Why Some Non-Partisan, Open-Minded People Support Obama

[mikegriffith1]

FYI, I'm an independent who leans to the right on most issues (but I never voted for George Bush). Although I strongly support Romney, and although I think Obama has done a terrible job in key areas, I can understand why some non-partisan, open-minded people who are somewhere in/near the middle of the ideological spectrum could support Obama's reelection.

I happen to have a number of centrist friends, and even a few conservative friends, who are voting for Obama. Some of them are people who have very conservative moral values and who attend church regularly. A few of them even send their kids to private religious schools. When we have talked about Obama, the reasons listed below largely reflect their reasons for supporting him.

* I think many Republicans don't understand that most Americans are sick and tired of war. Most people like the fact that we're out of Iraq and that we're winding down in Afghanistan. And many people also like the fact that Obama is obviously very reluctant to get involved in another war.

* Many non-partisan, more-or-less-centrist voters like certain aspects of Obamacare, even if they understand that Obamacare also has some major flaws.

* Even some people who are fiscally conservative think we might need to raise the top two tax brackets back to what they were under Clinton in order to get the federal budget under control. They note that the economy did very well when the two top rates were higher under Clinton. (I wonder how many of these people know that just a couple weeks ago Obama announced that he supports ending the Bush tax cuts for middle-income taxpayers as well. I wonder if they realize just how much this would cost them.)

* Many non-ideological voters support Obama's easing of relations with Cuba. Personally, I think our embargo against Cuba is downright silly and that Cuba would be a democratic nation in short order if we would normalize relations and allow a free flow of trade and people with Cuba. I was glad to see Obama ease some of the currency and travel restrictions with Cuba.

* Many voters of all stripes appreciate the fact that Obama has cut taxes for the middle class and the poor with his reduction in the payroll tax (i.e., the Social Security tax). Keep in mind that $288 billion of the $787 billion stimulus went for tax cuts, and most of those tax cuts were for the middle class. In other words, over 1/3 of the stimulus consisted of tax cuts (mostly for the middle class, but also for the poor and for businesses).

* Many centrist types like the fact that Obama kept GM and Chrysler in business. Granted, most of them don't know that part of Obama's auto bailout was an outright handout of $12 billion taxpayer dollars. Nor do most of them know that the bailout only put a temporary band-aid on the structural problems (mainly the unrealistic, unsustainable labor-cost structure) that led those companies to the breaking point in the first place. But, they look and see that GM and Chrysler are making money again, that thousands of auto workers kept their jobs, etc., etc.

* Many centrist types simply do not care about issues like abortion and gay marriage as political issues. They think these are matters of individual choice and they don't get why anyone should care if two men or two women want to get "married." They don't see the threat that gay marriage poses to the foundation of society, the family, and the threat that gay marriage is proving to be to our freedom of religion. They may not like abortion and would not recommend abortion for their daughters with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, but they think this matter should be left to individuals, families, and their doctors to decide. (Yes, I know this position shows no regard for the rights of the baby in the womb, but I'm just summarizing how many centrist-like folks feel on this issue.)

* Many non-partisan, centrist-like voters believe Obama deserves some credit for halting the recession, for stopping the economy's profuse bleeding, and for getting us to the point where we are seeing at least a small amount of economic growth. They opine that weak growth is better than no growth, and many of these voters believe Bush still deserves at least some of the blame for the economy's current state.

* Many non-partisan, centrist-like folks are as concerned about our huge debt and deficit as anyone else is. But they note that Bush and the Republicans took us from a nominally balanced budget and from paying down the debt to irresponsible deficit spending and an increase of $5.1 trillion in the national debt. So they are not too impressed when they hear many of these same Republicans screaming about the debt and the deficit, and thus they are willing to give Obama another chance in this area. They are hopeful that he will get the federal budget under control in a second term. (Don't ask me how any rational person could think this, given what Obama has done and given what he is proposing, but most of these folks simply do not know just how horribly Obama has handled the budget, and they don't understand that what he's now proposing is even worse than what he's done so far. Also, they have fresh memories of the fact that Bush and the GOP did a rather poor job on the budget.)

 

[LoneLaugher]

Thoughtful. Prepare yourself. It is coming your way.

 

[BoredDead]

This has some of the reasons why I'm voting for Obama, but there is a big miss on the last one.

* Many non-partisan, centrist-like folks are as concerned about our huge debt and deficit as anyone else is. But they note that Bush and the Republicans took us from a nominally balanced budget and from paying down the debt to irresponsible deficit spending and an increase of $5.1 trillion in the national debt. So they are not too impressed when they hear many of these same Republicans screaming about the debt and the deficit, and thus they are willing to give Obama another chance in this area. They are hopeful that he will get the federal budget under control in a second term. (Don't ask me how any rational person could think this, given what Obama has done and given what he is proposing, but most of these folks simply do not know just how horribly Obama has handled the budget, and they don't understand that what he's now proposing is even worse than what he's done so far. Also, they have fresh memories of the fact that Bush and the GOP did a poor job on the budget as well.)

I really did a big analysis on the subject, but can't link you to it because it's on another political forum and this forum thinks I'm an evil troll who is going to post pornographic imagery because I'm new. If your interested, go to Politicalforum (dot) com, search "Bored Dead", click my screen name in the 5th row, then go to "view latest started threads" which is on the left of the screen, then go to "my criticism of Romney's budget".

But basically, Romney wants to only cut spending while Obama wants to cut spending and raise taxes.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I really did a big analysis on the subject. . . . But basically, Romney wants to only cut spending while Obama wants to cut spending and raise taxes.

As governor, Romney inherited a sizable deficit and balanced the budget his very first year and every year after that, while at the same time he cut property taxes for seniors, rebated $275 million in capital gains taxes back to taxpayers, increased the state's reserve fund, improved the state's bond rating, and improved the state's job-creation rate from 47th to 28th.

We don't need to raise taxes, certainly not while the economy is barely limping along. We're already collecting $2.5 trillion in taxes. That's more than we collected per year during the boom years from 2005 to 2006, when unemployment was below 6% and GDP growth was at around 4%. The problem is not revenue--it's spending.

Romney's plan is far more sensible and saner than Obama's. Mark my words: If Obama gets reelected and is able to carry out his proposals, the economy will slow down even more, the federal budget will remain in the red, and the national debt will keep rising.

 

[Freewill]

* I think many Republicans don't understand that most Americans are sick and tired of war. Most people like the fact that we're out of Iraq and that we're winding down in Afghanistan. And many people also like the fact that Obama is obviously very reluctant to get involved in another war.

Apparently you put a lot of thought into this or someone else did so I will respond in a reasonable fashion one point at a time.

Why the first supposition that Republicans obviously like war? That in and of itself is enough to reject the rest of the argument. But to address that bit of fantasy why are we at war? What has not Obama or the democrats stopped the wars as they could easily have done or do? Is there a war on terror as Obama will admit or not? Did those who wish for Americans to be killed bring it to America or not? Was 9/11 a conservative fantasy? Of course that is how the "truthers" would like us to believe that is why they want to paint 9/11 as an inside job.

Did or did not Bush receive bi-partisan support for action in both Iraq and Afghanistan? The answer is yes. Did Iraq wind down on the Bush time table, the answer again is yes. Has Afghanistan? No, Obama had his surge four years ago and the death toll is much higher then it was under Bush and can we say we are any nearer to winning? Winning when those we trained are shooting those who trained them?

Then there is the intervention into the "Arab Spring" in the ME. Does that sound like a person who is against war? Does having a kill list and USING that kill list to kill an American and his 16 year old son sound like a dove to you? Do you remember Bush doing like wish?

So saying Obama is very reluctant to get involved in war is really just a liberal fantasy. For nothing else he uses a CIA list to kill Americans that beyond anything else disqualifies Obama to remain in power.

Oh, and the bragging point of having OBL executed. Obama invaded an allied country without permission and killed OBL without one bit of due process, not that he was due any being a foriegn national.

 

[OODA_Loop]

But basically, Romney wants to only cut spending while Obama wants to cut spending and raise taxes.

Less taxes and cut spending works for me.

 

[BoredDead]

I know Obama did a bad job with the debt, but I know I have to look at what he is going to do, not what he did. Same with Romney.

Your didn't go to my analysis like I wanted you to, so I'll just copy and paste the important part.

When I think about taxing and spending I have a hypothesis: taxing costs jobs, spending creates jobs, and taxing and spending is neutral in job creation. It's hard to deny it's reasonable. Can you deny that spending money on healthcare doesn't increase the demand of it? And that increases in demand cause increases in supply of healthcare? And that to increase the supply of healthcare require a hospital has to expand and hire more doctors? To me it's basic economics, but I'm sure I will hear about it.

So basically you're ignoring that cutting spending also harms the economy by costing jobs. And that tax increases on the wealthy are also a good deficit cutting tool like cutting spending.

 

[Freewill]

* Many non-partisan, more-or-less-centrist voters like certain aspects of Obamacare, even if they understand that Obamacare also has some major flaws.

I agree that if some reform was needed there are aspects of Obamacare that are worth keeping. But that said it isn't going to change the other parts if Obama is in office. So I am not sure why this would be a plus for Obama. Obamacare is the largest tax ever imposed on the American people, we did the math when I first came to this board and it is in fact the largest. A large tax can not have a good effect on America. Yes certainly those who Obama has structurally unemployed will benefit by getting something for nothing. But those of us that work will pay MUCH more for LESS service it can be no other way. Obamatax has to be a loser for Obama except maybe for the 47 percent which are not exactly open minded.

 

[mikegriffith1]

* I think many Republicans don't understand that most Americans are sick and tired of war. Most people like the fact that we're out of Iraq and that we're winding down in Afghanistan. And many people also like the fact that Obama is obviously very reluctant to get involved in another war.

Apparently you put a lot of thought into this or someone else did so I will respond in a reasonable fashion one point at a time.

Why the first supposition that Republicans obviously like war? That in and of itself is enough to reject the rest of the argument. But to address that bit of fantasy why are we at war? What has not Obama or the democrats stopped the wars as they could easily have done or do? Is there a war on terror as Obama will admit or not? Did those who wish for Americans to be killed bring it to America or not? Was 9/11 a conservative fantasy? Of course that is how the "truthers" would like us to believe that is why they want to paint 9/11 as an inside job.

Did or did not Bush receive bi-partisan support for action in both Iraq and Afghanistan? The answer is yes. Did Iraq wind down on the Bush time table, the answer again is yes. Has Afghanistan? No, Obama had his surge four years ago and the death toll is much higher then it was under Bush and can we say we are any nearer to winning? Winning when those we trained are shooting those who trained them?

Then there is the intervention into the "Arab Spring" in the ME. Does that sound like a person who is against war? Does having a kill list and USING that kill list to kill an American and his 16 year old son sound like a dove to you? Do you remember Bush doing like wish?

So saying Obama is very reluctant to get involved in war is really just a liberal fantasy. For nothing else he uses a CIA list to kill Americans that beyond anything else disqualifies Obama to remain in power.

Oh, and the bragging point of having OBL executed. Obama invaded an allied country without permission and killed OBL without one bit of due process, not that he was due any being a foriegn national.

"Or someone else did"? No, I wrote the post, all by myself.

Anyway, so much of your reply is partisan fiction or distortion.

Yes, Bush received bipartisan support for the Iraq War, because he, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice, etc., painted a false picture of WMDs in Iraq, Saddam and Al Qaeda, Saddam and 9/11, etc., etc. Most of that false picture was a pack of lies, and many in the Bush administration knew they were lies when they spread them.

SOME Republicans clearly seem to like war and to want endless war. If SOME Republicans had their way, we'd be invading/bombing/occupying/fighting half of the Middle East right now.

I do not think Romney has this mindset at all, which is one reason that I'm supporting him.

A far better argument about the killing of OBL would be to note that we would not have been tipped off to Bin Laden's courier if Obama had gotten his way on enhanced interrogations from 2005 onward. Also, Obama dallied for weeks over the decision. Even when the matter reached critical mass and a decision had to be made, Obama, much to the shock of his national security team, insisted on taking another 16 hours to mull over the matter. He almost listened to Joe Biden, who, true to form, thought we needed more information and more planning. Luckily, there were folks like Panetta who pushed hard for the go decision.

 

[Freewill]

* Many non-ideological voters support Obama's easing of relations with Cuba. Personally, I think our embargo against Cuba is downright silly and that Cuba would be a democratic nation in short order if we would normalize relations and allow a free flow of trade and people with Cuba. I was glad to see Obama ease some of the currency and travel restrictions with Cuba.

This is of no consequence to the American people. Sure if we are worried about Cuba then when Castro is voted out, both of them, then let's normalize relations. To normalize relations with a man who has done what Castro has done is to capitulate to totalitarians. It would be in fact an insult to Cuban Americans. How is the connection made between normalizing relations and that creating a democracy? Does not make sense. Kennedy put in the sanctions for a reason and may have lost his life for doing so.

 

[mudwhistle]

FYI, I'm an independent who leans to the right on most issues (but I never voted for George Bush). Although I strongly support Romney, and although I think Obama has done a terrible job in key areas, I can understand why some non-partisan, open-minded people who are somewhere in/near the middle of the ideological spectrum could support Obama's reelection.

I happen to have a number of centrist friends, and even a few conservative friends, who are voting for Obama. Some of them are people who have very conservative moral values and who attend church regularly. A few of them even send their kids to private religious schools. When we have talked about Obama, the reasons listed below largely reflect their reasons for supporting him.

* I think many Republicans don't understand that most Americans are sick and tired of war. Most people like the fact that we're out of Iraq and that we're winding down in Afghanistan. And many people also like the fact that Obama is obviously very reluctant to get involved in another war.

* Many non-partisan, more-or-less-centrist voters like certain aspects of Obamacare, even if they understand that Obamacare also has some major flaws.

* Even some people who are fiscally conservative think we might need to raise the top two tax brackets back to what they were under Clinton in order to get the federal budget under control. They note that the economy did very well when the two top rates were higher under Clinton. (I wonder how many of these people know that just a couple weeks ago Obama announced that he supports ending the Bush tax cuts for middle-income taxpayers as well. I wonder if they realize just how much this would cost them.)

* Many non-ideological voters support Obama's easing of relations with Cuba. Personally, I think our embargo against Cuba is downright silly and that Cuba would be a democratic nation in short order if we would normalize relations and allow a free flow of trade and people with Cuba. I was glad to see Obama ease some of the currency and travel restrictions with Cuba.

* Many voters of all stripes appreciate the fact that Obama has cut taxes for the middle class and the poor with his reduction in the payroll tax (i.e., the Social Security tax). Keep in mind that $288 billion of the $787 billion stimulus went for tax cuts, and most of those tax cuts were for the middle class. In other words, over 1/3 of the stimulus consisted of tax cuts (mostly for the middle class, but also for the poor and for businesses).

* Many centrist types like the fact that Obama kept GM and Chrysler in business. Granted, most of them don't know that part of Obama's auto bailout was an outright handout of $12 billion taxpayer dollars. Nor do most of them know that the bailout only put a temporary band-aid on the structural problems (mainly the unrealistic, unsustainable labor-cost structure) that led those companies to the breaking point in the first place. But, they look and see that GM and Chrysler are making money again, that thousands of auto workers kept their jobs, etc., etc.

* Many centrist types simply do not care about issues like abortion and gay marriage as political issues. They think these are matters of individual choice and they don't get why anyone should care if two men or two women want to get "married." They don't see the threat that gay marriage poses to the foundation of society, the family, and the threat that gay marriage is proving to be to our freedom of religion. They may not like abortion and would not recommend abortion for their daughters with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, but they think this matter should be left to individuals, families, and their doctors to decide. (Yes, I know this position shows no regard for the rights of the baby in the womb, but I'm just summarizing how many centrist-like folks feel on this issue.)

* Many non-partisan, centrist-like voters believe Obama deserves some credit for halting the recession, for stopping the economy's profuse bleeding, and for getting us to the point where we are seeing at least a small amount of economic growth. They opine that weak growth is better than no growth, and many of these voters believe Bush still deserves at least some of the blame for the economy's current state.

* Many non-partisan, centrist-like folks are as concerned about our huge debt and deficit as anyone else is. But they note that Bush and the Republicans took us from a nominally balanced budget and from paying down the debt to irresponsible deficit spending and an increase of $5.1 trillion in the national debt. So they are not too impressed when they hear many of these same Republicans screaming about the debt and the deficit, and thus they are willing to give Obama another chance in this area. They are hopeful that he will get the federal budget under control in a second term. (Don't ask me how any rational person could think this, given what Obama has done and given what he is proposing, but most of these folks simply do not know just how horribly Obama has handled the budget, and they don't understand that what he's now proposing is even worse than what he's done so far. Also, they have fresh memories of the fact that Bush and the GOP did a rather poor job on the budget.)

Concerning the debt.......Bush raised the debt from just over $5 trillion to around $10 trillion, most of which happened the last two years while the Democrats held both houses. Obama raise our debt close to the same amount in less than 3 years and tried to blame Bush for it.

You forget about 9/11, Katrina, one war that cost next to nothing and another that cost much less than Democrats will admit. The costs of running our military didn't rise much under Bush but it didn't help that the Democrats and their media went on a campaign to look for peeling paint and mold, raised hell because our soldiers didn't each have $1200 body armor, didn't have up-armored vehicles even though Clinton neglected to have this done even after Somalia proved it needed to be done way back in 1993. I was there. We told them but nobody listened. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

And you forget that the only reason Clinton got a surplus is because he had a GOP Congress that made it all possible. Bush wasn't afforded the same luxury.

No sir......Obama has proved that he can't budget himself. Left to his own designs this country will be totally bankrupt in no time. He can't even run his campaign without going into debt. How do you expect him the run the country any different.

I don't think an independent minded person likes it when the president says voting is revenge. When the left threatens to burn this motherfucker down. When liberal talk-show hosts say that blacks know who you white motherfuckers are and they're coming to get you.

I don't think you're independent minded at all.

 

[mikegriffith1]

So basically you're ignoring that cutting spending also harms the economy by costing jobs. And that tax increases on the wealthy are also a good deficit cutting tool like cutting spending.

Cutting spending does not harm the economy, unless you're only talking about the immediate short term. Canada faced a huge financial crisis in the 1990s and in response slashed spending, laid off tens of thousands of federal workers, and cut taxes across the board. As a result, Canada's economy came roaring back, and their economy continues to outperform ours.

Canada Did It, Why Can't We?
http://www.humanevents.com/2010/09/13/canada-did-it-why-cant-we/

Yes, in the very short term, cutting spending costs jobs--mostly direct and indirect government jobs. However, experience has shown again and again that before too long, cutting spending boosts the economy because it reduces the deficit and puts more money back into direct circulation in the economy (vs. going through the filter of the government, which typically wastes 1/3 of every dollar it spends).

When a family in debt stops using its credit cards and stops going into debt, yes, in the immediate short term, some businesses in the community will see a reduction in sales, but obviously cutting spending is the sensible, healthy thing for that family to do in the long run, and it's also the best move for the economy as a whole as well.

 

[AquaAthena]

"Why Some Non-Partisan, Open-Minded People Support Obama"

Fear of the results of change...

 

[mikegriffith1]

FYI, I'm an independent who leans to the right on most issues (but I never voted for George Bush). Although I strongly support Romney, and although I think Obama has done a terrible job in key areas, I can understand why some non-partisan, open-minded people who are somewhere in/near the middle of the ideological spectrum could support Obama's reelection.

I happen to have a number of centrist friends, and even a few conservative friends, who are voting for Obama. Some of them are people who have very conservative moral values and who attend church regularly. A few of them even send their kids to private religious schools. When we have talked about Obama, the reasons listed below largely reflect their reasons for supporting him.

* I think many Republicans don't understand that most Americans are sick and tired of war. Most people like the fact that we're out of Iraq and that we're winding down in Afghanistan. And many people also like the fact that Obama is obviously very reluctant to get involved in another war.

* Many non-partisan, more-or-less-centrist voters like certain aspects of Obamacare, even if they understand that Obamacare also has some major flaws.

* Even some people who are fiscally conservative think we might need to raise the top two tax brackets back to what they were under Clinton in order to get the federal budget under control. They note that the economy did very well when the two top rates were higher under Clinton. (I wonder how many of these people know that just a couple weeks ago Obama announced that he supports ending the Bush tax cuts for middle-income taxpayers as well. I wonder if they realize just how much this would cost them.)

* Many non-ideological voters support Obama's easing of relations with Cuba. Personally, I think our embargo against Cuba is downright silly and that Cuba would be a democratic nation in short order if we would normalize relations and allow a free flow of trade and people with Cuba. I was glad to see Obama ease some of the currency and travel restrictions with Cuba.

* Many voters of all stripes appreciate the fact that Obama has cut taxes for the middle class and the poor with his reduction in the payroll tax (i.e., the Social Security tax). Keep in mind that $288 billion of the $787 billion stimulus went for tax cuts, and most of those tax cuts were for the middle class. In other words, over 1/3 of the stimulus consisted of tax cuts (mostly for the middle class, but also for the poor and for businesses).

* Many centrist types like the fact that Obama kept GM and Chrysler in business. Granted, most of them don't know that part of Obama's auto bailout was an outright handout of $12 billion taxpayer dollars. Nor do most of them know that the bailout only put a temporary band-aid on the structural problems (mainly the unrealistic, unsustainable labor-cost structure) that led those companies to the breaking point in the first place. But, they look and see that GM and Chrysler are making money again, that thousands of auto workers kept their jobs, etc., etc.

* Many centrist types simply do not care about issues like abortion and gay marriage as political issues. They think these are matters of individual choice and they don't get why anyone should care if two men or two women want to get "married." They don't see the threat that gay marriage poses to the foundation of society, the family, and the threat that gay marriage is proving to be to our freedom of religion. They may not like abortion and would not recommend abortion for their daughters with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, but they think this matter should be left to individuals, families, and their doctors to decide. (Yes, I know this position shows no regard for the rights of the baby in the womb, but I'm just summarizing how many centrist-like folks feel on this issue.)

* Many non-partisan, centrist-like voters believe Obama deserves some credit for halting the recession, for stopping the economy's profuse bleeding, and for getting us to the point where we are seeing at least a small amount of economic growth. They opine that weak growth is better than no growth, and many of these voters believe Bush still deserves at least some of the blame for the economy's current state.

* Many non-partisan, centrist-like folks are as concerned about our huge debt and deficit as anyone else is. But they note that Bush and the Republicans took us from a nominally balanced budget and from paying down the debt to irresponsible deficit spending and an increase of $5.1 trillion in the national debt. So they are not too impressed when they hear many of these same Republicans screaming about the debt and the deficit, and thus they are willing to give Obama another chance in this area. They are hopeful that he will get the federal budget under control in a second term. (Don't ask me how any rational person could think this, given what Obama has done and given what he is proposing, but most of these folks simply do not know just how horribly Obama has handled the budget, and they don't understand that what he's now proposing is even worse than what he's done so far. Also, they have fresh memories of the fact that Bush and the GOP did a rather poor job on the budget.)

Concerning the debt.......Bush raised the debt from just over $5 trillion to around $10 trillion, most of which happened the last two years while the Democrats held both houses. Obama raise our debt close to the same amount in less than 3 years and tried to blame Bush for it.

You forget about 9/11, Katrina, one war that cost next to nothing and another that cost much less than Democrats will admit. The costs of running our military didn't rise much under Bush but it didn't help that the Democrats and their media went on a campaign to look for peeling paint and mold, raised hell because our soldiers didn't each have $1200 body armor, didn't have up-armored vehicles even though Clinton neglected to have this done even after Somalia proved it needed to be done way back in 1993. I was there. We told them but nobody listened. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

And you forget that the only reason Clinton got a surplus is because he had a GOP Congress that made it all possible. Bush wasn't afforded the same luxury.

No sir......Obama has proved that he can't budget himself. Left to his own designs this country will be totally bankrupt in no time. He can't even run his campaign without going into debt. How do you expect him the run the country any different.

I don't think an independent minded person likes it when the president says voting is revenge. When the left threatens to burn this motherfucker down. When liberal talk-show hosts say that blacks know who you white motherfuckers are and they're coming to get you.

I don't think you're independent minded at all.

You make a number of valid points. Keep in mind that I was summarizing the reasons that some average, non-ideological voters give for supporting Obama. I realize that some of the attacks on Bush are unfair and distorted.

I used to be much more critical of Bush, but four years of Obama have helped me to see that Bush was not as bad as I thought he was. On the other hand, I don't buy the excuses for Bush's bad handling of the budget. Those excuses are similar in nature to the liberal excuses for Obama's disastrous handling of the budget. Just because you hit tough times is no excuse to run up huge amounts of debt. We could have responded to 9/11 and Katrina in ways that did not bury us in debt and that did not violate basic laws of fiscal management.

 

[Freewill]

* I think many Republicans don't understand that most Americans are sick and tired of war. Most people like the fact that we're out of Iraq and that we're winding down in Afghanistan. And many people also like the fact that Obama is obviously very reluctant to get involved in another war.

Apparently you put a lot of thought into this or someone else did so I will respond in a reasonable fashion one point at a time.

Why the first supposition that Republicans obviously like war? That in and of itself is enough to reject the rest of the argument. But to address that bit of fantasy why are we at war? What has not Obama or the democrats stopped the wars as they could easily have done or do? Is there a war on terror as Obama will admit or not? Did those who wish for Americans to be killed bring it to America or not? Was 9/11 a conservative fantasy? Of course that is how the "truthers" would like us to believe that is why they want to paint 9/11 as an inside job.

Did or did not Bush receive bi-partisan support for action in both Iraq and Afghanistan? The answer is yes. Did Iraq wind down on the Bush time table, the answer again is yes. Has Afghanistan? No, Obama had his surge four years ago and the death toll is much higher then it was under Bush and can we say we are any nearer to winning? Winning when those we trained are shooting those who trained them?

Then there is the intervention into the "Arab Spring" in the ME. Does that sound like a person who is against war? Does having a kill list and USING that kill list to kill an American and his 16 year old son sound like a dove to you? Do you remember Bush doing like wish?

So saying Obama is very reluctant to get involved in war is really just a liberal fantasy. For nothing else he uses a CIA list to kill Americans that beyond anything else disqualifies Obama to remain in power.

Oh, and the bragging point of having OBL executed. Obama invaded an allied country without permission and killed OBL without one bit of due process, not that he was due any being a foriegn national.

"Or someone else did"? No, I wrote the post, all by myself.

Anyway, so much of your reply is partisan fiction or distortion.

OK, this is the internet where there are lots and lots of pretenders. So here is why I said what I said. You posted: FYI, I'm an independent who leans to the right on most issues (but I never voted for George Bush). Although I strongly support Romney, and although I think Obama has done a terrible job in key areas, I can understand why some non-partisan, open-minded people who are somewhere in/near the middle of the ideological spectrum could support Obama's reelection. Then you posted this: I happen to have a number of centrist friends, and even a few conservative friends, who are voting for Obama. Some of them are people who have very conservative moral values and who attend church regularly. A few of them even send their kids to private religious schools. When we have talked about Obama, the reasons listed below largely reflect their reasons for supporting him.

So are you posting what you think or your friends think? If for them did they write it down or is it you opinion of what they think?


Yes, Bush received bipartisan support for the Iraq War, because he, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice, etc., painted a false picture of WMDs in Iraq, Saddam and Al Qaeda, Saddam and 9/11, etc., etc. Most of that false picture was a pack of lies, and many in the Bush administration knew they were lies when they spread them.

This is nothing more then partisan BS. The evidence for war with Iraq was available to all that is why it was voted on by such a large bi-partisan majority. Or are you going to try and convince us that all of a sudden the democrats started believing whatever they were told? Including Hillary, who had very good inside sources, and Kerry? Really, you think them that brain dead? Besides what lies are you talking about? The ones Powell told? Are you calling him a liar or stupid? A despot and his sons were removed and the threat of what they may have done, and did, was removed. I guess when the gas attacks on his own people occurred he did that without use of WMD???? Really is that what an open minded independent really thinks? Maybe the war was over nothing more then protecting oil, the evidence was till available and the left could have voted NO but did not.

SOME Republicans clearly seem to like war and to want endless war. If SOME Republicans had their way, we'd be invading/bombing/occupying/fighting half of the Middle East right now.

Again, what is your evidence? The Iraq war had a timetable to end it and it ended on that time table. So I am not sure how an independent thinking person makes such statements. Besides, are we at war with terror or not? If not then we will be involved in war for a very long long time whether you or you independent friends thing otherwise. And Obama has done NOTHING to change that. People in the countries that we helped, Libya, are killing our people and Obama did and does NOTHING. So if you don't want endless wars you had better tell the other side to stop it. That seems to be Obama's way of thinking, be nice and the bullies will leave you alone, hogwash.

I do not think Romney has this mindset at all, which is one reason that I'm supporting him.

I actually have no idea what Romney will do, I know what Obama has done and I don't really like it when ONE man gets to decide live or death off a list provided him by the CIA. If Romney does the same then I will not support him either. Don't take this wrongly but I really hope what you are saying is true. Vote your job and country, vote Romney.

A far better argument about the killing of OBL would be to note that we would not have been tipped off to Bin Laden's courier if Obama had gotten his way on enhanced interrogations from 2005 onward.

Maybe I am jaded by the BS but I think they have known the where abouts of OBL for quite some time. I think, if he were really killed, his living would have been a better source of info then his dying. My opinion is he was taken out for political reasons. Obama needed a boost or maybe he did just want to kill him. That changes nothing. We were a nation built on the rule of law. OBL could have very well been tried in a court of law in abstintia but was not. He could have been taken alive, and was not. If he were to be taken alive the SEALS would have done so. An alive person is much easier to move then a dead one. The unvarnished truth is that ONE man decided the life of death of another.


Also, Obama dallied for weeks over the decision. Even when the matter reached critical mass and a decision had to be made, Obama, much to the shock of his national security team, insisted on taking another 16 hours to mull over the matter. He almost listened to Joe Biden, who, true to form, thought we needed more information and more planning. Luckily, there were folks like Panetta who pushed hard for the go decision.

So the story goes.

 

[mudwhistle]

FYI, I'm an independent who leans to the right on most issues (but I never voted for George Bush). Although I strongly support Romney, and although I think Obama has done a terrible job in key areas, I can understand why some non-partisan, open-minded people who are somewhere in/near the middle of the ideological spectrum could support Obama's reelection.

I happen to have a number of centrist friends, and even a few conservative friends, who are voting for Obama. Some of them are people who have very conservative moral values and who attend church regularly. A few of them even send their kids to private religious schools. When we have talked about Obama, the reasons listed below largely reflect their reasons for supporting him.

* I think many Republicans don't understand that most Americans are sick and tired of war. Most people like the fact that we're out of Iraq and that we're winding down in Afghanistan. And many people also like the fact that Obama is obviously very reluctant to get involved in another war.

* Many non-partisan, more-or-less-centrist voters like certain aspects of Obamacare, even if they understand that Obamacare also has some major flaws.

* Even some people who are fiscally conservative think we might need to raise the top two tax brackets back to what they were under Clinton in order to get the federal budget under control. They note that the economy did very well when the two top rates were higher under Clinton. (I wonder how many of these people know that just a couple weeks ago Obama announced that he supports ending the Bush tax cuts for middle-income taxpayers as well. I wonder if they realize just how much this would cost them.)

* Many non-ideological voters support Obama's easing of relations with Cuba. Personally, I think our embargo against Cuba is downright silly and that Cuba would be a democratic nation in short order if we would normalize relations and allow a free flow of trade and people with Cuba. I was glad to see Obama ease some of the currency and travel restrictions with Cuba.

* Many voters of all stripes appreciate the fact that Obama has cut taxes for the middle class and the poor with his reduction in the payroll tax (i.e., the Social Security tax). Keep in mind that $288 billion of the $787 billion stimulus went for tax cuts, and most of those tax cuts were for the middle class. In other words, over 1/3 of the stimulus consisted of tax cuts (mostly for the middle class, but also for the poor and for businesses).

* Many centrist types like the fact that Obama kept GM and Chrysler in business. Granted, most of them don't know that part of Obama's auto bailout was an outright handout of $12 billion taxpayer dollars. Nor do most of them know that the bailout only put a temporary band-aid on the structural problems (mainly the unrealistic, unsustainable labor-cost structure) that led those companies to the breaking point in the first place. But, they look and see that GM and Chrysler are making money again, that thousands of auto workers kept their jobs, etc., etc.

* Many centrist types simply do not care about issues like abortion and gay marriage as political issues. They think these are matters of individual choice and they don't get why anyone should care if two men or two women want to get "married." They don't see the threat that gay marriage poses to the foundation of society, the family, and the threat that gay marriage is proving to be to our freedom of religion. They may not like abortion and would not recommend abortion for their daughters with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, but they think this matter should be left to individuals, families, and their doctors to decide. (Yes, I know this position shows no regard for the rights of the baby in the womb, but I'm just summarizing how many centrist-like folks feel on this issue.)

* Many non-partisan, centrist-like voters believe Obama deserves some credit for halting the recession, for stopping the economy's profuse bleeding, and for getting us to the point where we are seeing at least a small amount of economic growth. They opine that weak growth is better than no growth, and many of these voters believe Bush still deserves at least some of the blame for the economy's current state.

* Many non-partisan, centrist-like folks are as concerned about our huge debt and deficit as anyone else is. But they note that Bush and the Republicans took us from a nominally balanced budget and from paying down the debt to irresponsible deficit spending and an increase of $5.1 trillion in the national debt. So they are not too impressed when they hear many of these same Republicans screaming about the debt and the deficit, and thus they are willing to give Obama another chance in this area. They are hopeful that he will get the federal budget under control in a second term. (Don't ask me how any rational person could think this, given what Obama has done and given what he is proposing, but most of these folks simply do not know just how horribly Obama has handled the budget, and they don't understand that what he's now proposing is even worse than what he's done so far. Also, they have fresh memories of the fact that Bush and the GOP did a rather poor job on the budget.)

Concerning the debt.......Bush raised the debt from just over $5 trillion to around $10 trillion, most of which happened the last two years while the Democrats held both houses. Obama raise our debt close to the same amount in less than 3 years and tried to blame Bush for it.

You forget about 9/11, Katrina, one war that cost next to nothing and another that cost much less than Democrats will admit. The costs of running our military didn't rise much under Bush but it didn't help that the Democrats and their media went on a campaign to look for peeling paint and mold, raised hell because our soldiers didn't each have $1200 body armor, didn't have up-armored vehicles even though Clinton neglected to have this done even after Somalia proved it needed to be done way back in 1993. I was there. We told them but nobody listened. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

And you forget that the only reason Clinton got a surplus is because he had a GOP Congress that made it all possible. Bush wasn't afforded the same luxury.

No sir......Obama has proved that he can't budget himself. Left to his own designs this country will be totally bankrupt in no time. He can't even run his campaign without going into debt. How do you expect him the run the country any different.

I don't think an independent minded person likes it when the president says voting is revenge. When the left threatens to burn this motherfucker down. When liberal talk-show hosts say that blacks know who you white motherfuckers are and they're coming to get you.

I don't think you're independent minded at all.

You make a number of valid points. Keep in mind that I was summarizing the reasons that some average, non-ideological voters give for supporting Obama. I realize that some of the attacks on Bush are unfair and distorted.

I used to be much more critical of Bush, but four years of Obama have helped me to see that Bush was not as bad as I thought he was. On the other hand, I don't buy the excuses for Bush's bad handling of the budget. Those excuses are similar in nature to the liberal excuses for Obama's disastrous handling of the budget. Just because you hit tough times is no excuse to run up huge amounts of debt. We could have responded to 9/11 and Katrina in ways that did not bury us in debt and that did not violate basic laws of fiscal management.

There is plenty of "excuses" but if you know anything about government it's not something that happens by itself.

Bush was never fiscally conservative. Not long after he took office his priorities changed. The loss of jobs that 9/11 caused cost billions in lost revenue. Bush was able to recover from that by cutting taxes but he took a massive hit from 9/11 and later from Katrina. The Iraq war became Bush's main focus.

While Bush was fighting the war Congress was busy spending. If you ever took the time to tune into CSPAN you'd see that Congress was busy voting in one spending bill after another. The Democrats constantly complained that it was never enough....didn't go far enough, yet they constantly bitched about the debt. When they took over Congress they took the deficit from $157 billion to $700 billion in six months. The last Bush budget was over $1.2 trillion thanks to the Democrats in Congress. Since then the only entity to pass a budget is the GOP House. The president has not passed one. All of the House budgets have been shitcanned by Harry Reid.

 

[Katzndogz]

There are some people who still want to believe that obama will help. If obama is successful and we continue on the current rate of improvement, there are no more recessions and everything goes perfectly, it will be almost 30 years before we get to the same point in the economy as it was when obama took office. That's just the economy, it doesn't figure in to where the deficit will be with 30 years of continued borrowing.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That Bush was such a pushover.

 

[Freewill]

* Even some people who are fiscally conservative think we might need to raise the top two tax brackets back to what they were under Clinton in order to get the federal budget under control. They note that the economy did very well when the two top rates were higher under Clinton. (I wonder how many of these people know that just a couple weeks ago Obama announced that he supports ending the Bush tax cuts for middle-income taxpayers as well. I wonder if they realize just how much this would cost them.)


This is not a reason to vote for Obama. If this is the fiscal reality of the situation then both Obama and Romney are going to come to that conclusion. The only difference is that Obama will be unfettered by what you or I think. As he said with the Russians, he will be more "flexible" after he wins the election. More "flexible?" Does that mean he will be able to bow lower?

The only way, in my opinion, to reduce the deficit spending is by making Washington accountable. We need to increase revenue by increasing the productivity of the nation. Not by just taking out of what people have already earned. We are sitting in the cats bird seat we can do it but we need someone with experience in business to drive us to the solution. Obama has no experience and by what we have seen doesn't really have a clue. He could have come out shining. History has shown the bigger the recession the bigger the recovery, until Obama. Maybe if he had spent less time on Obamatax and more on cutting spending we wouldn't be where we are. But for now I see absolutely no reason to reward Obama for what he has done to our grandchildren. The massive debt he has placed on them is no ones fault other then HIM.

 

[Freewill]

That Bush was such a pushover.

Really, wasn't it the democrats that were the pushovers lovingly doing whatever Bush wanted?