Last Post for Tri 1! Due Friday November 9th
Pick someone's question that they would have proposed to the presidential candidates and react to whether you think it would have significantly improved the quality of the presidential debates. React to what s/he thought the candidates would have said and finally say who you agree with the most (the student, Obama or Romney) and why.
Thanks for making this online discussion interesting this trimester.
Note on Friday, 11/16 you need to bring to class a copy of a original blog post and a response blog post that you think are your best of the tri for me to highlight in my grade for this project. Thanks.
posted by Ms. Aby @ 9:11 AM
35 Comments:
In response to Maddie A.’s post, I agree with her conclusion that the environment was the issue most absent in the debates. I myself wrote about how the topic of renewable energy was not addressed in the debates. I also agreed with her analysis that Romney’s plan would be a temporary fix (1). His plan to use coal as an energy source is not sustainable (1). Similar to oil, it is a limited source, meaning that over time it will run out. America needs to invest in the renewable sources available to us today including solar, geothermal, hydro and wind energy. The consequences of investing in a finite resource are that it could cause problems later down the road. For example, we could become totally dependent on it and be unprepared for when it runs out. Also, from an environmental standpoint, we need to reduce our carbon footprint or our climate will continue to change. Hurricane Sandy and other sever weather systems can be attributed to higher levels of water because of the melting of the ice caps. This makes storms more severe and destructive than they otherwise would be.
Even though Maddie admits that Obama’s position is a bit ambiguous, he does have more concrete evidence for his response to the question of finding and utilizing renewable resources (2). He has created new fuel standards, jump started a natural gas program to create 600,000 jobs in 10 years, has doubled wind and solar investments and has “made protecting the environment a top priority” (2). Even with all these reassuring findings, Obama did not highlight these advancements in the debates, which I think may have hurt him. I believe he could have won over some Green Party members who want the environment to be a priority but believe their party will not win the presidency because they are a third party.
1)http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_America/#Item1
2)http://www.democrats.org/issues/environment
I am responding to Ben Hanson’s post. He asked the question: “What have you done/plan to do to help eliminate the threat of global warming? Be as specific as possible.” I believe this is a great question. I think if this would have been asked in one of the presidential debates that it would have significantly increased the depth of the debate and it also would have shed light on what Romney and Obama want to do regarding this issue. I believe many people thought that this was a huge concern that was not covered, seeing as how half of our blog posts last week asked a question regarding energy or global warming. This would have increased the quality because people are increasingly becoming aware and concerned about our environment and how global warming is increasing. It didn’t seem to be a huge concern voiced by either candidate or by questions asked during the debates. However, it is a huge concern. Global warming is threatening our environment and our world. Why wouldn’t either candidate answer a question regarding this or give their plan of action for stopping this monster?
I agree with what Ben said about how the candidates would answer. I believe Obama would say that he would continue to create energy-efficient programs like he did with the EPA and with the standards that he helped change on cars, making them more fuel and energy efficient (1). I believe that Romney would have simply made generalizations and I cannot be completely sure, like Ben, I was not able to really find a stance from the Republicans or Romney on what he would do with the environment. All he talks about regarding anything close to global warming is becoming energy independent but he doesn’t even touch on this issue one bit (2). Therefore, I would expect Obama to have a strong answer and for Romney to have a not so great answer, if an answer at all.
Overall, I agree with Ben the most. I agree with him because I think he has the right idea when he says that Romney would have seriously struggled with this question and it would have been interesting to see his plans for this problem. I also agree that Obama would simply state what he has done to already help global warming and I believe that he would say he would continue those types of policies. I think Ben and I have the same sort of reaction to this issue and both of us believe Obama would have better answered this question than Romney.
1) http://www.democrats.org/issues/environment#more
2) http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy
I would like to respond to Storm's question. In the last post, Storm had expressed a wish to ask the candidates how they would make healthcare best for all(1). I think that this question, while pressing and with good intentions, would not have made the debate any more wholesome. While Obama would probably stick to party lines. I especially agree with Storm's mention of pre-existing conditons (1). Many liberals share this view, including the very liberal Green Party(2). However; I think Romney would be more broad and vague in his response then Storm suggests. I predict that he would not speak of cutting costs but rather making medical insurance a choice of 'all people'. This sticks to his party's platform of little government. It is certainly not Storm's fault that both candidates might perhaps be somewhat vague, I just feel that to get a good answer requires a more specific question.
1) http://apusgopo.blogspot.com/2012/10/post-4-due-friday-november-2nd.html
2) http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2012/social-justice.php#HealthCare
In response to Grant’s post, I determined that his question to both the Republican and Democratic candidates would have been highly impactful in the presidential debates. His question was, “what each administration would do to increase the production of clean energy, or if they would at all?” I believe this would have added tremendous scope to the energy debate, as, in the presidential debates we have seen, the candidates have discussed current energy conflicts such as oil and have barely scratched the surface regarding clean and innovative forms of energy that can move this country forward. “Energy issues seem to have taken a back seat to economic issues (1).” But clean energy should only be an element in the broad topic of energy. Climate change should be at the forefront of issues since the type of energy we use can affect the extent of climate change we face here in the U.S (2). “In the presidential debates this year, clean energy was mentioned several times and yet, the words “climate change” were not mentioned once. Many environmentalists are left puzzled. Hurricane Sandy, has proved that our current government is reactive rather than proactive. The issue lies in the architecture of addressing the climate change policies and the waves of attention that come from public opinion (2).” If climate change and clean energy were talked about in the debate, there would not have been a sudden rush to put this topic at the top of the policy agenda after Hurricane Sandy took place. If clean energy was at the center point of the domestic debate, the future, jobs, and the strength each of the candidates could have brought to the issue could have been highlighted and conveyed to the American people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Grant states that Romney’s take on energy is as follows: “Romney does advocates investment in green energy, but not, as he says, “At the expense of traditional” energy sources like fossil fuels. He supports the investment in domestic fuel sources such as oil and natural gas, and the expansion of the Keystone Pipeline Romney also supports the increased production of ethanol.” According to my analysis, this is not the full story. Romney has a plan to have a government that encourages private led new energy innovation and take it outside the hands of the government (3). Romney wants to give the states the power to control onshore energy development, open offshore sections or areas for development of energy, “pursue a North American Energy Partnership”, make sure that an accurate assessment of energy resources is conducted, restore fairness to regulation, and facilitate private led development of innovation in the clean energy sector (3). This is what Romney would have said. Grant is also right in what Barack Obama would have said concerning energy in that he has opened federal lands for drilling, has imposed new standards, and has imposed regulations, but I have a more in depth answer to what the President would have said. Looking forward, Obama will increase natural gas production which will increase American jobs, will increase oil production by increasing land available for use, will increase production of wind and solar energy, and will pave the way for cleaner coal (4). I agree with Grant in that we need to think and plan ahead for our future regarding clean energy, but I strongly disagree when Grant said, “I disagree with Romney’s statement that we should support further research. Governor, we have done the research. The technology already exists. The question is are you willing to abandon your friends in the oil and natural gas industry and think about the future of this country and this planet?” Clearly Romney wants this country to be an energy powerhouse that is clean and efficient. But he wants to do it in a manner that puts energy innovation into the hands of the private sector. Research is clearly not done and we should continue it and I think “friends,” goes a bit too far. I agree with both Romney and Obama. I believe that the government needs to lead in energy, but leading the private sector to do the innovation that will in turn increase jobs and increase overall benefits. I agree with Romney in that we need to expand ethanol production and with Obama in that we need to invest in solar and wind energies. Both candidates and both parties have genuine ideas. But can these parties come together and reach an agreement that can move this country forward? We’ll have to wait and see.
1.http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2012/10/26/important_energy_questions_remain_after_presidential_debates/page/full/
2.http://www.policymic.com/articles/17925/bloomberg-obama-endorsement-global-warming-suddenly-a-hot-election-issue
3.http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy
4.http://www.barackobama.com/energy?source=primary-nav
In response to “Blaze’s” post, I find the question he posed to be very intriguing. It would in fact bring actual focus to other issues and possibly clear the air on the candidates’ stances. It would provide a chance for at least some substantial policy-talk beyond jobs and the economy. However, I do get a vague hunch that the candidates would connect these prerogatives to the current and future state of the economy, therefore reducing the value of the question, but that’s not to say such a case is certain. I agree with his desired answers with the exception of foreign aid; I don’t find that a paramount issue worthy of association with education or immigration reform. Thus, Mike’s actual answer is my preference since it includes: taxes, a crucial issue especially with the looming fiscal cliff; immigration reform, a 2008 unfulfilled promise and hot-button issue; and education, the strength of which indicates the strength of a nation.
Otherwise, his assessments of the candidates are near spot on. Obama would attempt an appeal to the Hispanic population with a reference of immigration or to younger voters with education reform, both of which are important fixtures on his website as well (1). His assessment on Romney is also strong. “Smaller, Simpler, Smarter Government” is found frequently on his site, and Romney would want to do his best to contrast himself against Obama’s “big” and “intrusive” government (2). This would also excite the conservative and libertarian crowds he needed to woo. However, I would assume differently Romney’s response by including a reference to entitlements. He wants to be seen as a cutter, not a spender (2). Also, by embracing the Ryan Plan he solidified a conservative stance against rampant entitlement spending. By criticizing nanny-state welfare he could satisfy his voter base and possibly make up any ground lost on the “47%” comment. Would such an answer benefit him politically? He’d be taking a risk. Mike’s question, answers, and assumptions are pretty spot-on. Neither of the candidates probably would be.
1. www.barackobama.com/issues?source=primary-nav
2. http://www.mittromney.com/issues
Sara posed an interesting and important question. As far as I know the environment was not brought up in any specifics. Sara would ask “how both Romney and Obama plan to create an either energy-clean or energy-efficient economy or attempt to do so.” I agree with what Sara is looking for in an answer, I feel that is it not as important to be energy independent rather than use more clean energy at this point in time. “In truth, it would be virtually impossible for any country to be totally independent where energy is concerned. Not only would it have to produce all its own oil; it would also have to be independent of the global economy” (1). This makes sense because oil is a world market, while we probably keep most of the oil we glean here some of it might be sent somewhere else in the world. In regards to this idea of energy independent, right now it is best to be focused on the environment and being “energy secure” (1). Under Obama “non-hydro renewable electricity generation has nearly doubled since President Obama took office, reaching 5.75 percent of net electricity” (2). Obama has fought for more clean or green energy since he has been in office. Romney has not mentioned much about green energy besides the “energy independence” that was part of his “stump speech in the first two debates” (1). Obama, “ I think they’re the future. I think they’re worth fighting for”(2). Overall I agree with Sara and what the ideal answer is, however, as we all know politicians rarely answer the question the way we want them to. Therefore, I would have to side with Obama on the clean/green energy plan.
1.http://www.npr.org/2012/10/25/163573768/energy-independence-for-u-s-try-energy-security
2.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/29/765131/renewable-electricity-nearly-doubles-under-obama-i-think-theyre-the-future-theyre-worth-fighting-for/?mobile=nc
In response to Sam A.
Sam’s question was about what the candidates would do for the environment since it was completely left out of the debates. I noticed too that the environment was a topic that the debates avoided, no question were brought up and neither candidate directly addressed global warming and the future. Sam’s exact question was “what are the candidates planning to do about getting America less independent on oil and more educated in the possibilities of alternative fuel sources?”
I don’t know if the question would have improved the quality of the debates significantly, but I think it would have addressed a topic that was needed to be addressed. I agree with Sam that Obama would talk about his efforts to advance wind and solar energy. The Obama administration created test lands in six western states to test and advance solar energy projects (1). The administration also lowered oil imports in the amount of barrels by one billion between 2010 and 2011 and “In December 2009, President Obama and other world leaders came together to negotiate the Copenhagen Accord, an important milestone in which, for the first time, all major developed and developing economies agreed to implement measures to limit their greenhouse gas emissions and to do so in an internationally transparent manner” (2). I find that the Copenhagen Accord is a huge accomplish because it involves multiple nations recognizing that Global Warming is a problem and we need to take action now. For the future Obama has talked about helping protect our oceans, reducing air pollution and supporting land conservation. Obama’s focus on the environment is reducing emissions and creating clean energy opportunities in America.
Mitt Romney’s views on global warming are that there isn’t a clear response on what has caused climate change. "We don't know what's causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us," Mitt Romney said in October(3). Romney wants to promote production of coal products in the U.S. , which as Sam pointed out creates jobs. Romney also wants to reform environmental regulations because he doesn’t believe carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Unlike Obama Romney wants to focus on coal not clean energy.
I believe Sam accurately addressed the candidates’ views. She compared Romney’s and Obama’s plans on global warming and talked about jobs. I agree with Obama’s approach because we should be moving forward with energy not staying where we are with coal production.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/239781-obama-administration-announces-solar-energy-planhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/energy
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/mitt-romney-president-obama-climate-change-global-warming-video
This comment has been removed by the author.
I am responding to Mike Sherman’s post regarding Israel. The question he would ask the two candidates was “If Iran will not give up its attempt to acquire nuclear weapons despite diplomatic pressure, would you support Israel even if they launch a preemptive strike against Iran’s reactors?”
By and large, I agree with Mike’s predictions for the two candidates answers. Obama would simply reassert his position that the United States would stand by Israel if they were attacked (1), and that a pre-emptive strike would have to be carefully deliberated. Romney, due to the nature of his voting base, would be more likely to support a pre-emptive strike in words (2). However, if the time for rhetoric ended and Romney was forced to make a choice, he would likely deliberate the issue with the same trepidation as Obama. A strike on Iran has repercussions, including higher oil prices as Iran retaliates by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, and increased extremism in the Middle East.
In the end, however, I agree with Obama on this issue. The United States cannot afford another Middle Eastern war. A strike would certainly push us into such a conflict. Furthermore, Iran’s nuclear reactors are located in deep bunkers stashed in mountains regions, and are designed to withstand aerial assault. It is unlikely that a strike would do any significant damage. In order to destroy those facilities, the use of nuclear warheads is likely required, which opens up another can of issues. We, as a nation, also do not want to send Israel a message that they can play loose cannon. As their biggest backer, there must come a time when we say enough. We will fight to defend them, but we will not fight in wars that they provoke. The current sanctions are taking their toll on Iran’s economy. If need be, the sanctions can get harsher. While these sanctions come uncomfortably close to collective punishment, it is the best peaceful solution available right now. And while I agree with Mike that if Iran comes dangerously close to developing a nuclear weapon, we may have no choice other than military action, I stand with Obama because peace needs to be given a chance. We cannot forget the lessons of history. War must be a last resort. Times have changed. The United States must learn to exert its influence in ways that do not involve billions of dollars and thousands of deaths.
1. http://www.jacpac.org/index.php/component/content/article/44-issues/224-president-obama-and-israel-february-2012
2. http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
I am responding to Sara’s post from last week. I agree with her and she has many interesting points. If she were the moderator she would ask the candidates how they plan to create energy-clean or energy efficient policy, or how they would attempt to do so. I asked a similar question in my blog post and found similar results.
Sara and I both would like one of the candidates would respond with a transition to natural resources and the reduction of harmful emissions. We would both like to see businesses become more energy efficient and cars become more fuel efficient.
I found very little on both President Obama and Governor Romney’s plans for creating energy efficient policies so I looked at Sara’s sources. I found that Obama is looking into “energy independence(1).” He is agreeing with automakers to increase fuel efficient standards that will save families more than $8,000 per vehicle(1). This will also lead to a decrease in our nation’s oil consumption (1). I also found that Obama is focusing on increasing production of American oil instead of foreign oil (1).
Romney did not focus so much on the energy-efficiency in his policy, however, Sara worded this very well. She said that she would expect Romney to answer this question in more of an economic sense than a environmental sense. I completely agree with this. His plan would have been to lower energy prices and create job (2).
Both Sara and I would have asked a question about the environment had we been the moderators. We both would have liked to hear a plan that would be energy efficient and help the environment. Sara said that she felt that Obama would represent her views more than Romney and this is true for me too.
1) http://www.democrats.org/issues/energy_independence
2. http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy
I completely agree with Ryan O. in saying that the topic of higher education in the United States and, more specifically, the financial strain it puts on college students and their families was sorely missed during the presidential debates. Especially to those, such as our government class, who are gearing up to begin their own college education, the inevitability of graduating with an almost unmanageable debt is frightening; still we must go to college, though, if we want to compete in the evolving job market of the twenty-first century. For this reason, many people would indeed be interested in what the candidates would have to say on the topic, and the clear differences between the two would provide for a solid debate with many statistics to provide evidence with. Ryan’s guess at Romney’s answer seems to do a fairly good job of summing up the ex-presidential candidate’s opinion. An important part that I would have maybe stressed more is Romney’s desire to increase private sector participation. As for Obama’s hypothetical response, Ryan again did a good job, identifying Obama’s general idea and lack of specific plans to address the issue. Overall, I think I agree with Ryan the most. Romney’s idea of increasingly involving the private sector would only exacerbate the problem of colleges trying to one up each other with new buildings and stadiums, driving tuition even higher. Obama, on the other hand, believes that the solution is to increase financial aid and have the government give even lower interest loans to students, at a great cost to the federal government. What the current system actually needs, as Ryan says, is for the government to work WITH higher education to reduce tuition and keep the necessary amount of loans to a minimum.
1) www.mittromney.com/issues/education
2) www.barackobama.com/education
I have chosen to react to the question posed by Jeremy. The question he would have asked the candidates is "Polls have shown that the younger generations are more accepting towards gay marriage. How do you plan on addressing the issues of LGBT persons, who are faced with obstacles such as hate crimes and suicide?". The main reason I see this as a great question is because it would have produced two more polar answers than most other questions. While Romney has been observed in the past as "whip-flopping" on other questions, I don't think this would have been the case with this particular question. Because of this belief, it is apparent that Jeremy and I agree on the answers the candidates would likely have given. First off, I would have been pretty surprised to see Obama renounce his support of gay marriage, something he did earlier in the year (1). As support for gay rights in general grows throughout the youth and eventually to older people, it will become increasingly important to support the LGBT community. As for Mitt Romney, I see no flip-flopping occurring. I would have been just as surprised to hear Romney declare support of gay marriage as I would Obama renouncing his support thereof. If Romney had done anything other than reiterate the position of the Republican platform on marriage, Rove and other top Republicans would have been kicking themselves (2). In the end, I would have agreed with Obama's stance, given he would have supported it in a debate. I think that in order to move forward as a country, everyone (regardless of sexual orientation) needs to be afforded the same rights.
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html
(2) http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Renewing/#Item1
I'm responding to Annika's post, in which she posted the question, “If you were (re)elected as US President, what would you do to improve the standing of the United States in the global economy as a competitor?” I think that this question would have improved the quality of the presidential debates quite a bit. It would have provided another chance for the candidates to talk about their plans for the economy, while at the same time having them apply it to the rest of the world. Instead of hearing about the 5-point plan or how the wealthy need to pay their fair share over and over again, the candidates would need to actually explain how their plans and policies would help us in a global market.
I found that Annika's prediction of what Mr. Obama would say seemed pretty accurate. I can agree that he would point to all the measures he's taken in office, and that his big advantage over Romney was being in a position to do these things. The only part I would disagree with was her mention of the 12-point plan. This is because her blog post was the first time I'd heard of it. I did a quick Google search for it, but could only find this, which isn't endorsed by Obama or the Democratic party.
I also think her estimation of how Governor Romney would have responded was pretty spot-on. I'm sure Mr. Romney would go into his "I'm an experienced businessman" routine, which is somehow proof for how he would be able to handle the economy of a nation. I presume that he would avoid claims of his job outsourcing entirely. I agree that he would have toted the Republican "free-market" approach, and I definitely think that he would have mentioned his 5-point plan, because that was a huge talking point for his campaign, and he brought it up at least once in every debate. Finally, he probably would have talked about China's currency manipulation.
Overall, I find myself agreeing with Annika's answer over either of the projected answers from the candidates. My reasoning is that she actually got to the root of the problem: education and how we deal with other countries. We need to get people in this country educated so that they can become functioning workers that drive the economy forward. We also need to work with other countries around the world, and focus on freer trade, but balance that with sanctions against countries who don't (yes, quoting Romney here) "play by the rules".
In response to Akorede,
I would like to respond to his question by agreeing that I think his question would have made the debates better. The issue of poverty would be slightly skipped over and then the subject changed to another one. The economy is probably where each candidate would have ended up going with the question and would start talking about jobs and then saying that is what would help get people out of poverty. However, I agree with Akorede's assumption that they would stick to their party lines about how they would improve the economy to help combat poverty. Romney and small business and Obama and his tax cuts for the middle class. So if it was in the first debates it would help give us a view of what they would believe in. If it had been asked in the later debates I feel like it would not have advanced the debates further along because their answers would be the same to many other questions asked before and would eventually become repetitive. Overall, I would agree that this question would help move the debates along only in the earlier debates.
I think that Noah’s Question, would have added some interesting spice to the debates. Noahs question asked “What should the United States look like in 2050 concerning its government, people, and qualities?” I think this question really would have sparked some interesting conversation, not only on the debate but throughout the country. It would have provided a little whimsy to go with doom, gloom, and biased attacks. Of course as Noah said, the question, probably would have ended up with some more attacks, the two candidates just were incapable of being in a room without trying to one up another. I think that with that question Americans could see a little clearer what the leaders want for the future. I definitely agree with what Noah said about the two candidates responses. However I think obama would also mention something about reducing our dependency on oil. Probably not because he truly believes in it but you’ve gotta keep the green party vote somehow. I think that his description of Romney’s response is also quite accurate, however I do think that he would very much so emphasize the return to family values, as well as a plug for his proposed education system going back into the hands of families (well at least he would if he had wanted more female votes....) Personally, I find myself aligning more with noah’s ideal answer for the question, as obviously its utopian qualities is appealing because who doesn’t want a world with less debt, and less prejudice. However, I think that in my utopian answer, I would have liked to see a comment about a change in the education system so that all students could have the ability to thrive in their own way, kind of a melding of democratic and republican ideas that is never going to happen. Of course, however, Utopia means “no place” so not many of these ideals will come to fruition but, a girl can dream right?
The United States fiscal house is in total disarray (almost as bad as the houses in Congress) . According to the US Debt Clock, the current national debt is $16,244,368,500,500. Sam L raises the question: "If you are elected/re-elected, what would you do to keep the United States from going further into debt?" I think that both candidates danced around this question during the debates, without ever really answering it Then again, it is hard to get politicians to give a straight answer on anything. Nonetheless, it is a question that reflects the concerns of the majority of Americans.
I agree with Sam’s answer; the federal budget needs to be balanced this year. However, both sides disagree on what should be cut to balance the budget. I think that the President, in addition to blaming President Bush and mentioning the need to tax the wealthy, would argue that the government bailouts and the passing of Obamacare will save the economy. He would propose that by cutting back on military spending, we will be able to balance our budget and keep “crucial” programs. Governor Romney would cite his 5 step plan for economic growth. He would argue that if we repeal “big government” programs and cut back on wasteful spending, we will be able to balance our budget. Now the election is over, and the burden and the honor of being President falls again on Mr. Obama’s shoulders. America will have to watch and wait to see how his second term plays out.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/7b1.pdf
http://www.gop.com/news/press-releases/rnc-releases-2012-republican-party-platform/
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/obama-signs-cash-for-clunkers-bill/
My response it to Sam W. and his post regarding the question he would ask at a presidential debate. He said that he would ask what the presidents policy would be on green energy and the environment. He predicted their responses the exact way I would have predicted them. That Obama would say he will continue to drill for oil like he has for the past four years and invest in clean energy. Improving fuel economy(cash for clunkers) has been a main focus as well that is intended to delay until we have the capabilities to produce enough clean energy for us all. He invested hugely in clean energy.
I think that he would fail to mention how many clean energy companies failed despite huge government subsidies. It is an experimental market and while gasoline is still cheap people will not invest their money in clean energy even if it is a long term issue that needs to be looked at. I think his best bet is to keep investing in the private portion of the clean energy sector and offer subsidies to companies or give more money to government research so that it will not be patented and widely unavailable or expensive for the next few decades. I agree also with the statement that this issue affects everyone hugely. Hurricane Sandy and a freak snow storm days later are ominous signs of what is to come if we continue down this road. I think one thing that people have not talked about at least openly is the removal of co2 from the atmosphere. It would be best pursued near power plants but if we get desperate enough it could become our only option to do it openly. It is hugely cost inefficient but if our crops are hit one to many times in a row, we can’t live on nothing and allow the entire world to starve. This is highly unlikely but the best last ditch attempt we have. Romney would likely not address the question at all. Like Sam said it is not even listed on his platform. This is a big mistake and may well have cost him some more moderate or younger republicans. Unlike old Mitt we have to live on this hotbox of a planet for the next 80 years and would like it not to batter us with freak storms every week. He and the republican party need to look hard at their stances on this issue and many others before they come to the next election. A split may well be on the way and I hope that when it happens they take a more progressive stance on issues like the environment.
In response to Josh P
I believe that Josh has asked a very important question that should have been given to the presidential candidates during one or both of the debates. Despite the fact that most voters were concerned with the economy (1), many other issue deserve attention. The environment has been brought up over and over again in our blogs, and it is an important issue that has not really been addressed in the debates. But the issue of foreign policy is also important. It has global ramifications and also ties in with the issue of what America’s place in the world should be. This topic was brought up in the vice-presidential debate, but it would have improved the quality of the debates if it was brought up in the presidential debates as well. I believe that Josh is correct in the analysis of both President Obama and Mitt Romney’s views. He said that President Obama would try to rely on treaties with other nations (2), while Mitt Romney would advocate a foreign policy along the lines of “peace through strength” (3). I would agree with both Romney and Josh on this issue. Making treaties with other countries is not always the best policy, as some frequently break them (see Josh P’s post for specifics). I agree with Josh that a strong economy is vital to an America that is a world leader. There is only one candidate for president who actually has a background in business. Mitt Romney is the better man to lead the country to economic prosperity (despite the fact that he didn’t win the general election). His principles are much better than those of Obama, under whom the economy will eventually recover (hopefully), but not until he runs up trillions in the National Debt trying to solve the problem.
1 http://www.gallup.com/poll/125843/election-2012.aspx
2 http://www.democrats.org/issues/national_security#more
3 http://www.gop.com/our-party/
In response to Marco’s post, I believe that Marco was completely right in addressing the lack of environmental policy questions during the debates. If Marco’s question could have been asked, then I believe the debates would have better addressed the nation’s current concerns and would have started a discussion about how to solve the growing, worldwide environmental crisis. I think it would have been interesting to see the candidates’ responses. I agree that the preferred answer should be along the lines of discussing how the country will move toward energy independence through implementing green energy systems such as solar panels and wind turbines. Researching, building, and using this technology would provide a spark for the economy, by creating new, much-needed jobs. This would have been an excellent response, especially when considered in political concerns, because it not only sufficiently answers questions about helping the environment; it also provides a method to begin improving the nation’s economy. Politically, an answer like this would have helped either candidate to garner support among environmentalists and those concerned about the economy. This would have satisfied both environmentalists, and helped put economic concerns at ease. However, no candidate discussed this topic, which is a huge loss for the country, because the situation needs to be addressed. Whether the candidate answers by discussing a wedge theory of environmental policies (using many different methods, or wedges, in order to solve the crisis) or chooses to focus on just a couple of select improvements, addressing this issue should have been on the list for topics to be discussed during the debates. I completely agree with the fact that Romney would address using the private sector more in the process, but I do not believe that Marco discussed just how much of Romney’s answer would be based on this. I believe that Romney would answer by addressing the fact that it was of utmost importance to get the private sector involved in the green process, and whatever time he had left would have been spent discussing how this connects to his Five Point Plan (1). I also believe that Marco correctly answered how the President would have answered. Obama would have responded in a similar manner to the Democratic Party, because it is one of their key platform policies to address the radical Greens. He would have addressed how it is, in his opinion, significant that citizens and the environment are protected and polluters are punished. President Obama would have wanted to appeal even more to environmental policies so as to extend his connection to the leftist members of the Green Party and further enhance his electoral campaign (2). Thus, I believe that Marco did a great job of addressing the answers that these two prominent politicians would have given. Of the above options, I agree the most with Marco because I see so many positives for addressing the environment as a political issue. It would have provided numerous jobs while further promoting the effort to go green and work toward greater national efficiency. This movement would have provided a great push for our economy and for the world as a whole because the United States could finally take its place ahead of other countries, as is its power as the lone remaining superpower, and drive the environmental movement to protect the planet from future problems that we will definitely run into unless addressed now.
1. http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy
2. http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform
In response to Roth’s post, I agree that some elaboration would have been nice concerning the federal budget and foreign policy. I was going to ask what Obama would do with the money we would no longer be spending, but it’s listed on his site (1). While plenty of politicians dodge questions, including Obama, I think this question in particular is one I would like to have found out more about. Romney has infamously non-specific as to what his economic plans are and I think that this is an especially important issue that should really be addressed. Looking at the numbers that Roth has, they really don’t add up and looking at the current troubles we have with getting any budget items passed, I don’t think 22% cuts is going to fly well in congress. This is of course assuming that the numbers are correct. I personally side with Obama on this issue, that we need to retreat from the Middle East, but I only agree if it’s done carefully. It is still an unstable region and we need to make sure that we don’t move out too fast, creating a vacuum of power. The last section of Roth’s post hinted at the crisis in Europe and what the candidates plan to do in response to this. It seems that Obama supports a balanced governmental handling of the European crisis, with the different countries working to control employment and demand (2). Romney, as with a lot of his economic policy, supports free market trade and would probably let the European economy fix itself. It’s a great question that would have defiantly been appreciated during the debate.
1. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
2. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/what-obama-victory-means-for-trans-atlantic-relations-a-865695.html
Kangqiao's question would definitely help bring the candidates attention to potential problem in the United States: global warming. This would have improved the quality of the debate because it would have caused candidates to realize the importance of environmental issues in this debate. In a time where the news waves are dominated by talks of the economy and natural disasters, the environment has been placed on the back burner and this question would definitely make it rise to the surface. On Kangqiao's portrayal of the views of Romney, I find that Kangqiao has created a balanced and fair analysis. Romney does not consider the environment to be a big issue as shown by his comments in the RNC, as Kangqiao showed, and the fact that the GOP website has not included a specific plan about how to cut emissions(1). By saying that, "The environment is getting cleaner and healthier. The nation’s air and waterways, as a whole, are much healthier than they were just a few decades ago," the Republicans show that they do not see the environment as a big problem. However, I disagree with Kangqiao's analysis of Obama's views. Kangqiao says that Obama "doesn’t actually have a plan to solve it." Obama specifically developed a policy of funding alternative energy in order to accomplish this very same goal: to reduce carbon emissions. President Obama has helped to fund various green energy projects specifically aimed at reducing emissions such as Beacon Power and Fiskar Automotive. Furthermore Kangqiao says that "Obama allowed it to die in the Senate," when in reality, Obama has not power on whether it gets passed or not. In fact, it was because of the dislike of the Democrats in the Senate that this measure did not get passed (2). However, I do have to agree with Kangqiao over the reasons why Obama did not pursue this bill. Kangqiao says Obama does not pursue climate change legislation because of "political cowardice."
Personally, I side with Kangqiao on his stance on carbon emissions. I believe a carbon tax or a cap and trade system would help to inspire innovation in dealing with the carbon emissions resulting in new jobs. However, in reality, environmental policy is not a big issue when compared with the economy and the precarious global situation in the Middle East. Although I know that climate change is a potential problem, there are more meaningful problems that need to be dealt with immediately.
1.http://www.gop.com/our-party/
2.http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1944256/president_backs_away_from_capandtrade_proposal/
I found “Blaze’s” response to this post to be particularly thought provoking. He states that he would ask the presidential candidates what their second priority issue is (1). I think this idea is intriguing due to the fact that both Romney and Obama have spent most of the time talking about the economy throughout their campaigns. Because that problem will most likely remain unsolved over the next four years regardless of who is elected, the president will definitely deal with other issues. Therefore, asking this question can inform voters about other major changes that could potentially take place. I think Mike’s assessment of proper responses is completely accurate. Answers should be limited to two or three words so that neither candidate can waltz their way around the question (1). I agree that acceptable issues include those listed (education, immigration, etc.); however, I feel that some other points could be included, such as national defense. According to their campaigns and websites, I think it is likely that Romney would respond with a digression followed by a short comment about the size of government (2). On the other hand, Obama would likely talk about how the rich should “pay their fair share” to the federal government (3). I feel that as long as candidates are honest and respond in a way that is not misleading, there is no “wrong” answer to this question. While some may be better than others, I feel that the importance of each issue differs from person to person.
1. http://apusgopo.blogspot.com/2012/10/post-4-due-friday-november-2nd.html
2. http://www.mittromney.com/
3. http://www.barackobama.com/
In response to Jake’s post, I largely agree. And I certainly think that the question would enrich any debate, regardless of the office or candidates involved, as it pertains to such a large audience seeing as education hardly stops after 12th grade. I also found that Obama would likely bring up his Race to the Top program, which introduced financial initiatives for states to reform, and also set new benchmarks for student success and actually caused 46 states to raise performance and readiness standards and plans to increase the number of STEM teachers in the US. He would also mention his waivers on No Child Left Behind programs, his proposed college student loan payments percentage cap, and his investments in education through the stimulus package of 2009 (1,2). Any incumbent should be able to extol what they've done for constituents in their most recent term that has positively reflected upon them; indeed, the Race to the Top program was commended by several Republicans and denounced by some Democrats, ironically enough, showing that it had to have at least some bipartisan measures (1). Because of this advantage, Obama would most likely rely on his incumbent advantage and flaunt what he’s done that’s worked, and as Jake said, try to keep any extreme ideas out of the picture for fear of inciting the other parties and losing their potential vote. Romney has quite the plan he would likely mention at least the best parts of; his website in fact starts off the education section with the heading “Obama’s Failure (3).” Romney would mention his plans for K-12: giving students and parents the best options and alternatives; ensuring higher standards and specifically, reforming the NCLB act through transparency; rewarding successful and promising teachers; and for secondary education, making it more affordable (though he kind of skims over this; the section on it, while college and university education provide some of our main financial issues, gets very little attention) (3). But Romney, regardless of his “better-than-Obama’s-plan” which apparently doesn’t involve “doubling down on the problem” or “don’t mend it, just spend it,” would also likely mainly circumvent the question in favor of giving Americans the answer they want to hear: that the system will get better; the knots untangled; college made more affordable; scores will go up; success will be rewarded. How will this happen? Most Americans still aren’t sure…so I think that gives us our answer as to how the candidates would have responded.
1. http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-vs-romney-education-reform-83343/
2. http://www.barackobama.com/plans/education
3. http://www.mittromney.com/issues/education
In response to Dylan’s post about the candidate’s position on fuel efficient cars, I would agree with him that federal mandates on fuel efficiency are needed. If Americans don’t think about our energy future at the same time as our current economic crisis, we will be up the creek without a canoe (as Bolyard would say). I would also agree that the environment was an issue missing in the debates. I find this interesting because if you think about it, it’s the most important issue of our time. Will our planet still be around in another century? We need to start thinking about this question, and if you are like me and you’re not sure of the answer, you know that we must take action.
One thing Dylan left out of his analysis was Romney’s support of the free market. Romney would probably have left emissions regulation to the private sector. Romney and the Republican Party have always tried to give as much control of the economy to the private sector. This is, in effect, what capitalism is, and it works in most cases. However, we need sweeping energy reform, and the only way we will get that is through federal regulation.
There was an overwhelming trend in our class towards discussing environmental issues, which is not surprising given their importance and the fact that they were entirely overlooked throughout the course of the presidential debates (2). In particular, Dylan “Swag Me Out” H explored the governmental conundrum and the impact it could have had were the candidates asked about it during the debates.
While I agree with Dylan’s analysis of the issue, I wonder if there’s more to be said on environmental questions. Dylan’s question for the candidates focused on fuel efficiency in cars as it relates to the availability of oil. This question is of vital importance to the country and the debates would have been greatly improved had it been asked, though I personally would have liked to have seen this question addressed as a part of a broader, more sweeping question. For instance, “It is currently estimated that oil production will reach its peak before the year 2020 and will continuously decline afterwards (1). What steps would you, as president, take to prevent a fuel shortage in the next ten years?” Dylan predicted that both candidates would dodge the issue of fuel efficiency anyway and focus more broadly, so the answers that Dylan predicted each candidate would give would be far more on-topic than normal if a broader question were asked.
When it comes to choosing with whom I agree most-- Dylan, Obama or Romney-- I tend to favor a hybrid Obama-Dylan combination. Dylan would advocate an increase in cars’ fuel standards as a precautionary measure while Obama would fall back on his record of investing in green energy. Dylan predicted that Romney would oppose increased fuel efficiency standards and would turn the question around to discuss the burden that Obama’s environmental policies have put on the economy. I’d put money on Dylan’s prediction and would also speculate that the term “five point plan” would have come up at least once during Romney’s response. There’s no doubt in my mind that Dylan’s question is an important and thought provoking one, and I fully back his predictions about each response. With that, I will gladly “swag [Dylan] out.”
1.https://www.regione.vda.it/energia/notiziario_ultime/allegati/allegato968ita.pdf
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/23/us-president-debates-climate-change
Jessica's question to the candidates caught my eye. I'm sure we all would like to know how much money is going to be tossed in the black hole that is education. This would have definitely improved the debates, especially for people our age, our parents, and others. It has been argued that Americans cannot compete in education and careers with some other countries. But how can we increase the quality of education if we don't want the price to quickly learn intergalactic travel and skyrocket? I agree most with Jessica's prediction of how Romney would have acted. Most people (except the one's with crazy mothers that would leap out of an airplane if you didn't go to college) would give up on college and find something else to do. Perhaps a greater rise of professional schooling will occur. This will happen because people will realize that the debt from college will be so much that the job you get better pay off that debt soon, otherwise you'll soon be broke. We need to reanalyze the benefit from a college education. While a better education equals a higher paid job, those jobs just don't exist anymore in today's market. Maybe the benefit from a college education isn't as great as we think, meaning that the education is worth less and thus should cost less.
I’m responding to storm, his question for the candidates was "how would you make health care best for all of us?(if you know what I mean)." I do think that if both candidates were to be asked this question they would both pertain to their target voters. I agree with storm that the right candidate should say that health care should be free for all Americans regardless of their economic status and have low taxation that everyone can agree on. I believe that Obama would do the best job on responding to this question because of his previous ability to answer questions the best of his abilities while really interesting his target audience at the same time. Storm was also correct in his prediction of how each candidate would answer the question.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I shall be responding to dear old Storm. Healthcare is an extremely important topic in the United States at the moment. Currently, the United States government spends about 15% of the total GDP on Healthcare alone (1). The US is the #1 spender on healthcare and is spending almost 50% more than the next country (Switzerland) (1). Although, I have to disagree with Storm, we cannot make this service free. Making healthcare free would not bring in a enough money to pay for the healthcare causing the United States to borrow even more money increasing the deficit. What needs to be done is to provide a non discriminatory plan that is low cost to everyone, but allows people to opt out if the choose to. This way people who want government healthcare can have it, and people who want private care can have that. Adjusting prices will alleviate burden on funding the program.
However, I agree with Storm on Obama and Romney's responses. Romney would most likely attempt to dodge the question to a certain extent and say not the entire truth; that he would lower the costs of healthcare (somehow) and ensure quality (2). Obama on the other hand would most likely flat out say that the government should run healthcare and provide all citizens with the same plan, that way no discrimination can be made (3). But I would like to disagree with both of them and hybridize their plans. Like I said above, the government should be able to provide healthcare to all Americans but some Americans, that choose to, should be able to opt out. I don't think a person should have to pay for a service that they do not want or use when they can pay for another plan that suits their wants and needs better.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Spending
2. http://www.gop.com/our-party/
3. http://www.democrats.org/issues/health_care
I shall also be responding to Storm. I think that bringing up healthcare in the debates directly would have greatly improved the substance of the debates because, while it was a central issue to both candidates and campaigns, it was never addressed directly (at least not where I was watching). The primary problems in our healthcare system in the United States right now is that costs are rising (in all sectors), creating strains on people who pay for insurance and on government programs that provide insurance. The other main problem is that it is a paperwork nightmare. I think therefore that this would be a very good question to ask the candidates.
I think that president Obama would defend his highly controversial health care bill that he pushed through Congress and would continue by establishing his belief in certain things, like (as Storm stated) exemption from pre-approved conditions and a system that is closer to universal care that provides more adequately for the less privileged. (1) On the other hand, I think Romney would attack President Obama’s health care package as wasteful government intervention into a market, creating inefficiency and putting the burden on middle class Americans. (2)
As for my view, I think that a single-payer market-based universal healthcare system would be best. The primary problem with a more market-based plan for health insurance reform in the US is that consumers self-select. Those who have more serious medical issues will naturally select the cheapest plan with the most benefits (generally more expensive), while those without medical issues will choose the cheapest plan. The problem arises with the way insurance works: insurance companies depend on a wide range of medical costs between all the people on one plan, so that the more expensive people (who pay less than they cost the company) are negated by the less expensive people (who cost the company less in medical fees than they bring in). Of course, the “less expensive people” aren’t going to stay in that plan: they’re paying more than they’re getting in benefits, so they’ll switch to a lower cost plan; this forces the insurance company to raise the price in order to still make a profit. Over time, this self-selection leads to high insurance costs for the sick and low insurance costs for everyone else. However, if we instituted a system where the government taxed every individual the same amount, then offered insurance companies a fixed amount of money for each individual they insured, but let the people choose their plans, we could avoid all of this. Insurance companies could offer a wide range of plans for which they could earn a profit at the government-provided price per person, individuals could choose the plan that works best for them, and self-selection isn’t a problem since everybody pays the same (or nothing, depending on your interpretation), as long as insurance companies are required to accept anybody into any plan (which they would be). Furthermore, the government could easily adjust the quantity of care that people can receive by raising or lowering the price offered to insurance companies per person. I think that this system would combine the best elements of a single-payer system with a market-based approach.
1. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
2. http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
In response to Jeremy's post...
His question was "Polls have shown that the younger generations are more accepting towards gay marriage. How do you plan on addressing the issues of LGBT persons, who are faced with obstacles such as hate crimes and suicide?"(1) I feel that this would not have increased the quality of the debates. This being because both candidates probably would have stated their views, but because Republicans tend to be more Christian, Romney would not have budged and Obama, already saying he is supportive of Gay marriage(1), they would have either been arguing the same points over and over, or they would have just moved on faster, after they state their views. I totally agree with how he said the candidates would react. Obama would have been supportive of Gay marriage, and Romney would not have been. I agree most with Jeremy and Obama because I think that Gay marriage should be legal because if it's not hurting anyone's basic 3 rights(liberty,life and pursuit of happiness) then why should other people care if your going against whatever says that "being gay is a sin". Especially if it is not making the criticizer sin, then it should be fine and legal.
1) Jeremy's Post
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home