghanistan. Although Obama is planning to withdraw 100,000 troops by 2014, Huntsman believes that we should withdraw even more quickly [7]. This seems all well and good, until you realize that what is arguing for is questionably feasible. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen have all argued that going any faster ricks the safety of the troops and is hard to do, given the various bottlenecks that exist in withdrawing from a country [8]. Even Obama realized that it wasn’t feasible to withdraw one third of our troops in under a year, which is what Huntsman wants to do. Additionally, a rapid drawdown would strand our allies in Afghanistan, as they can’t pullout until 2014 [9]. Overall, it would appear that Huntsman’s plan for Afghanistan is nothing but high fluent political banter with no grounding in reality.
still @Sam
I think that it is highly ironic that the two policies of Bachmann’s that frustrate you are the War on Terror and healthcare. First, Huntsman believes just as heavily as Bachmann in “continuing the War on Terror.” Huntsman’s policy towards the war effort is to transition to a counter-terror policy, which would necessarily involve chasing terrorists around the globe [8]. To quote him, we need to “get serious about what needs to be done on the ground, not a counter-insurgency but a counter-terror effort.” As far as Huntsman’s policy on healthcare, he seems to believe just as much as Bachmann does in eliminating “Obamacare [4].” His policy initiated in Utah, may work in theory, but would most likely fail on the national level [4]. And although Bachmann does say some stupid things, I don’t think that alone is enough to condemn her. Just sayin.
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/why-the-press-loves-jon-huntsman-but-ignores-ron-paul/243910/
[2] http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
[3] http://www.economist.com/world/united-states
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/health/policy/24exchange.html
[5] http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/274977/jon-huntsman-global-warming-greg-pollowitz
[6] http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/175169-us-korea-trade-deal-is-bad-for-both-countries
[7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/12/jon-huntsman-obama-afghanistan-policy_n_875513.html
[8] http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2011/06/jon_huntsman_foreign_policy.html
[9] http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Obamas-plans-for-Afghanistan-06955/
@Rutger-
I’ll make this simple- I don’t think Rick Perry deserves the criticism you put upon him and Obama does not deserve the credit you give him. Let’s start with Perry. First, you attack his stance on climate change. The article that you cite indicates that Perry believes that scientists conflate their data and that the issue has become too politicized [1]. Taking his quote out of context doesn’t prove anything. The point that Perry is trying to make is that climate science is not precise, cannot deal with multiple factors and is inherently controversial. The group Intellectual Ventures backs up Perry’s claims: their own data shows that most climate models come to a consensus because the people that pay for the studies all want certain results, therefore models are produced that are “adjusted” to show that humans are responsible for global warming [2]. To put it in the words of Lowell Wood, astrophysicist and contributor to Intellectual Ventures, “The climate models are crude and space and they’re crude in time.” “Everyone turns their knobs so they aren’t the outlier, because being the outlying model is going to have difficulty getting funded [2].” I believe this is the point Perry is trying to make when he says that global warming is a “contrived phony mess”- that we don’t know what the truth is. He also points out that most of the laws that we attempt to create to curb global warming end up having a harmful impact, not only on our economy but on the environment as well. Take, for example, the cap and trade bill that the Obama administration tried to pass earlier in his term. That bill had no way of actually reducing emissions [3], yet it was labeled as a bill to stop climate change. It also would’ve raised energy prices at a time when energy prices are already ridiculously high [4]. Even if you disagree with this bill, it is this type of contorted legislation to counter climate change that Perry is campaigning against.
For the sake of everyone trying to read this I will skip over the next two points that you make, mostly because I believe they are fairly logical. That said, I believe that your attack of Perry’s “corruption” is grounded in a basic misunderstanding of the word. Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary defines corruption as “inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery)” [5]. That means that the only way that Perry can be corrupt is if he is doing something illegal as a result of the money he received from Merck. Because, let’s face it, they didn’t give him much money. Your own source says that 28,500 was given to the Perry administration [6]. This was a legal donation- interest groups and PAC’s are allowed to make donations to candidates. Put in the context of all the money Perry received over that same time period and Merck’s donation amounts to .000291% of his total donations [7]. He got over $100,000 from both healthcare providers and railroad manufacturers, yet he doesn’t promote high speed rail or universal healthcare [7]. The point is that Perry had no reason to propose the HPV vaccine mandate to get under $30,000. And, more importantly, he isn’t “corrupt” for doing so. He wasn’t “rightfully accused” “multiple times” of corruption for accepting “significant campaign contributions.” None of those statements are true. Your cites down back them up, and neither does the data.
[1] http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/17/nation/la-na-0818-perry-global-warming-20110818
[2] Superfreakonomics, published in 2009, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dunbar.
[3] http://www.rense.com/general86/captrade.htm
[4] http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/forecasts_trends/archive/2009/07/14/cap-and-trade-bad-for-the-economy-amp-us.aspx
[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corruption
[6] http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-perry-merck-campaign-cash-20110913,0,3068787.story?track=lat-pick
[7] http://info.tpj.org/reports/PerryJuly2011Update/Perry100kContributorsJuly2011.html
@A Elverson
I’ll get straight to the point- I don’t agree with your assessment of Romney’s standings in the polls, Romney’s jobs plan or his position on China. Starting with the polling data, we are presented with some unusual statistics. The Gallup poll that you cite in your first paragraph [1] says that the numbers it uses are in the context of Positive Intensity scores. Now I don’t know about you, but I had never heard of a Positive Intensity (PI) score, so I looked it up. PI is essentially just a measure of how many people are “strongly favorable” of a candidate, instead of “favorable” and “strongly favorable.” It is also in the context of people who recognize the candidate [2]. Additionally, there are several poll numbers from Gallup that show Romney isn’t doing as well. First, Perry has higher overall support [2] and would win the most “ballots” right now, according to Gallup [3]. Second, Perry has more support among the Tea Party, which makes him more likely to get the presidential nomination [4]. Last, it should be pointed out that Perry is rising just as fast in PI scores as Romney- on Sept. 6 Perry was at 25 and Romney 12, and as of the time of your poll they were at 29 and 16 respectfully, a four point jump each [2], [1]. Despite my opinion that polling data of favorability should persuade an individual in their support, I believe that the polling data doesn’t show Romney to be the rising star you portray him to be. That being said, let’s move on to Romney’s jobs plan. (Note: I skipped over T-Paw’s endorsement because T-Paw is a joke- even Jon Stewart knows it [5]).
I believe that Romney’s jobs plan will not only fail to create jobs, but will hurt the U.S. economy in the long run. You cite Day One, Jobs One as Romney’s jobs plan, which is partially true, but Romney has also pledged to do other things as part of his comprehensive job creation plan. The first part his plan is to cut the corporate tax, a move you deem will help in the short run. However, according to Robert Reich, chancellor's professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, corporations are turning profits and have little incentive to increase their number of hires due to the tax break [7]. Also, it’s important to point out that while tax breaks are designed to bring back companies to the U.S., companies don’t always need to have their factories in the U.S. to create jobs [8]. Thomas Friedman spells this out quite well in The World Is Flat, but essentially it all boils down to the fact that off shoring allows smart companies in the U.S. to produce products for lower prices, which allows them to sell for a higher profit. Offshoring also creates an increase in smart U.S. workers to figure out problems like efficient supply-chains, better product development, etc. Essentially, the U.S. is now a service run economy, and we should stop trying to fight it and just accept our fate, which will allow us to remain dominant into the 21st century [8].
still @A. Elverson
The second part of Romney’s jobs plan that is troubling is his insistence on pushing the Korean free trade agreement through Congress [6]. On the surface this looks to be a boon for the U.S. economy. However the Korean FTA is really just trouble waiting to erupt. The Korean FTA is unpopular with low –wage workers in both Korea and the U.S., creates incentives for multinational companies to clog the courts with reckless lawsuits and contains many provisions that helped start the financial crisis of ’08, such as allowing collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps [9]. All told, the Korean FTA reeks of policies from the Bush era that only contributed our most recent and painful financial meltdown.
The last part of your post that I wish to disagree with is your support of Romney’s plan to sanction China. Call me Ron Paul, but I believe that sanctions are bad foreign policy. First, they don’t punish the people we are attempting to punish [10]. The reason for this is that sanctions often make it harder for the lowest class, as they make I harder for them to get access to low prices goods. The rich, in turn, continue to live the good life, as they have connections and can get what they want [10]. The real trick isn’t to sanction China but to find a way to get them to buy our products. Otherwise, we cut ourselves out of a huge, growing market of potential consumers. Overall, sanctions are the wrong way to go. We should encourage innovation and continue our work with China to get a foothold in their markets.
[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/149423/Perry-Leads-Romney-Gaining-GOP-Favorability.aspx
[2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/149345/Perry-Romney-Equally-Liked-Perry-Stirs-Passion.aspx
[3] http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
[4] http://www.gallup.com/poll/149213/Tea-Party-Supporters-Backing-Perry-GOP-Nomination.aspx
[5] http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-14-2011/indecision-2012---second-republican-debate-is-a-success
[6] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/romney-promises-11-5-million-jobs-could-he-really-deliver/
[7] http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich-s-Blog/2011/0907/Mitt-Romney-s-jobs-plan
[8] The World Is Flat, by Thomas Friedman. Published 2005.
[9] http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/175169-us-korea-trade-deal-is-bad-for-both-countries
[10] http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7311
@Alison A.
(Note to the class- If you don’t want me to comment on your post, too bad. It will happen.)
Jon Huntsman. A man with little, if any, popular support. A candidate that received 69 votes in the Iowa Straw poll [1] and, amazingly, 2% of the vote in the California straw poll, a whole .2% higher than write-in candidates [2]. A man stuck so far in the middle of the road he can’t see the other side. Yet, yet, he still manages to rouse some sort of excitement in this class. People have expressed “elated” moods when they merely hear the name Jon Huntsman. There are those that are “intrigued” by him, and they particularly value the fact that he is rational. Now, call me crazy, but I think that Jon Huntsman is perhaps the most boring candidate in the race. However, if that’s what floats your boat, so be it. Let’s move on from his abysmally low polling numbers to his actual policies, and see if you still are elated by him when I’m done. First, you say he “understands Asia.” Now, I am going to have to assume you say this because he was the ambassador to China, but I don’t think his policies demonstrate any “understanding of Asia.” Huntsman is in favor of passing the Korean Free Trade Agreement, which would be severely detrimental not only to the U.S., as I describe in length in my response to A. Elverson, but would also be harmful to the average Korean. There have been “massive protests” by “a multitude of civic groups” in South Korea, as they perceive the bill as harmful to their ability to make a decent living [4]. In case you doubt the resolve of these people, by the way, you should check out this dude standing square in front of a fire hose to protest the Korean FTA [5]. Also, it’s all well and good to be impressed by Huntsman’s understanding of Asia, but perhaps he “understands” Asia too well. Consider that Huntsman’s statements in regard to China say little other than that he has “opened Asian markets to American businesses [7],” while reality shows that his own company, which has been offshored to China, is employing more and more Chinese workers [6]. I think that there is a fine line between understanding Asia and creating business for Asia, and I think Huntsman is at best precariously close to that line. As far as Huntsman’s policies in regards to various social issues: very well, that’s your opinion. No argument from me. Except I only question why you believe so strongly that Huntsman will bring about some sort of change? His website/blog doesn’t lay out anything in terms of something even remotely resembling policy when it comes to gay rights, global warming and evolution, but he says that he has passed legislation to limit abortion and is a firm believer in the right to bear all sorts of firearms [8]. It seems to me that Huntsman says what he needs to get you on board, but won’t actually follow through. Just a thought.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/13/michele-bachmann-iowa-straw-poll-results_n_926273.html
[2] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/ron-paul-rick-wins-perry-mitt-romney-california-straw-poll-bachmann-.html
[3] http://www.jon2012.com/blog/Tags/Economy
[4] http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/175169-us-korea-trade-deal-is-bad-for-both-countries
[5] http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=423024
[6] http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_27/b4235031334703.htm
[7] http://www.jon2012.com/blog/Tags/China
[8] http://jon2012.com/blog/Tags/Values
@Andrew C.
I do not feel that Rick Perry is anywhere near as good a presidential candidate as you make him out to be. Rick Perry touts the number of jobs he has added to Texas recently, but these jobs simply are not lifting people out of poverty. The Texas poverty rate, according to a recent study, is above the U.S. poverty rate- and rising faster(1). Almost 10% of Texan jobs are low-wage, and more than a half-million Texan workers are earning less than the minimum wage(1). Adding jobs notwithstanding, Rick Perry has not improved the Texan economy in any significant way, shape, or form. When you state that Perry has given money to education, you are probably using significantly outdated figures. Public schools were Perry's priority- back in 2006. Within the past year, Perry has left Texas schools underfunded by $4 billion(2). Perry's position on Social Security sounds more like waffling to me than a concrete policy with the nation's best interests at heart. Furthermore, Rick Perry's Social Security positions are along the same lines as the Bush Social Security reform positions that were thoroughly defeated back in 2005(3). Ass for government spending, Keynesian economic theory states that in times of recession, it is the duty of the government to spend what would be considered amazing sums of money to stimulate the economy. This is made up for by balancing the budget so as to decrease the federal debt during times of great profit. The U.S. government departed from this in the era of Reagan, obviously, but that was the mentality we used to get out of the Great Depression. It's what worked before. I'm not arguing that it is necessarily the best way, but there is precedent.
On the topic of Obama, I am in agreement with you that he has not often been effective. In my opinion though, that's certainly not for a lack of trying. You make it sound as if Obama has not been compromising at all, instead preferring to blame Republicans for not voting his agenda. This is far from the case. Obama in recent news has been trying to draw a harder line. He is departing from his previous policy of being the extremely willing to compromise "reasonable adult," as over the past year of Republican House control it has proved less than effective(4). As a last thought, you state that taxing the rich is distorting the American Dream. Here's my thoughts on the subject: $5 million dollars is a lot of money for the likes of you or I. $4.5 million, $4 million, or $3.5 million is also a lot of money. At a certain point, there is just so much wealth that there is little difference when seen from the level of the common people. I believe that people do have a right to be filthy rich if they earn it. I also believe that if people have enough money, it does not matter if they are taxed a bit more or not, they're still filthy rich. A tax on everybody can be hard to justify. But I feel that a tax on the extremely wealthy is much easier to justify. Besides, when Warren Buffett tells the government he isn't giving them enough money, they should take him up on his suggestions(5)!
(1) http://www.cppp.org/files/091311_PovertyDay_PolicyPage.pdf
(2) http://www.texasobserver.org/floor-play/layoffs-and-cutbacks-rick-perrys-2011-education-record
(3) http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/09/electability-and-social-security
(4) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/politics/obama-vows-veto-if-deficit-plan-has-no-tax-increases.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp
(5) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
Hi Maize-maize! I am responding to Kevin O’Connor’s post about Ron Paul and Rick Perry. First, to respond to “Obama has not done anything resembling well in office,” I would like to draw to attention to just yesterday, the implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. (1) Not to mention the attempted (only attempted because of Republican blockage, so the blame can’t really fall to him on that) passage of universal healthcare and ratifying the strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia. Next, to respond to the support of Ron Paul’s positions: “Some of his positions, such as his noninterventionist foreign policy I find quite good”. I would argue that this puts America in quite a tricky spot. You may be right that we shouldn’t be in Iraq or Afghanistan, however that is a very narrow view of our foreign policies and our job as the world’s ‘police officer’. The troops that we have overseas are absolutely essential to our nation’s economy. (2) Also, the policies you’re referring to that would involve “abolishing the Fed, restoring the country to the gold standard, and outlawing income tax, among other things” seem absurd to me. I spent a fair amount of time on Ronpaul.com that I will never get back searching for his proposed alternative to the Fed but there doesn’t appear to be one. He can complain about the problems and conspiracies of the Fed all he wants but I don’t think complaints are true qualifications for a good presidential candidate. Not only that, but the gold standard is just not feasible at this point in our economy. Also abolishing income tax makes virtually no sense. On his own website, he makes this claim: “I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.” You’re doing your math correctly, Mr. Paul, however you are making 45% of our national revenue sound like nothing. I need to say no more on the ridiculousness of that statement so I’ll leave it at that. (3)
However, I agree with most of your comments on Rick Perry. It definitely seems true that he is taking advantage of being governor of Texas during an oil boom to boost his economic “track record,” especially at the point where it has been said that he is not doing as well as the two Governors before him. I also definitely do not think that he could win the nomination. He is currently losing support, especially from the key conservative voters. (4) When conservatives are criticizing the way you put corporations ahead of the public interest in your own campaign, you know the Republican nomination is getting farther and farther away. He was even called a “cowboy corporatist” by a conservative in the “Washington Examiner”. It is pretty apparent that the money from Merck was the reason he supported the HPV vaccine. A poor candidate is certainly one who can be bought for $6,000. Come on, Rick Perry.
1. http://www.wbez.org/story/2011-09-20/repeal-day-marks-end-dont-ask-dont-tell-92254
2. http://www.businessinsider.com/america-world-police-2011-8
3. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/taxes/
4. http://www.thenation.com/blog/162863/conservative-criticism-rick-perry-corporate-cronyism
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
@Justin Hendricks
First I will begin by saying that I agree with you that electing Michele Bachmann to the presidency would be detrimental to our nation’s future. However, I do not think that the biggest concern with her policy lies within education cuts. The education reforms that Bachmann refers to are specific to eliminating or severely reducing the Department of Education. Basically, Bachmann wants to place education back in the hands of the states, citing the 10th Amendment in her reasoning. (1) The fact is, America’s educational standing on a global scale has significantly decreased, and a drastic change IS necessary. This is not to advocate the elimination of the Department of Education, but Bachmann at least is committed to making such a change (the other candidates rarely mention their position on this issue). In fact, out of all the candidates, Michele Bachmann has had the most experience with the policies of education (this was actually her primary reason for entering into politics) (2). So, if you would like to keep Obama on the simple premise that he has the most experience, then you should also favor Bachmann in the field of education.
I agree with Bachman’s general idea of “reducing government spending,” however I agree with you that this is not the time to do it. I believe that one of the largest issues at hand is the decline in consumer confidence. We are caught in a vicious cycle: consumers are trying to cut all unnecessary expenditures, which forces producers to cut excess spending as well….in the form of jobs (3). The unemployment rate continues to rise and a policy that basically allows consumers and producers to fend for themselves will not spur on economic recovery; it will further decrease consumer confidence.
Second, I disagree with your broad analysis of Obama’s success as president. Obama is not the only individual with the credentials to handle a crisis. You refer specifically to Obama’s “Job Creations Act”, his healthcare bill, and Cash for Clunkers. Obama’s Jobs Act has not been enacted to date, so the success of this program cannot be assumed. Although the Jobs Act outlines ways to decrease the unemployment rate and to improve economic conditions, there is no guarantee the act will even pass. Additionally, the Jobs Act is estimated to cost $447 billion. Amidst Obama’s promises that the act will be fully paid for, there is a significant threat that the legislation will be broken up into smaller, passable portions (4). Dividing the act will ensure that certain parts are left out, and Republicans are eager to change Obama’s ideas on how to foot the bill. It appears that the Jobs Act is heading into the same situation that the Healthcare Bill faced.
Obama’s Healthcare Bill is no longer economically beneficial. Currently, Obama is working towards reducing the costs of the Affordable Care Act, by refraining from the implementation of portions of it (5). As more individuals depend on this healthcare plan, the costs will have to be dealt with. Obama’s solution of cutting back on the actual program is worrisome (the political capital that Obama used to pass the bill will be wasted); his original promises of “change” are being watered down. Yes, Obama managed to implement several important changes through his presidency, but this does not automatically make him the best choice for 2012. People are too focused on the IDEAS that Obama has, without looking back after the fact to analyze and quantify the success of the plans.
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/05/michele-bachmann-prepared_n_949691.html
2. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2094336,00.html
3. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-09-22/u-s-economy-consumer-sentiment-is-lowest-since-recession.html
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/obama-jobs-plan-speech_n_954657.html
5. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/22/obama-pulls-back-part-affordable-care-act/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
@ Rutger
First off, I have difference in opinion regarding the statement that “Rick Perry, [is] a candidate of an almost equal amount of insanity [to Michele Bachman]”. Frankly, that’s not even remotely possible-no human being is capable of this level of insanity(OK Sarah Palin is but she is not running for president). Perry’s belief that climate change is nonexistent is ultimately irrelevant. The truth is, the most important issues surrounding the 2012 election are things like education, the economy and foreign relation. In fact, climate change does not even make the top six issues of the election (1). Regardless of your personal priorities, climate change is not a large enough issue to the immediate needs of the U.S. Granted, it will be a major concern in future years and I do find it tragic that it is not currently a major issue, but it does not matter right now. I think it is mildly amusing that you dislike Perry because he is a Republican. The point you brought up about his beliefs about abortion are not only his but they are pretty much staples in party beliefs. I realize that you stated this in your post, however, a much more direct, honest, and equally legitimate approach would have been to say that you did not like Perry because he is a Republican. The fact that he is willing to compromise and make it so potential mothers learn the risks of abortion shows how comparatively progressive he is considering traditional party views.
Seeing as many people I personally have spoken to seem intent on condemning Obama’s presidency as ineffective and that he has no good reason to even attempt to get reelected (many of these individuals, however, fail to support their claims and I generally disregard their opinions), I am pleased to see your enthusiastic albeit overly idealistic support of him. You brought up several points I must contest the first of which is the support of space exploration despite the fact that I too find the topic appealing. Sure, it’s a valid point to get excited about, but is it pertinent to our immediate state of affairs? No, as in the current state of affairs in our own nation and much of the world is not really ready to progress into the final frontier. Why? There are two items that are much more pressing issues, unemployment and the national budget deficit. Over the past two years the unemployment rate has been between 9 and 10 percent (2). Would you rather put billions of dollars into space or into job creation. In my opinion the government could do both, so it raises the question: Which one first? Jobs. If the economy is strong the space program would place less of a strain on the U.S. and its people. So is it responsible to put improving our scientific output or helping the poor? Form your own opinions about that. The budget deficit is another issue that the space program is not exactly going to help, at least not in the short term. Currently the deficit is $1.1 trillion (as of August 11th) and growing by staggering rates, in some cases over $1.5 billion a month (3).That problem, at least in the near future, is not being solved by blasting money into the space industry. Granted, the furthering of our collective understanding of space is a quality goal, but not for right now.
1 World Affairs Councils Vote on Top Six 2012 Election Issues
http://www.worldaffairscouncils.org/images/insert/press%20release%20six%20issues.pdf
2 United States Unemployment Rate
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
3Recession 2011: US budget deficit hits $1.1 trillion
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-08-11/news/29876467_1_budget-deficit-fiscal-year-budget-surplus
@Justin Hendricks:
Justin,
I love you more than I love anyone else. Unfortunately, I also disagree with your analysis of who the best “canadate” for office is. To say Obama is the only candidate with the experience necessary to hold office is false. When he took office, his political experience was as a Senator from Illinois. At that time in 2008 the American economy was in significantly more trouble than currently, and therefore he began his presidency with NO experience as president (which you seem to think is a prerequisite) at a more tumultuous time. Therefore, every candidate running for President right now is equally as qualified as Obama was, and to say he is the only one in the race with the skill set to succeed is illogical. Also, not a single major candidate in the race is an “un-known”, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Rick Perry and the others are all household names.
Second, your description of Obama’s policies is full of errors and fallacies. You cannot say that the “jobs creation act” is great for the country and better than any Republican alternative when: 1) you provide no description of what the bill actually is or evidence of its success and 2) you do not name any Republican job creation efforts (because no “Republican” bills were passed, they have not had the political majorities necessary in Congress and the presidency to create a major jobs bill without Democratic support). You also cannot claim that Obamacare was a partial “susess” without citing proper sources. I hate to sound like a broken record, but for the third time you provided no backup to how Cash for Clunkers raised fuel “effiniency”. And barackobama.com and michelebachmann.com are NOT real sources and have NOTHING to do with aiding up any of your claims.
I do, however, agree with your statement that our education system is failing and falling “behind forigen competitors in academic acheiement.” Clearly this is, as you so succinctly put it, a “disasters”.
@Justin
Evidence you could have used for Obama's programs and America's education issue:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1918692,00.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/us-falls-in-world-education-rankings_n_793185.html
http://healthblog.ncpa.org/health-problem-quantified/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/20/the-recession-is-over-say_n_731450.html
@mcnaughton
To start off, I agree with you on your views about Michele Bachmann. In response to a question about abortion she stated that “Our Declaration of Independence said it’s a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not government.” (1) Now, whether or not you agree with her Christian viewpoint, I believe that it can be agreed upon that her idea to abolish abortion is a governmental encroachment on our “inalienable rights.” I also agree with your standpoint on her idea of gay marriage. The pledge that she signed seems ridiculous. For the second point of the pledge, are the appointed judges supposed to apply the original meaning of the Constitution and disregard new improvements and clarifications, or interpret the Constitution as is means now? (2) In which case isn’t that the job of the appointed federal judges and Supreme Court justices?
The problem in Greece is larger than just affecting Europe, it can cause a major market crash, and repeat Lehman Brother’s failure in 2008. (3) While Obama is advocating that European countries step in and help Greece out with bailout money, I agree that just the money will not help, and that Greece needs to fix their problems before they can grow. (4) However I do feel that a bailout is needed in order for Greece to be able to get back on its feet so that it can fix the problems. If Greece were to fail, it could cause international panic, and even more economic failure, but Greece’s stability could help other countries gain stability. (3) If Greece were to just try to fix the problems without the monetary support of other countries it would be like scuba divers attempting to fix the holes in the Titanic without getting rid of the water first, and then being surprised that it doesn’t immediately float again. Thus I agree that Greece needs to reform, but I also think that countries should continue the bailout in order for Greece to get the chance to reform.
1. http://www.issues2000.org/House/Michele_Bachmann_Abortion.htm
2. http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/08/michele_bachman_national_organization_for_marriage_gay_marriage_pledge.php
3. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/05/24/making-europe-safer.html
4. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/us-eurozone-usa-idUSTRE75647720110608
@Justin K
I agree with you that Barrack Obama is a great choice for president in the 2012 presidential election. I think Barrack Obama has had his mistakes, but made many gains for this country especially since he inherited a tough economic situation. By the time he became president our economy was slowly declining into a crisis and he has been working hard to bring us out of the crisis. The policy I was most excited to hear you mention in your blog was the Job Creations Act. There has been 6 million people long term unemployed Americans (3). Since Obama has been president the government is accountable for about 2.2 million to 2.8 million jobs in 2010 and expects to create 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year(1). “The American Jobs Act would give a much needed jolt to our economy” (3).I think this proves that Obama knows more about what is going to work for us as citizens since he has been dealing with our unemployment problem for 4 years now. Like you said why change something that is working? However, I disagree with you in the Healthcare Reform being a success. I personally think that he made a judgment error by focusing so much time on Healthcare rather than other aspects of the economy. This lost potential for momentum in the economy.
(1) http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/14/news/economy/recovery_act_jobs/index.htm?hpt=T1
(2) http://www.barackobama.com
(3) http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/
@Brenna Gibbs
I think your perspectives on both Michele Bachmann and Barack Obama are interesting and probably better thought-out than mine. My main reaction to Bachmann in the past has been horror that she could even be considered a candidate, but I am intrigued by the idea that she could make people realize how good Obama is (or could be in the future). Bachmann has lost popularity in recent polls (1), but your argument makes me wonder if it might actually be better for the Democrats if Bachmann was nominated. Hopefully the lack of experience that you mentioned (2) and the ludicrous claims I cited in my original post (3) would make people see her as unelectable. I agree that recently she has made nothing but enemies, especially with her HPV claim. Almost no one seems to accept it as true, and professors at the U of M have offered her more than $10,000 if she can prove it (4). Later in that same article, it says that she admitted that she did not even know if the HPV story was true. Originally these stories about Bachmann appalled me, but now I am very interested to follow her campaign. I might even be disappointed if someone else gets nominated, since they might actually be capable of hurting Obama’s chances.
I agree that Obama’s first term has been frustrating and not exactly what I expected when he was elected, but I think that the Republican gains in Congress are more to blame for that than Obama himself. I don’t think his image is necessarily the problem, or at least it wasn’t to start out with. According to a Gallup poll, George W. Bush left office with a lower approval rating than anyone in the history of Gallup polls except Richard Nixon (5). It was very important at that time for Obama to emphasize change, since that was what most Americans were looking for after Bush. However, I can see how after four years, it might be time to stop emphasizing that area quite so much. His gains in the polls mentioned in the articles you cited are a good sign for the election (6). Obama will have a very difficult reelection campaign due to economic issues like high unemployment, so, as in 2008, it is important for him to do everything he can to gain voter support (7). It is perfectly logical that he will need a different strategy to do that now that times have changed.
1. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-usa-campaign-republicans-idUSTRE78L5SD20110922
2. http://www.dailylocal.com/articles/2011/07/02/opinion/srv0000012246142.txt
3. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/leslie-marshall/2011/06/29/bachmanns-gaffes-and-lies-mean-shes-unfit-for-white-house
4. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/professors-offer-more-10-000-proof-bachmann-story-132647843.html
5. http://www.gallup.com/poll/113770/Bush-Presidency-Closes-34-Approval-61-Disapproval.aspx
6. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-09-15/obama-picks-a-fight-to-define-2012-election-margaret-carlson.html
7. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-offers-2012-election-supporters-change-they-can-believe-in--next-term/2011/08/25/gIQAJz9AhJ_story.html
@Andrew Cross:
You state that, due to your beliefs, Rick Perry’s job creation is his strongest presidential potential. It is indeed true that Rick Perry is creating numerous jobs in Texas, however those jobs are at the minimum wage, leaving many if not all of those workers below the poverty line, and continuing to draw on the government funds through programs such as Medicaid to keep them alive and well (1). This is a major issue with your party and beliefs, due to the fact that the only economic benefit for keeping unemployment under control is so that those collecting government money will become employed and stop. You also stated the Perry has given money to education. He has indeed given money, but so little that Texas’s schools are currently underfunded by $5.5 billion. This policy is also undercutting his job creation, as it is very likely to push schools over the edge, and begin letting go their teachers. (2) Your interpretation of Perry’s vacillation on Social Security is assuredly misunderstood, as he has repeatedly rejected the system, calling it “A crumbling monument to the failure of the New Deal,” and that it is “by any measure…a failure,” seeming to indicate that his recent change of heart stems from a lack of support and publicity, changing his stance to return again to the spotlight. (3)
While I do believe that there were better possible solutions to the state our economy was in at the time Obama entered the White house, his policies have for all intents and purposes succeeded. (4) If he was to have let General Motors and Chrysler fail, your prime issue would have been under attack and 1.1 million jobs would have disappeared, more and higher paying jobs than Perry was able to create throughout his entire career up to now. (5) Your unfounded claim that Obama is blaming republicans and then refusing to compromise is utterly false. One of the main criticisms of Obama’s term of office is indeed that he compromises too much. (6) Your final statement is purely a philosophy, and so there are no facts to back up my claim otherwise, but I believe that if the average American could truly live in a middle class lifestyle, they would give up their misguided hopes to keep the rich from paying taxes in hopes to become one of the rapidly decreasing number of success stories, for a cut in their own taxes.
Also, perhaps next time it would be worth your while to quote more sources, and preferably ones that are not outwardly biased towards your point of view.
(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/15/texas-poverty-rick-perry-jobs
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/rick-perry-education-policy_n_932780.html
(3) http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/fact-check-perry-debates-himself-on-social-security/
(4) http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015228925_obama04.html
(5) http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat/archives/2010/08/doing_the_math_on_obamas_detroit_bailout.html
(6) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/obama-white-house-compromise-by-necessity_n_971783.html?ref=mostpopular
for Bryan,
Personally I think that Mr. Obama's Bill reform act is a sleazy attempt to get re-elected. I agree that if the bill passes, Mr. Obama's rating will increase, and I agree that if it doesn't, the republicans will be blamed for it. I think it's another way for Mr. Obama to keep placing the blame on republicans like he has done in the past. He blamed out current recession on the Bush administration. This is some-what true but there are many other factors to it. I agree with you that the environment is important, but now is not the time to be spending the money for it. The US needs to get their act together on their economy first.
Social security is a ponzi scheme. As the baby boom progressed though their age, there was always enough cash for them because there was so many people. Now, there are fewer young people fueling social security which will eventually cause the US to go bankrupt because the elderly are getting more money back that they put in; this will cause younger people to pay more and get less out of it. Rick Perry at one point called it a ponzi scheme, but he changed his words and thinks we should reform social security instead of getting rid of it entirely.
Jan k
I love your post and could not agree more. Specific points i agree with is your praise of bachman even going as far as calling her a profit. If not for bachman the lightbulbs would be only the 1st thing the evil governmant would take. Next maybe our inefficient toasters and then our individuality! America must strive to be like a city on a hill but in order to reach this goal we need a knight or in this case knightess to ride in on a white steed and strike down the forces of evil, meaning Obhoma. Obhama is just the 1st step in a complete government take over and a looming threat of a communist regime. We as Americans must ban together behind our valiant knightess and spread the cause of freedom and coorporations around the world. Jan you insight truly inspirers young people both in our school and entire community.
@Katie
While I fully agree with your position on Michele Bachmann, I have to break some bad news to you: Ron Paul is not the candidate that you think he is. In fact, he is a lot more like Bachmann than he is like the candidate you described. You posit that he is a caring doctor, who wants to reform the healthcare system to help the people who end up in the hospital due to unfortunate services. You would be far better looking to the left. Paul believes that the healthcare system should provide no humanitarian safety nets. If a patient without insurance shows up at the hospital, and he nor his family has enough money to pay for costly medical treatments, then he should be turned away. He claimed that when he practiced medicine (the last time he practiced was thirty-five years ago, for those who are counting) “faith-based organizations” would always care for these people [1]. But in a modern society, with thousands of sick people who cannot afford insurance, are charities really well equipped enough to aid everyone? Furthermore, private groups, with built-in agendas, would surely only help victims that share their views. After all, medicine is expensive, and a charity doesn’t want to invest that much money in someone who doesn’t even agree with them. If Ron Paul was controlling the healthcare system, your family would be at risk for total lack of government coverage.
Another thing shared by Bachmann and Dr. Paul is their views of the educational system. Surely they realize that, despite poor funding, schools are doing their best to succeed in most areas? Wishful thinking on my part. At a homeschoolers convention in Iowa last March, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and our caring Dr. Libertarian all came out against public schooling. Bachmann, who homeschooled her five children, bemoaned that the government did not allow her to homeschool her twenty three foster children. While that in itself is comically absurd, Paul has an even more extreme viewpoint. He claims that the public school system, “a propaganda machine”, wants “absolute control” of the “indoctrination” of students. He pontificated, “They start with our kids even in kindergarten, teaching them about family values, sexual education, gun rights, environmentalism-- and they condition them to believe in so much which is totally un-American” [2]. While I realize that this wasn’t a point you originally considered, I felt like you might have an opinion on it, as the product of a public school who is seeking admittance in a public college. I apologize if this response seems confrontational, I just feel rather strongly about the need for protection for patients in the healthcare system, and the great ideals supported by the public school system.
[1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/13/140434378/ron-paul-its-not-governments-job-to-take-care-of-uninsured
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randy-turner/michelle-bachmann-ron-pau_b_840096.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
@Arthur "devil's advocate" Harris
While I applaud you on your strength and conviction, I disagree with almost every stance you take on the 2012 presidential election. I’ll try to go through my objections methodically—a task made easy by the skillfully organized format of your post. Lets begin.
In you first paragraph you state, “The current president has turned our land of righteousness into an obamination.” I’m going to assume that your use of the word “obamination” is a clever pun on “abomination” using our current presidents name. In this case, I disagree. In his time as president, Obama has established unprecedented fuel economy standards [1], ended the horrific reign of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy in the military [2], put $775 million in 2010 and 2011 towards the restoration of the Great Lakes (particularly important to me) [3], invested $90 billion in clean energy [4], reformed the health care system to lower costs [5], and put an ambitious, bipartisan job plan to congress [6], and more. Based on these simple facts, I disagree with your use of the word “obamination”—I think “obamawesome” would be a much more accurate description of our nation.
In the bulk of you blog post, you explain why you are so excited with the prospect of Michele Bachmann for president: you believe she will reduce the role of government. While you may feel that government regulation of the economy restricts the amount of money you make, and the ways you can spend it, I am positive that no government at all would be a far worse. At this point in time, I do not think that humans have the capability to co-exist without some overseeing power (Hobbes would be proud). In short, total mayhem would ensue. I would say it is true that the government has been significantly involved in the economy after the housing crisis, but I like the added level of security that it brings. While I doubt many hold the same anarchist views as you, I concede that many American’s agree that the government should be smaller and less powerful.
I would debate the opinion you hold that the current administration’s foreign policy is designed to allow “radical extremists to infiltrate and take over the country.” The reasoning behind your point is that Obama merely asked Tehran to come clean about their nuclear weapons. However, if you had read further in the same source that you cited—actually just past the first sentence—you would have realized that Obama threatened the possibility of military action if Iran did not allow international inspection of “a newly revealed secret site” [7]. I think this threat, backed by France and Britain, will turn out to be very effective.
You’ll notice I have not replied to certain points in your argument (your support of Michele Bachmann’s views on homosexuality, religion in schools, women’s role in the family, and more). While I do not agree with any of them, the majority of them are moral and ethical dilemmas, and given the fervor with which you proclaim your views, I find it hard to believe that I could change your mind.
[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy
[2] http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/20/era-dont-ask-dont-tell-officially-over
[3] http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/our-environment
[4] http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change
[5] http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/healthcare-overview#healthcare-menu
[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/17/obama-jobs-plan-no-division-delay_n_967404.html
[7] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33016209/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/obama-warns-iran-come-clean-nukes/#.Tnv0OHNsyRA
@kaite
So I agree with you about Bachmann and how she is crazy but I worry about your support for Ron Paul. I would like to first point out that having medical experience of a doctor wouldn’t really carry over to paying for medical bills. Doctors don’t spend time dealing with the insurance policies and the third payer problem. If they are then that is a waste of their time and might be part of the problem with the medical system. Part of his plan for a “better” health care system is having people lean away from the third party payer system (1). So that means he wants less people to use insurance plans, but the third payer (who gets slumped with a much high bill then an insurance plan holder) is some one who pays for medical themselves. This part of his plan doesn’t really make sense. As for some of his immigration policies Paul hasn’t really made much of a stance. He did vote against the DREAM act but is often silent on his views on anything other then increasing boarder security (2). So if you want someone how would actually make your immigration laws come true you need to look at more republicans like Joe Arpaio who is not keeping his views silent (3).
1. http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?
2. http://conservativetimes.org/?p=8673
3. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/09/14/319271/theyre-all-calling-him-leading-gop-candidates-court-radical-anti-immigrant-sheriff-joe-arpaio/
@ Andrew C
While attending Texas A&M, “Perry got a C in Reproduction in Farm Animals, a C in genetics, a D in Feeds & Feeding, a C in Sheep & Angora Goat Production and two C’s in animal breeding classes.(6)” Is this the man you want leading our country? While in college, Perry completed just one political science class, and came out of it with a ‘B’. Although Perry’s own school transcript is not the greatest, he stresses that “the single most effective step a person can take toward a better life is getting a great education.(7)” However, his state of Texas has a high school dropout rate of 30% (5). Also on the subject of education, Perry advocates the teaching of “abstinence only” sex education (1). He says that "Abstinence works... it is the best form to teach our children," and yet his state has the 5th highest rate of teen pregnancy in the nation (8).
Rick Perry says that he wants to make healthcare in Texas more affordable and accessible, and yet under his administration 30% of Texans remain uninsured, one of the highest rates in the nation (9). Texas has the 4th largest number of residents living below the poverty line in the country, and while Perry has indeed created kjgjobs, they are low-wage and have allowed the state to remain with unemployment rates higher than they were in the 1990’s (10).
While it may appear that Perry has done a lot to help the state of Texas, his programs have hardly made a dent in the problems facing residents. Until Perry can show that he has the leadership skills and policies needed to improve the conditions facing the people he is currently representing, he is not prepared to run an entire country.
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/rick-perry-struggles-to-a_n_934172.html
2. http://www.texmed.org/template.aspx?id=5517
3. http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/09/22/perry-romney-spar-over-jobs-fox-debate
4. http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/18/news/economy/poverty_perry_texas/index.htm
5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/rick-perry-education-policy_n_932780.html
6. http://www.texastribune.org/texas-people/rick-perry/huffpo-obtains-perrys-college-transcript/
7. http://governor.state.tx.us/initiatives/education/
8. http://womensissues.about.com/od/datingandsex/a/TeenPregStates.htm
9. http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/04/30/3039014/texas-goal-should-be-to-fix-healthcare.html
10. http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/guest-column-why-perry-shouldnt-run-president/
@Andrew C
Sorry I just noticed after writing this, three other people have already responded to you!
I disagree with your views on who should be elected president. First of all, I strongly feel as if Rick Perry’s presidency would be detrimental to the United States. The economic crisis cannot be solved by just giving money to private companies. Reagan’s “trickle-down” theory, which is quite similar to Perry’s beliefs, did not help the lower-class economy. The wealthy minority became an even larger part in the economy [1]. You can give all of the money you want to private companies, but how can you enforce how the money is spent? This idea of giving “funds to private companies” might just be a way for greedy corporate leaders to have a larger bonus at the end of the year. Additionally, for all we know, the Social Security system will not be in effect by the time we are senior citizens [2]. There is no money for it, especially with the baby-boomer generation getting older. By the year 2030, Social Security expenditures are predicted to increase by at least 75% [2]. You could solve this by raising Social Security taxes, but that is not a wise idea. Working Americans are already getting major cuts out of the pay checks for Social Security, state, and federal taxes. If government officials decide to add taxes to cope for the amount of money needed to keep up the program, we would be left with a very small paycheck. Then, things just take a nose dive from there. So why waste your time trying to “strengthen it [Social Security] for generations to come”?
I believe that Obama has done a great deal for the economy, it will just take more than four years to show all of its benefits. Also, Obama got stuck dealing with all of the mistakes Bush made in office, which by the way hurt the economy even more. When Bush was president, the New York Time’s poll states that 75% of Americans thought, “the country is on the wrong track” [3]. So, I am pretty sure that the majority of America did not think the economy was going so well under the Bush Administration.
[1] http://money.howstuffworks.com/trickle-down-economics1.htm
[2] http://www.newyorklife.com/nyl/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=80f61219a49d2210a2b3019d221024301cacRCRD
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/washington/28bush.html?hp
@ Amelia Elverson
I want to start off this response by simply stating I was drawn to this post primarily by your apparent role as Romney's sole representative on this blog, and not because I am inherently out to gun it down.
The statistics of Romney rising at such a sharp rate is indeed impressive given the ratings of the GOP candidates that you cited. I will not dispute the idea that Romney is a very electable candidate, but I will say I disagree with him (currently) having the best chance. The reality is that at the time of Perry's entrance into the race, Romney's polls went down significantly from their positions before that entrance, and that sharp of a drop indicates a potential problem with candidacy when a mere introduction has that kind of effect (1). Moving on to Pawlenty's endorsement, I would like to point out that the very article you cited stated that his withdrawal from the race and limited initial support makes it unclear "just how significant his endorsement will be." (2) Also, you mainly credit Palwenty's endorsement to Romney's economic policies, an entirely accurate statement. It is flawed, however, in the assumption of Palwenty's economic proficiency. Early in the race the former governor gave a speech completely outlining his economic platform, and it was an ideally optimistic one for the Republican party. However, it received reviews from expert economists on both sides of the political spectrum that it was "ridiculous" and "a joke" which essentially outlined unrealistic growth rates alongside significant investment cuts (3). That isn't exactly a category of endorsement one would request from Pawlenty. Moving on to the issue of Chinese trade, I will not at all argue that China is a fair trade partner. They've severely undervalued their currency and ergo built up large amounts of foreign reserve faster than one could think possible. However, Brazil's recent imposition of a whopping 30% tariff on Chinese goods has many global economists pessimistic about any significant growth for the time this tariff is active (4). China's influence will be difficult to fight with any kind of sanction unless the largest trade partner with China, the EU, will join in the process and cease to allow Chinese investment.
This is, however, the end of my rebuttal, because I honestly have no rebuke for your stance on Rick Perry.
(1) http://www.gallup.com/poll/149180/perry-zooms-front-pack-2012-gop-nomination.aspx
(2)http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/time-pawlenty-endorses-mitt-romney-for-gop-nomination/2011/09/12/gIQA11eiMK_story.html
(3)http://mediamatters.org/research/201106080010
(4) http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/218488/20110922/brazil-tariff-china-trade-war.htm
@Katie
First off I’ll say that I also chose Ron Paul as the candidate I’m most excited about, and still think of him as a respectable candidate. However, after finding out more about the candidates since my original post, from more research and actually watching the Republican Tea Party on DVR, I have come to realize that my initial stance on him has been altered slightly for the worse. So anything I disagree with, I am essentially also disagreeing with parts of my initial post. I still think that Paul is very intelligent, and clearly has a lot of knowledge and experience, which ups his credibility. I totally agree with what you said about his private practice giving him a different type of insight from most. In theory, his practical experience and title should make his healthcare reform plans helpful. However, Paul is advocating turning away those who cannot afford to pay for their healthcare, and leaving it up to other organizations, charities and such, and not the government to help these people (1). He cites his own experience as a doctor when the churches took care of those unable to come up with the money at the hospital he was working in. While this seems sort of noble, but actually not really, it is completely insecure. There is no way that any sort of help can be guaranteed under this, and it just seems foolish to actually instill. What you said about maximum prosperity for all just couldn’t be true under this system. Besides this though, I do see his point in his national defense and military policies. It makes sense to me that the military budget can be somewhat cut, but not so much the defense budget, given the current threat level (2). He states that there is a “lot of room” to cut the military budget. While yes, I think this it is true that there should be some cuts instilled, I don’t think drastically, but I concur with what you said about bringing troops home for defense purposes. As for Michele Bachmann, there is absolutely nothing you said that I disagreed with in the slightest or found any argument to.
(1) http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/13/140434378/ron-paul-its-not-governments-job-to-take-care-of-uninsured
(2) http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/12/live-blog-of-cnns-first-ever-tea-party-republican-debate/
@Bryan D.
I am amused by your futile attempt to criticize Rick "The Executioner" Perry. First off, your so-called "skillful segue" was quite poor, and by all accounts a unilateral failure (1). In regards to the global warming conspiracy, you claim that Rick Perry’s position on the validity of scientific data is wrong. Oh, how misguided you are, Mr. Bryan Claude Duerfeldt. A simple Google search for “Global Warming Conspiracy” reveals over nine-million results, proving Mr. Perry’s statements. For example, Stewart Meagher of The Inquirer states that a number of leaked emails ; “unearthed a number of worrying gaffes by several of the climate research boffins involved (2).” He goes on to detail numerous frauds by so called “scientists” (some sort of socialist code-word for liar), including : “a leftist conspiracy designed to make the government confiscate our cars.” Obviously, this article is beyond reproach. The Inquirer is a well respected, popular, functioning tech-centered website, so obviously a story about a massive leftist conspiracy is right in their wheelhouse.
You also criticized Ricky for his poor potential in environmental-related legislation once he is in the White House (A 100% certainty, according to the latest poll) (Citation missing). However, in your eco-conscious stupor, you may not realize the true cost of so-called “green” or “sustainable” technology. However, here to forcibly remove your green-colored glasses, is Julian Morris. Mr. Morris, or “Morrie” as I refer to him in casual conversation, understands the hidden costs of green technology. The prime example of this, is in high-end wine production (3). In producing a $15,000 bottle of wine; “wine producers no doubt benefit from the trained human eye, which is capable of distinguishing between the best and the second best quality grapes (3).” Under some plans, these wine connoisseurs would be replaced with extremely energy-efficient machines, to the detriment of wine quality. Is this what you want Bryan? The quality of several-thousand-dollar wine to decrease? Then what will our tax-free billionaires drink?
Another point you did your wee little best to make clear was that P-Dawg was wrong in calling Social Security a Ponzi Scheme. I scoff at the mere notion that Mr. Perry could be wrong, about anything, ever. The definition of a Ponzi scheme is: “a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation (4).” Is that not what Social Security is? It doesn't matter that there is no fraud going on, or that instead of a private investment it is a government funded and backed system that has worked for 60 years. If it fits the definition of a Ponzi scheme, it’s a Ponzi scheme.
If you have to take one point away from my post, I would like you to walk away knowing that FDR was nothing more than Bernie Madoff with polio.
Sources
1. “ For example, Obama administration put $90 billion dollars towards “clean energy” and even believes that climate change is a real issue [2]! And with that, I’ll skillfully segue into the candidate I am most frustrated with: Rick Perry. “
2. http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/1563419/emails-expose-global-warming-conspiracy
3.http://www.policynetwork.net/environment/media/unseen-costs-green-investments-and-initiatives
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
@ Vanessa
Simply put, I do not think that Ron Paul is the next president of the United States. While he’s not the worst of the GOP candidates, I don’t think he’s going to get too far in this race. Representative Paul seems to be lurking in the shadows of the other prominent GOP candidates, and is kind of considered to be the dark horse of the Republican Party. That is where I think he will remain throughout this race. Also, many people are unfortunately misinformed into thinking that Paul is a more sensible and reasonable man than his counterparts. However, in all actuality Ron Paul is as crazy (if not more at times) than his fellow candidates. For instance, at the GOP debate just days before the 10th anniversary of the attacks on the Twin Towers Representative Paul stated that he felt that the attacks were not because of a “dislike of a Western way of life, but rather because of the United States forcibly occupies other countries” [1]. Are you serious? So basically, it’s America’s fault for these attacks. I don’t think so and not many others would agree with Paul. This leads me into his views on foreign policy and the military, which I don’t agree with and are my biggest problem with his campaign. I support the concepts of bringing the troops home and securing our borders, but the ways he proposed to do so would not be beneficial to our nation. A lot of his plans for foreign policy seem to want to make the United States a more isolationist country. Ron Paul basically wants to remove all troops from over-seas and keep the United States out of conflict in any way possible, for it’s not our duty to be the “world’s policeman and nation builder” because it weakens our country [2]. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. is looked at to help other countries in need and if it doesn’t there will be different ramifications for not helping. I don’t necessarily agree with the way that the U.S. is going about this now, but Ron Paul’s policies won’t be beneficial either. As far as health care is concerned, I do agree that his background as a doctor could give some unique insight to the government. That’s pretty much all that I can comment on concerning health care, because quite frankly the whole system and all the different views and plans confuse me to no extent. Representative Paul has claimed that he predicted the failure of the economy based upon big government policies, and wants to make America’s economy prosperous again [3]. Honestly though, who doesn’t? Most of his policies do seem reasonable, but the one thing I do disagree with is his proposed tax cuts for the wealthy and some other groups [3]. Cutting taxes decreases the amount of money that the government could be receiving to reshape the economy, and during this current recession the extra money that the people will have won’t be put back into the economy. Instead, people are more apt to save it. Finally, regarding his strong convictions to support the Constitution under almost all circumstances, I applaud him for his valiant effort but sometimes this can be annoying. I’m not saying to go against the Constitution, but as time progress changes are often needed to be in accordance with the current period. I think he is a bit too stringent with his support for gun owner’s right [4], and that there needs to be more legislation passed to protect the safety of others. To conclude, you said it yourself that “Ron Paul may not be the most electable candidate” and I definitely agree with that. His viewpoints were definitely interesting to learn about, but as far as intriguing and being used to guide our country, I don’t think that his viewpoints are.
Well, my argument against Ron Paul got a bit lengthy, so I’ll try to make my opinions about Rick Perry a bit shorter. Basically, I agree that Rick Perry isn’t a great candidate, however, none of the current candidates seem to peak my interest. As you said, Rick Perry is trying to use the image as a macho Texan leader, but yet super connected to the people. Well, if anyone has heard some of the ideas behind his campaign I think people would agree that he really is not. I don’t think that much thought or consideration should be put into the fact that Perry was on academic probation while in college. I agree that it’s not a good thing, but it shouldn’t have much weight on leadership skills. He’s obviously matured and changed since then, and we should let his actions now be his character witness. I also agree with the fact that Rick Perry is a very controversial candidate, not only in his words but also in his past policies and plans for the future. I had not heard his comment about “those who are not followers of Jesus will go to hell,” which clearly inappropriate but doesn’t necessarily surprise me. Let’s not forget his famous comments on social security being a “Ponzi scheme” and President Obama being an “abject liar” [5]. Now, reporters are trying to paint a picture of Perry being more moderate due to his actions behind closed doors [5]. This may be the truth, but his public image definitely accounts for much more. I can’t deny that Perry isn’t interesting to watch a times, but as far as his viewpoints and other important aspects of a presidential candidate; I don’t bother to put much weight on them. Governor Perry still has a bit more maturing to do in the political spectrum, and I don’t think that he is ready or will win the prestigious office as President of the United States.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/ron-pauls-911-comments-booed-at-presidential-debate-video/2011/09/13/gIQAyq0XPK_blog.html
[2] http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/
[3] http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/economy/
[4] http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/second-amendment/
[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/perrys-alternate-persona/2011/03/29/gIQAJtH2nK_blog.html
@Julie:
I agree with you that Obama is the best candidate for the 2012 presidential election, but I find him a good candidate for many different reasons than you do. You talked about how Obama worked to ensure that multiple aspects of the education system are improving. I think that programs such as Race to the Top High School Commencement Challenge (1) are great, but they don’t need to be run by the president. I agree with you that education is important in a country, and it needs to be well organized in order to have successful generations to come, but I don’t think that it is one of the issues that a president should focus a large portion of their attention on throughout their term. I also don’t agree that Obama has quite fulfilled his “Yes we can” campaign statement that was popular during the 2008 election. As we all know, the economy is struggling. Although it has been an ongoing battle for many years, there are many things that could be done to help decrease the debt level or unemployment rate. One thing that Obama has done to positively change the debt level is in the agreement that he made with congressional leaders (2). I think that the economy should be Obama’s main focus for at least a short time, in order to make some progress.
I strongly agree with you that Michele Bachmann is a ridiculous candidate for the presidency. In my opinion, she’s a crazy lady. Although I think that the majority of her positions on issues are ridiculous, I partially support her on education. I believe that an individual state’s parents and community organizations should be more influential on the education system than the federal government (3). The federal government should lay some ground rules and requirements for the schools, but other than that, the responsibility should be put in the hands of the states and local communities.
Sources:
1) http://www.whitehouse.gov/commencement
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y82n1vSM4v0&feature=relmfu
3) http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2011/09/05/bts-bachmann-education-dept.scetv?iref=allsearch
@J Kalkman
The question that everyone is forced to ask themselves when writing this blog post is: Which presidential candidate will evoke the greatest change for the country? I believe that Obama does not promise the same change as he did in the 2008 election. For example, while you say that Obama is “far more popular than the other political parties despite his problems,” I believe that it is only a matter of time before his “problems” make it impossible for him to win the election [1]. Additionally, the most recent Gallup poll results show that Obama would lose to a “generic Republican candidate” if the election were held today [2]. This does not bode well for our fair President, as the strength of the Republican positions is sure to grow as Perry learns to not say stupid things and Romney gets into bed with the Tea Party. Next, you point out that Obama has had some foreign policy success in killing Osama Bin Laden, but this completely ignores his surge in Afghanistan that failed [4] and the messy intervention in Libya [3]. This, I believe, should temper your enthusiasm of Obama as a candidate.
On the topic of Michele Bachman, you can reference my initial post for a defense on her positions regarding her social policy. I also disagree with your characterization of Bachmann as the “most out there” candidate from the Republican field. Clearly, Ron Paul is much more “out there”. He wants to eliminate huge swaths of the government, to the point that it would almost cease to function [5]. I believe that Bachmann would be at least slightly better than Paul. She also hasn’t lost the attention of the party, as her polling numbers are up substantially from last week [6]. Also, would you go to homecoming with me? According to Yahoo Answers, it’s supposed to be “a lot of fun” [7]
[1] http://www.economist.com/node/21528624
[2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
[3] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/22/libya-intervention-looks-hazy-in-hindsight/
[4] http://www.fpif.org/articles/why_the_afghan_surge_will_fail
[5] http://www.ronpaul2012.com
[6] http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
[7] http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080918200056AAbTso2
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home