Thursday, September 20, 2012

Obama's Accomplishments, and Why I Won't Vote for Him

Under President Obama:
* 3.76 million private sector jobs since July 09.
* 4.63 million since Feb 2010.

Osama Bin Laden dead.
The Iraq War finished.
(Yet, yes, the Afghan War still in effect. What a stupid waste.)

$7,000,000,000,000 in wealth created in the stock market. (Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.")

* The numbers of uninsured dropping for the first time since forever.
* Yet health care delivered via the private market still suffering devastating increases.... Which Romney doesn't have a clue how to solve. (Hint: it won't be via the so-called 'free market.')

* Gas prices below the Bush years: 11% below their peak of national average peak of $4.32/gallon on 7/17/08, when adjusted for inflation via the CPI [author's calculations]. (Not that Presidents' have much influence over the global oil market anyway.)

Smaller government. (21,000 fewer federal government employees since July 2009.)

And the problem is where exactly? Especially with a bumbling fool in the other party, a cossetted liar who understands nothing about the lives of you and me, who has on compassion, no higher goal than being elected President.

...And yet, I won't be voting for Obama.... He is just as dependent on the rotting influence of big-money as is the other guy, and this has (already) ruined our democracy. My vote doesn't count (especially since I do not live in a swing state) -- your's doesn't either. Money counts for far more. The only recourse is a protest vote.


bahamamamma said...

I know what you mean. In 2008 I pledged my vote to the candidate who came out against the "Bail Outs". As neither of the major party candidates obliged I cast my protest vote for Boris Johnson, the Lord Mayor of London.

Boris was born in New York and has been dubbed "The Thinking Man's Idiot". A typical quote:
"Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3."

For more Boris quotes:;jsessionid=2F7EE6B259B5A454271DD7F11F8F426D

In spite of his many great qualities, Boris won't get my vote in 2012 as this time I am looking for someone who wants to preserve freedom of the individual.

Since the death of Vaclav Havel on December 18, 2011, probably the most eloquent opponent of socialism and etatism is Vaclav Klaus. How wonderful it would be to have someone with his understanding of freedom running for president here in the USA. Sadly we have a couple of guys who will say whatever their handlers recommend in order to get elected. Anyone who talked about principles and ideals the way that Klaus does was eliminated from the presidential race long ago.

How is it that guys with strange sounding east european names understand the meaning of freedom better that the leaders of the “Land of the Free”? I hope some of you know the answer.

Victor Venema said...

The problem is the winner-takes-all electoral system of the US. This invariably leads to a 2-party system. This has one advantage over a dictatorship/kingdom: you can get rid of a incompetent leader.

However, it is too easy to ignore the will of the people in a 2-party system. The dynamics will produce 2 almost identical parties and much of the population will not feel represented.

As a lobbyist you just have to make convince two parties and each of these parties will not fear doing something unpopular as long as lobbyist can make sure that the other party joins. Add to this that the US is a huge country and that thus the government is far away and you will get a system that responds more to money as to the people.

A representative system looks somewhat less transparent on the short run because of negotiations needed to build a coalition government. However, in the long run, the will of the people is much better represented.

Chris_Winter said...

Certainly big money has a profoundly corrupting influence on the democratic process, and not only at election time. And yes, Obama has been a disappointment: failing to close Guantánamo, acquiescing to unconstitutional surveillance, most of all continuing to bow far too often to Wall Street's wishes.

Yet I will vote for him because, although his performance is disappointing, the performance of his opponent would IMO be disappointing to the point of devastation. A large and lasting part of that devastion would be the appointees a Romney administration would leave in place — such as judges at all levels of the federal system.

Now, OT, but I see no better place to put it:

Months ago you asked to be advised if I posted a review of Merchants of Despair. That's been up in unfinished form for a while now, but due to various impediments I only just completed it. It's here. Enjoy.

bahamamamma said...

If you want real "Democracy", start by eliminating elections. Government offices should be filled using the process of sortition.

What's that you say? Sortition is the process delivers that dreaded letter appointing you for jury duty.

Leaders thus appointed would be able to concentrate on their duties as they would not have to run for a second term. The remuneration would be modest with no pensions or benefits not afforded to the general public.

Unlike jury duty you would be able to "decline to serve" with no penalty.

Brian said...

Vaclav Klaus is a climate denialist, so I don't need to pay much attention to him.

Obama is less dependent than Romney on big donors, that's well established in campaign financial records. So if you want an incrementally better candidate, vote Obama. If you want a revolution, I suppose you can go grab a gun but I don't personally favor that or think it's likely to succeed. If you want to do nothing much at all, then do a protest vote.

bahamamamma said...

Klaus asks these questions:
1) Is there a statistically significant global warming?

2) If so, is it man-made?

3) If we decide to stop it, is there anything a man can do about it?

4) Should an eventual moderate temperature increase bother us?

Here is his answer:

Do you disagree, and if so why?

Brian said...

bahama - go to Skeptical Science for good answers to those questions. I'm not interested in rehashing denialism basics when it's already been done.

rspung said...

lol, so you picked the day of the bush administration when gas prices were at their highest, and claimed obama dropped them.

i believe that's called "cherry picking".

if you want to measure obnama's performance, measure it from when he took office until now.

that includes everything, especially jobs.

David Appell said...

I don't think a president is responsible for everything from day 1, but if you want to do that, here are the changes in total private sector employment for the last three administrations:

Bush1: -0.91 M
Bush2: +0.27 M
Obama (so far): +0.42 M

This doesn't include yesterday's revision of an additional 400,000 jobs under Obama; and in his case there is also a loss of -676,000 jobs in the government sector.

David Appell said...

Data is here:

3H said...

The other reason that I can't vote for him, is his assertion of Presidential authority to order the execution of US citizens in a foreign country, much less executing any citizen without a trial. The continued operation of Gitmo. His vendetta against whistle blowers. And the general growth of the national security state. Sadly I voted for him the firs time. I won't make that mistake again.