Social Question

john65pennington's avatar

Will Obama be only a "one term" president?

Asked by john65pennington (29187points) March 20th, 2010

I can honestly say that i did not vote for Obama. i knew he did not have any military experience or handling big government affairs, like passing a healthcare reform package. i agree that Americans that do not have healthcare, justly need it. i do not agree with the proposed heathcare package, as it contains loophole after loophole and may eventually cease medicare altogether, somewhere down the road. are the legislators paying any attention to the demostrations in Washington, D.C. or has the will of the people, against the proposed healthcare package, fallen on deaf ears? something is terribly wrong here. any thoughts?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

59 Answers

Ivan's avatar

What does the gibberish in the details section have to do with the question?

janbb's avatar

I don’t think so, but I think we are going to be having this question so many times in the next two years, I don’t want to spend much energy on it yet.

rebbel's avatar

@janbb “I think we are going to be having this question so many times in the next three years
So, you agree on the “only one term”?

Dr_C's avatar

First off the protesters at the capital are hardly an accurate sampling of the majority of the nation. Secondly the role of elected officials is to enact laws that will be of benefit to the people, not to take decisions based on opinion polls or approval numbers.

People seem to forget that in a representative democracy (Republic) the people don’t make the decisions, they elect the people that do.

also… are you talking about the protesters outside the capitol who were shouting racial slurs at black politicians? or the ones that carried signs that said If Brown can’t stop it Browning can with a picture of a handgun? These people not only represent an ignorant minority, they represent something that’s very wrong with this country.

cockswain's avatar

I think he’ll be a 3-term president.

Sarcasm's avatar

Unless he severely fucks up, I plan to vote for him three times as hard in 2012 (I don’t know how, but I will dammit!) knowing how much it bothers the Crazies Conservatives.

janbb's avatar

@rebbel Duly noted and edited.

lillycoyote's avatar

Too soon to tell.

FishGutsDale's avatar

Who’s Obama?

holden's avatar

i knew he did not have any military experience or handling big government affairs…

Did that stop you from voting for Bush?

Arisztid's avatar

If he does not pick up the pace, I hope there shall be a better candidate to vote for. Palin does not count. I really do not know what in a Conservative candidate I would consider better but my mind is open. I shall just continue to hope he picks it up.

I did not vote for him because of the electoral college… I do not vote. However, if my vote would have counted, despite my disapproval of him now, I still think we came out ahead. The other option was much worse.

cockswain's avatar

@Arisztid Pick up the pace of what?

funkdaddy's avatar

i do not agree with the proposed heathcare package, as it contains loophole after loophole and may eventually cease medicare altogether

I’m curious why ending medicare is a worry? Medicare is a system meant to catch those who are in need of healthcare but don’t have other options. If a universal option is available, and that option offers better coverage, where would medicare fit in? Why would it need to continue?

This sounds like spin to make it sound like you’re losing something (or something is being stolen) when that’s really not the case.

And it’s an honest question, I’m not trying to argue, I just don’t understand that as a negative of universal healthcare.

Qingu's avatar

@john65pennington, I’d appreciate it if you could answer funkdaddy’s question. What loopholes are you talking about, specifically?

Or are you bearing false witness?

thriftymaid's avatar

@funkdaddy Medicare kicks in when you hit 65. I believe you are thinking about Medicaid.

thriftymaid's avatar

Good chance.

Nullo's avatar

His approval rating plummeted early on and has remained pretty low all this time; it’s certainly a possibility.
* crosses fingers *

Rufus_T_Firefly's avatar

It’s still much too early to tell, but I’d like to see him get a second term. Besides, nothing would piss off the Republican lunatic fringe more than being ignored once again in 2012.

Now, the Senate and Congress? That’s a whole other story. I say vote out anyone who represents a corporate interest and let someone else give it a try. We can’t do too much worse than the Senate and Congress we have now.

funkdaddy's avatar

@thriftymaid – they do tend to get lumped together, but I was considering Medicare specifically, which also covers disabled folks and some others who are generally under serviced…

I don’t believe either (Medicare or Medicaid) is a system anyone aspires to be reliant on, if you have other options available to you, you take them. My point was that if you have universal coverage, then the safety net for those folks isn’t needed and saying “they’ll take away the coverage of those over 65” might scare some people if you leave out the “and provide coverage for everyone, including those over 65” part.

The genius of touting it as a negative is that the over 65 crowd votes at a higher rate than the poor and uninsured crowd.

But unless I misunderstand, it’s simply a dishonest claim. My original post was just an honest question to see if I was indeed missing someone that would lose something significant under a universal system.

Pandora's avatar

Ask again in two years, my answer will be more accurate then. Hell, I didn’t think Bush would be president and was I ever wrong. :(

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@Ivan: “The gibberish in the details section” had to do directly “with the question” as these are major factors why Obama will likely be only a “one term” president.

cazzie's avatar

I think someone mentioned that Reagan’s ratings were lower at this stage of his first term… perhaps someone can look that up.

hiphiphopflipflapflop's avatar

“Control the coinage and the courts — let the rabble have the rest.” Thus the Padishah Emperor advises you. And he tells you; “If you want profits, you must rule.” There is truth in these words, but I ask myself; “Who are the rabble and who are the ruled?”

Muad’Dib’s Secret Message to the Landsraad from Arrakis Awakening by the Princess Irulan
(from Dune by Frank Herbert)

ucme's avatar

No I think he’ll be a one term-inator president i.e he’ll be back.

mattbrowne's avatar

The probability is 24.68%

Nullo's avatar

@mattbrowne
Can I see your math on that? Rasmussen (as of 22–03-10) has his approval rating down to 45%, which does not seem to reflect your confidence.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@Nullo: Yes, but if real Americans don’t vote for him he’ll simply give 30,000,000 unamerican criminals the right.

mattbrowne's avatar

[z](2k) = [[in].sum (n=1)] 1[n.sup.2k] = [(-1).sup.k-1] [2.sup.2k-1][[pi].sup.2k]/(2k)! [B.sub.2k]

mattbrowne's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish – Has the GOP mutated into a party of anger?

Here’s a quote from Franz Neumann: “If the concepts enemy and fear constitute the energetic principles of politics, a democratic political system is impossible, whether the fear is produced from within or without. If freedom is absence of restraints, the restraints to be removed are many, but the psychological restraint of fear ranks first.”

Talk about unamerican criminals.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@mattbrowne: My statements are true in the absence of anger.

PS: I am not a Republican.

mattbrowne's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish – Sorry to say this, but your comment referring to “unamerican criminals” seems full of cynicism. Maybe I should also ask, Has the group of independents mutated into a group of cynics? Both excessive anger and cynicism destroy a healthy political culture. The political future of the whole country is at stake. I’m really worried. Why? I’ve explained this here
http://www.fluther.com/disc/78391/frightening-gop-behavior-how-committed-is-the-republican-party-to/

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@mattbrowne: Am I suppose to applaud criminals? “unamerican criminals” is an accurate description. Am I a cynic because I don’t root for the bad guys or am I an optimist because I root for the good guys? What does it say about someone rooting for the bad guys?

cockswain's avatar

@mattbrowne I think he’s referring to illegal immigrants. Remember this?

cazzie's avatar

I’m confused…. @malevolentbutticklish you have to define this group that is so large that you fear. and define who are ‘real’ Americans and who isn’t that would be allowed to vote at the order of a sitting president.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@cazzie: I am sorry to hear that you don’t understand how the American political process works. Such a law change in today’s political climate could only be as a direct result of the president signing such a bill into law as there would certainly not be the votes to overturn a veto. It could not be the result of a presidential order and it could not be done without his signature.

cazzie's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish um….. no.. I understand full well. I AM an American. And your reply defies logic. Unless I missed some joke or attempt at irony…...

You don’t answer my question.

You fear the president giving voting rights to a large group….. of ‘unamericans’..... I don’t get it.

Dr_C's avatar

@cazzie when have broad sweeping generalizations based on misinformation ever made sense? don’t expect a direct or specific answer that makes even a lick of sense.

cazzie's avatar

@Dr_C thanks for the heads up. I was just pressing for some thread of logic…. I guess it’s a waste of time…. but what worries me is that small minded people that have lived sheltered lives have no idea about the lies they perpetuate.

cockswain's avatar

@cazzie check out his responses here for some insight

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@cazzie: This seems pretty straight forward to me. What don’t you get?

mattbrowne's avatar

There are many reasons for illegal immigration. Of course the Mexican rulers of the past as well as today are to be blamed as well. And so are some of the immigrants who when back in Mexico thought getting a good education is too stressful. But we in the developed countries are also to be blamed. The shareholder approach focused on excessive short-term profits depends on cheap labor offered by illegal immigrants. The system actually needs them and requests more of them. Something similar is happening in southern Italy. Another reason are global rules that lead to unfair trade, rules enforced by major players such as the US or the EU. Fair trade would allow many people to stay in their countries without having to resort to planting illegal drugs. Guess where most of the money goes to when you buy your 39 oz of classic roast coffee? Not the farmer. Approaches like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Trade_Certification

will reduce illegal immigration, but hard-core right wingers would certainly think this is socialist garbage. It’s not. Many of those Mexicans are desperate. Same for the Africans trying to get to Europe. We need to be smarter when it comes to long term solutions. Labels like unamerican criminals doesn’t accomplish anything.

cazzie's avatar

cockswain: thanks for that. He should have a cape and tights.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@mattbrowne: There is nothing wrong with businesses seeking profit. The problem is that these criminals are even here taking jobs from Americans and we aren’t doing anything about it.

mattbrowne's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish – Seeking profit by exploiting workers in third-world countries is criminal brhavior. These workers who turn into immigrants are running away from the crime scene.

It’s time for more serious action to make Mexico more attractive for Mexicans. Exactly this has happened in the EU. People now want to stay in Portugal because there’s a future there.

cockswain's avatar

@mattbrowne Exactly! People think any progress by way of capitialism must be a good thing, regardless of the means. One of my biggest complaints about the world is how greed fuels exploitation of those with less power.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@mattbrowne: I need a little clarity on this: we should tell the Mexicans what to do and how to live in Mexico?

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@cockswain: Should people be left to starve before offering an undesirable job?

cockswain's avatar

Do you think that is a loaded question? Corporations essentially enslave people in other countries. They pay far too little for those jobs b/c they can. As an example, Nike could easily increase wages abroad and reduce director-level and higher salaries. Every corporation can do that. It is greedy and selfish for us to feel the humans in this country are entitled to better living conditions than people in other countries. Once we reach a certain level of lifestyle, our focus as a nation should be to help others, not fuel our shallow consumerism.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@cockswain: “Do you think that is a loaded question?” <== no, I don’t think it is a loaded question. If someone is willing to take a job in which they are “enslaved” their alternative was worse. You wish the worse alternative on these people.

cazzie's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish we wish a BETTER alternative for these people. That the exploitation stop. If it weren’t for labour laws anywhere in the world, there would be no middle class. Why wouldn’t we wish a better life for everyone, rather than just ourselves? Why would you want to disaffect millions, billions of people in the world by taking away their rights to a fair wage, time to spend with their families and leisure time. You think they are soooo stupid that the won’t organise themselves and overthrow the self appointed ‘nobility’? Did you ever read history? You are talking about UNdemocratic and UNamerican principals.

and I must be really ill and bored if I’m replying to this t*

cockswain's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish That response sucks. I said they should be paid more and you said I wish a worse alternative. Now if someone called me on something like that, I’d acknowledge the point and agree I was wrong, so people who debate with me would realize I’m willing to give and take. I’ve never seen you anywhere concede anyone else has a valid point upon which you’ll give a little ground on your stance. That’s not a discussion, just us being forced to listen to your views.

@cazzie—Great answer.

cazzie's avatar

@cockswain yeah… like I said.. he’s a t*. Most people here leave him alone because he’s so racist and he’s not interested in a debate. He’s like the Dons in Italy just before World War 2. He probably goes about in a black shirt and white tie.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@cockswain @cazzie: “we wish a BETTER alternative for these people” <== no you don’t! The better alternative is that they DO have a job instead of being unemployed. There is not magically money to hand out if we deem it so with labor laws. Instead, these laws cause unemployment. If raising the minimum wage doesn’t cause unemployment why not raise it to $30/hr? We have already drawn the line too far and unemployment is high in many areas of the world.

Response moderated
mattbrowne's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish – Successful countries should offer advice and support to less successful countries. Ultimately it’s up to the Mexican people. But in my opinion America has not done enough especially during the 8 Bush years. Demonizing desperate people isn’t helping. Portugal in 1970 can be compared to Mexico in 1970. Now compare both countries today. The EU has accomplished something here.

cockswain's avatar

Oops, no name-calling. Couldn’t control myself To clarify the accusation I would prefer the exploited workers in 3rd world countries to have no jobs vs a terrible job: I want the greedy a-holes running the corporations to share the wealth and provide better-paying jobs for these people instead of taking advantage of their poor nation’s market.

cazzie's avatar

@mattbrowne ‘Successful countries should offer advice and support to less successful countries.’ There are some programs in this regard and the largest and ‘worst’ in my opinion is the World Bank. What seems to work really well is giving micro loans to women. I do something that makes me feel a bit better…. I work with a lady who imports shea butter from Ghana from a woman’s coop. They process it themselves and are able to earn enough money to keep their kids in school and make a living. If they were on a ‘wage’ from a plantation, that would never happen. I buy the shea butter direct, they get a good price and a fair wage and their kids get an education, and the people who buy my products can feel good about it too.

mattbrowne's avatar

@cazzie – Yes, micro loans are a great invention. I just used the ‘reloan’ feature on https://www.kiva.org – it’s wonderfully easy. A few mouse clicks that make a huge difference in the lives of people in need. And they keep their dignity when proudly repaying their loan.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther