Are We Better Off Today than 4 Years Ago?

Are we better off four years into Obama's presidency? Well, it depends how you look at it. I say, yes, we are! The previous chief and his crew started the fire that began to consume our house. This chief and his crew put out the fire and have began the rebuilding process. Is our house better since 2008? Probably yes. Is it better since we arrived? Probably not. However, the previous regime that created the whole mess now wants the keys back because the present regime hasn't completely fixed the mess!

Oh, and when the current chief asks for tools, programs, jobs, the Republicans in Congress say, NO! Under our system, the president can't raise or spend money unless Congress agrees. Further, we should never elect to high office persons and political parties that do not have a positive view regarding government. If they don't think our government can be a positive force for our commonwealth, they should stay away. No, government is not the answer to all problems, but it is the agent that reduces obstacles to freedom, to enhance access to opportunity, and to push for legal equality.

The numbers

Clinton was right, the Dems have created almost twice as many jobs despite controlling the White House for fewer years! The Repubs have created more deficits and increased the gap between the 1% and the rest. How about the market? Without including the Great Depression [guess who was mainly responsible for it?], had you invested in the market, under a Dem president you'd have gotten an annual return twice as big, 8.9% to 4.7%; including Hoover's term, then it drops to 0.4%! [Here's the link to those numbers]

Obama gets an "D" (barely passes) when it comes to political communication. He cut taxes for 95% of the middle class taxpayers and nobody knows it. The benefits of the health care law are not known to those not immediately affected by it, so many people think it's another big government program costing billions more, when it's not and it actually reduces medical expenses. One third of the stimulus went to tax breaks for working people!

There's been a huge investment in green jobs and the CBO reports that 2.5 millions jobs are a direct effect. Likewise for the automobile industry and the many private business connected to it. The stimulus package was mainly a jobs bill in essence, but Obama hasn't communicated that!

Banks got a bailout--private banks with very highly-paid execs--but that saved the financial system. It wasn't done in a way most of us would have liked, but it was necessary.

Where's G. W. Bush?

In 2008, the US had lost millions of jobs, and was losing hundred of thousands every month until the summer of 2009 when Obama's policies began to take effect. The conservatives started labeling the Great Recession as Obama's recession a week after the November election in 2008!

If the GOP really believes Obama is responsible not for the pace of the recovery but for the roots of the problem why don't they take G.W. Bush and his crew out of mothballs and parade them around today until the election? Did you hear Dubya's name at the GOP convention? I didn't either!

In 2008, the economy was shrinking 9% a year; it was like the entire economy of Canada disappearing! Deregulation and lack of oversight of Wall Street created many of the financial scandals. This is the philosophy and policies of the conservatives at play. Yes, many Democratic leaders also cater to Wall Street and big banks. A few support regulation of the marketplace and not a libertarian's paradise, like Somalia...

Why? Because capitalism needs referees, needs oversight, needs to be saved from itself. The more successful, stable, happy, safest, healthiest countries are the ones who have strong regulations and a good oversight. The more "pure capitalist" countries are on the opposite side of this spectrum. Check it out.

It's truly amazing that the US conservatives' policies attract so much support. Why Romney and his party are still competitive in this election... They are not saying anything different nor are proposing new policies but the ones that got us into a deep recession and worsened the position of the middle class.  Are we suffering from Alzheimer's as a nation? Let's see what happens on November 6th, 2012, when not only the presidency will be decided but Congress and the future Supreme Court.

Summer Politics Worth of Staycation Laze

Let's talk politics before this summer is over and the dynamic changes after Labor Day and the two parties' nominating conventions. So, here are a few things: the nominating show, the economy, the problem with the base of the GOP, and looking into the magic bowl while chewing coca leaves... (or, something like that).

Invite or not Sarah Palin to speak at the GOP convention?

The Repubs are having their show in a couple weeks and Romney has vowed to pick his VP before then. The first rule is do-no-harm. The VP choice rarely adds anything to the ticket but it can be a drag as Sarah Palin demonstrated. At best, in an evenly matched prez field the VP can add a slight margin in his state (if it's competitive; Alaska wasn't in 2008, which was another mistake by McCain), and may add a very few more votes in a couple other states.


Here's the problem with Romney and the GOP: They are out of the mainstream. Most of their main policy proposals--as articulated on the state level, in Congress, and their affiliated tea parties--are not in line with the vast majority of Americans. Worse, if these policies and social issues stands are further explained to the public, their approval drops even lower. Worst, is that the country is moving away from them.

Romney was/is (?) a moderate, or someone who's a businessman and cares little about the social issues that don't affect his wealthy class. Yet, he wants to be president but unfortunately for him (and many other centrist Repubs) he has to go through a very conservative activist base. So, he flips-flops. He was for gun control, same-sex rights, choice, mandated health coverage, etc. He now had to denounce those views to be viable in today's GOP. 

The Chick-fil-A gay bashing issue is indicative of Romney's impossible conundrum. He avoided taking a position (as he has on many other social issues), because he can't have it both ways--he can't alienate the American public nor he can afford to turn away his activist but very conservative base. However, that inane leader of the Catholic League Donohue--who reflects the views of may social conservatives regardless of their particular denomination--has said that they're pondering sitting this election out, because they fear is confirmed they cannot trust Romney to be a social conservative!

Elections are decided on turnout to a great extend and it doesn't look good for Romney right now. Even as a known quality, even after having a Dem prez in office, Mittens was receiving fewer votes in the competitive primaries earlier this year than 4 years ago when he was losing to Mac! One might have expected a higher mobilization wave against the "Muslim Kenyan" in the Oval Office, but it's either because Anti-Christ's hold of the executive doesn't seem as too threatening or that Obama's centrist style is acceptable to most voters. Barry Hussein seems to have a much higher "likeability" index than Mittens!

As for the economy, people are pessimistic--they've been hurting since 2008--but not quite blaming Obama for the entirety of the misery. They don't see a good alternative in Mittens either. So, I suppose O's positives will hover around 50%, good enough for reelection, barring any major disaster before November.

It's often said that Americans don't really pay attention to politics in the summer. Maybe the don't follow the details {do they other times?} but impressions still are being formed about the major candidates. Two issues that aren't going away is how R made money at Bain Capital and his tax returns. The latter creates the impression that he's out of touch, that he's hiding something by not releasing older tax records. I think this is a case of double damnation--releasing the records or not.   

Even if Harry Reid--who claimed that a former Mitt associate said R didn't pay any taxes for 10 years--is wrong, I assume that most Americans wouldn't like it that a multi-millionaire pays half the rate most of us do. Yes, it's an issue with me as well. I'm in the so-called middle class and my tax rates are twice as Romney's 12.99% of his last tax return! I don't care how he gets his income. Well, actually I work hard while he collects dividends and interest from his vast fortunes. There's something seriously wrong with this picture.

And, the Repubs want to keep the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy, which is another point the Dems must keep reminding everyone. Even billionaire Warren Buffet [clearly a ..traitor to his class] said that the rich always ask for more money so they can spend more and thus create more jobs! Obviously a ridiculous claim but one adopted by the GOP that wants to convince us the trickle down effect is rain and not the wealthy pissing on us.

Guns Don't Kill People! Therefore, All Guns, Any Weapon, to All People! Yeehaw!

Those who don't like gun control now--after the theater massacre in CO--say "let's not politicize it". I say, we shouldn't if no aspects of this outcome are related to political decisions. Of course, we all know that the prevalence of gun violence in our society isn't because of our culture but also because of laws which are the result of political considerations, lobbying, and leadership.

Short on something?

Speaking of leadership, the president failed to lead, again, on this issue. He may lead, from the rear, in the near future if the country moves ahead on this issue and demands sensible gun controls. This issue is like so many others--oh, "controversial"--so Obama is cautious. Like he was with the Don't Ask Don't Tell, same sex marriage, taxes, etc. First the country moved, then this president followed instead of providing leadership.

Even most NRA members agree that sensible gun laws, better and more complete ones we have now, are needed! So, when will this president and Congressional leaders take on this issue? Why isn't there a federal law prohibiting assault weapons, certain ammo, and requiring background checks and waiting periods? 

Not turn-the-other-cheek fellow.

One of the stupidest arguments is that "the Gov will take away our freedom if it takes away, or knows about, our guns!" Oh, really? IF it comes to that, it will be too late indeed; the GOV always has more and bigger guns. We would have lost our fundamental freedoms well before that. And, we'd lose those freedoms by being idiotic, apathetic, and having a bumper-sticker mentality!

Modern societies have progressed from the days when justice and protection was up to each person--if they could afford it. Disputes are better solved without violence and if there's violence deadly weapons aren't used. We tried the method of everybody carrying a gun to defend themselves and we, at least most of the advanced societies, decided to change that. 

Draw and make my day!

Sure, it's possible that the Colorado incident might have turned out differently had most of the theater audience packed guns. How different, I'm not sure. On campus where I work we've talked about the V Tech student massacre few years ago--when one person walked on campus and killed 30+ people. Maybe that would have happened if faculty, staff, and students had been carrying guns. However, what would happen every other day?! And, what would the atmosphere be when everybody knows a dispute can escalate into bullets flying everywhere?!
 

The Notion of Freedom 

I will not tire repeating that freedom is not just the absence of restraint! Yet, this is how most Americans define it, but this is rather inadequate nowadays. Obstacles to freedom include poverty, illiteracy, prejudice, tyranny of the majority, disease, lack of opportunity, etc.  


From my perspective, having the freedom to carry a gun and use it for protection is not as important as having health care, education, and be in an environment that allows me to reach my potential.  I cannot understand why having limits on the types of weapons I can buy, the types & amount of ammunition I can obtain, or restrictions on how and where to use certain weapons is limiting my true freedom. 

If guns don't kill people, then why have any limits? How about licensing nukes, armed fighter planes, and dirty bombs? Don't we need such weaponry for hunting or target practice? Obviously no one needs this weapons or huge ammo clips that attach to machine guns. If then it's about the effects οf weapons, then reasonable restrictions are necessary.


Necessary gun control plus some common sense enhance everyone's freedom and the quality of life.
........................................

Update, 7/23

The NYT has an editorial today reflecting many of the points here. Both candidates for president, but especially the sitting president failed to take this opportunity to lead and push for sensible gun laws.  On the other hand,  NYC mayor Bloomberg has been right on this issue all along. 

“Maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”Mayor M. Bloomberg

As much as Obama has been lukewarm on many important issues, GOP flag bearer Mittens Romney is ridiculous. When he was one-term Gov of MA, he advocated all sorts of good things--health care, gun control, same-sex unions, abortion rights, etc. Of course by vying for the leadership of a lunatic party he changed his tune completely. 

And, this is my argument with people who say voting for Romney will not make much of a difference and that maybe he'll be more effective than the siting president. This is wrong on so many counts. Romney will have to govern with this Republican party, with its extreme policies and backward party line. He has flipped-flopped from his centrist positions and he'll most likely won't go back to them if elected. Plus, he'll be running for reelection which will make it even harder to adopt centrist policies.

On the other hand, Obama might be freer to pursue sensible policies (more) boldly after November thinking of his legacy and not of reelection in 2016.