Barack Obama 2012: 7 Reasons President Obama May Win Reelection

President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama

Barack Obama in 2012

Barack Obama is likely to win a second term in the 2012 election, for the following reasons.

1. He is the incumbent, which gives him a natural advantage that is well-documented historically. Not only do Americans tend to defer to what is established as long as it is going pretty well, but the incumbent has the entire media establishment at his disposal.

2. One year before the election, we now know basically all of the Republican contenders. Some are stronger than others, but none are compelling alternatives to Obama. And they all have deep flaws (for example, Gingrich with his marital affairs, Romney with his universal healthcare plan as Governor of Massachusetts, etc).

3. Obama may not be great at governing, but he is one of the best at campaigning in modern times.

4. The Republican party in general is at an awkward place.

  • The party establishment lost a lot of clout to the Tea Partiers in the most recent Congressional elections.
  • Ron Paul (probably the most intellectually honest and straightforward of them all) continues to hang around, annoying everyone
  • Donald Trump was able to gain significant support in the party for a period of time, and may again in the coming months
  • Sarah Palin remains a celebrity with her own fiercely loyal base within the party
  • The birther issue was an intellectual and morale disaster for the party, insofar as the majority of Republicans bought into it

5. Obama killed bin Laden. A politically compelling argument can easily be made that Obama accomplished in 3 years what Republican George Bush could not in 8 years. The killing of bin Laden also demonstrates Obama's ability to make difficult decisions on security matters, which has been a consistent source of attack from conservatives in the last few years.

6. With Huckabee out, the Evangelicals and values voters have no one to passionately support. Without someone to advocate for their values and culture war priorities, many are likely to stay home on election day.

7. The economy, while still struggling, probably can't get any worse between now and the election, and may very well improve.

Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin

Obama and the Republicans in 2012

Obama's two biggest weaknesses are:

1. The fiscal/ debt crisis, which is on the minds of voters like never before, and which Obama did not help with his healthcare law, and which the Republicans have a decent shot at making some headway in. Republicans such as Congressman Paul Ryan, and Governor Chris Christie are making headlines for their constructive solutions to the modern American fiscal crisis.

2. Foreign policy: Obama has completely failed to articulate a coherent doctrine in this area, and exhibits inconsistency by withdrawing from Iraq while pushing harder into Afghanistan, intervening in Libya whilst standing by idly in Syria, and doing nothing during the Iranian protests months ago. Now that bin Laden is dead, the administration is in an awkward place of trying to justify continued operations in Afghanistan, while Al Qaeda and most of the terrorist threat is based in Pakistan.

Donald Trump
Donald Trump

Update: Donald Trump

Donald Trump has just announced he won't run for president after all. Another one bites the dust. The Republican field continues to look thinner and less impressive, with a number of high-profile potential contenders dropping out or announcing they won't run.

More by this Author


Comments 33 comments

Jo_Goldsmith11 profile image

Jo_Goldsmith11 5 years ago

some of your photos you are not able to see. The article in itself was well written.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 5 years ago from New York City Author

Thanks, Jo. I appreciate it. Not sure what the issue is with the images--they show up fine for me.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

Obama has been campaigning all the time that he has been in office at taxpayer expense.Barak ''I '' Obama once said '' I know your hurt '' referring to the unemployed and the poor. Does being a buffoon really make things better? HE promised CHANGE, JOBS AND A BETTER ECONOMY.

HIS RECORD WILL BE HIS DOWNFALL FOR A 2ND TERM.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 5 years ago from New York City Author

Jon, his record is certainly mediocre, not nearly what many expected at the beginning from his term. Nevertheless, every presidential election is a contest of "lesser evils," and on that count the Republicans are looking pretty shaky.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

secularist10

''Republicans are looking pretty shaky.'' CAN YOU ELABORATE AS TO YOUR MEANING?


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 5 years ago from New York City Author

I already wrote about it in the article.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

secularist10

A new report, UNEMPLOYMENT IS 9.1%

The president was in Iowa on the campaign trail on tax payer money.He really don't have a conscious, does he?


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 5 years ago from New York City Author

Haha, well, people are always saying the President is doing XYZ "on taxpayer money" but actually I don't think he can really go anywhere except on taxpayer money. The system is structured so that the President is always being monitored and safe by the secret service.

There's so much waste baked into the Presidency--hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars that could go to helping people in various ways. So you're right on that count.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

secularist10

OUR GOVERNMENT IN ACTION!

HERMAN Cain TRIED TO explain what the administration was doing to stop the oil flowing.

Shell Oil just spent $2 billion in Alaska on a site, permits were ready to go. The EPA stepped in AND stopped the procedure and demanded that the new regulations will need to be used. The timing was pre meditated to stop oil production.

MORE JOBS LOST and profits. Oil companies pay 40% taxes on profits PLUS A FEE ON EACH BARREL PUMPED.

Navajo Generating Station Arizona 6/29/11

The station provides 95% of the electricity needed to deliver water from the Colorado river… The US EPA is set to release NEW emission regulations……The plant has installed $45 million in new controls for nitrogen oxides.EPA favors a different control system that could cost $1.2 billion to install and would require millions in additional expenses every year to operate

It‘s important that Congress and the Obama administration recognize the impact the EPA would have on CAP and it‘s customers.

America needs to wake up before the nation is destroyed by the BUFFOONS IN WASHINGTON.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 5 years ago from New York City Author

"MORE JOBS LOST and profits. Oil companies pay 40% taxes on profits PLUS A FEE ON EACH BARREL PUMPED."

Not sure if that's accurate, but if it is, we have to remember that it's a wash once all the government subsidies and tax breaks and loopholes for the oil companies are taken into account.

Government (read: taxpayer) largess is the primary reason that gas prices have been so low in the US for so long. Americans, instead of paying at the pump based on consumption as in a normal free market, have been paying for it through their taxes, while enjoyed the illusion of "low gas prices."


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

secularist10

‘’Government (read: taxpayer) largess is the primary reason that gas prices have been so low in the US’’ NOT TRUE

Apparently you don’t fully understand subsidies and how they work in an industry. Oil companies are receiving $4 billion in government credits ( subsidies ) in most cases to explore for oil. Billions are paid to the government for leases. . Looking for oil is risky business and costly to produce oil. Billions are spent before oil is produced hence the government INVESTS IN THE EXPLORATION to basically share in the cost.. A good deal will in the end bring billions to the government treasury. The money in the treasury is the American people’s money. Don’t let the politicians confuse you, profit is good because 40% of that profit is taken by the government that eventually goes to the American people ( the treasury )

Just imagine if we were producing our own oil rather be forced by our politicians to purchase foreign oil. How many more working citizens could get off the unemployment rolls, paying taxes and helping the economy.In reality filling the treasury without raising any taxes. The solution to the economy is JOBS not taxes.

PRESIDENT OBAMA insists on raising taxes to replenish the treasury, raise taxes on the so called rich ,$250,000 and up. He wants to take away oil subsidies so that oil companies profits need to be lower than 3% net on their investment. All this when the alternate fuel industries are receiving $9 billion in subsidies. For those working he has given the working a payroll tax credit of about $1000 which has to be borrowed and in some ways hurting the poor and unemployed.

It‘s all about smoke and mirrors, the politicians need to tell the whole truth about who is

Not doing the job. The president‘s party and himself have had 2/3s control of the government since 2007.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 5 years ago from New York City Author

"Oil companies are receiving $4 billion in government credits ( subsidies ) in most cases to explore for oil."

You just agreed with me, lol. The government gives credits, subsidies or whatever term you want to use to the oil companies. Whether oil exploration is "risky business" is irrelevant. Starting a restaurant in a small town is risky business, maybe the government should subsidize that too?

Anyway, the large part of the government support for the oil industry comes in the form of American military presence in foreign lands, such as the Persian Gulf. There are many other benefits they get such as tax breaks, loopholes and other things that give them an unfair advantage over other types of energy.

In Europe, where oil is not subsidized nearly to this degree (if at all), unsurprisingly, gas prices are higher, other forms of energy are pursued and people drive much less (by riding bikes or taking public transport for example). Their gas prices are also high because of taxes on gas, but even if you take out the tax effect, it is still higher.

If the US were to remove the unfair advantage given to oil, then suddenly it would become economical for other forms of energy to be researched and invested in. Innovative people would develop new types of energy, possibly cleaner than oil, and the economy would reap the benefits.

BTW, the US has some oil, but not that much. Most of the oil America buys comes from Canada, not from the Middle East as is often assumed. American largess and military presence elsewhere helps to keep the price down. The politicians have decided it is worth it to put American young men and women at risk to give an unfair advantage to one segment of the energy industry.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

secularist10

''If the US were to remove the unfair advantage given to oil, then suddenly it would become economical for other forms of energy to be researched and invested in.

Oil subsidized at $4 billion , green energy alternate fuel subsidized at $9 billion. Oil is by far the cheapest to produce and returns to the treasury billions more than the subsidy.

The pie chart of US energy production.

Petroleum 36.7% , Natural gas 26.1% ( $4 billion in subsidies )

Note both of these industries have virtually been affected by the Obama administration.

Coal 21.2% EPA regulations are a major problem

Nuclear 8.6% Renewable 8.2% ( $9billion in subsidies )

It really is not hard to figure out.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 5 years ago from New York City Author

You're right, it is not hard to figure out at all.

First of all the $4 billion is only the tax breaks to the oil companies. It does not include the many tens of billions shelled out by taxpayers in the form of military activities to secure the Persian Gulf, for instance. These costs are very large, but also very difficult to quantify because the military activities often operate under multiple missions. In the absence of publicly-funded security, the oil companies would have to contract private security companies.

Secondly, the money given for alternative fuels is a very recent phenomenon, begun by virtue of the "green" movement and whatnot. A few years of $9 billion per year is nothing compared to decades of spending on the order of $4 billion annually. And again, those tax breaks do not include other sweet deals that total tens of billions of dollars annually.

It is not enough to look at direct dollars paid, one must take into account all of the indirect--but still very real--support they receive.

Yes, oil is the cheapest to produce because it is supported by the taxpayer, and has enjoyed a very long tradition of taxpayer support. Not just at the extraction phase, but all along the production chain, which is controlled by the very same companies. If oil had to compete in a free market with other forms of energy, it might not be so cheap. Again, consider Europe.

Oil is one of the largest sources of US energy precisely because of this public support, over decades.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

HUBBERS

With due respect of all your views, consider the stupidity of not using America's natural resources in these trouble times. Jobs or the lack of Jobs, NEW government regulations TO CREATE higher production costs in the oil, gas and coal industries are not in the best interest of the public or the national security of our country.

The actions of President Barak Obama and ALL the Democrats who voted and followed the party’s

Directions should be held in contempt of their actions. To remain silent and irresponsible for their actions not to utilize the nations natural resources is unforgivable.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

HUBBERS

with due respect of all your views consider the stupidity of not using america's natural resources in these trouble times.jobs or the lack of jobs, NEW government regulations TO CREATE higher production costs in the oil,gas and coal industries are not in the best interest of the public or the national security of our country.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 5 years ago from New York City Author

If your concern is using resources at a time of economic need or economic emergency, that is a fair argument. But that is a different issue altogether from the public support the oil industry receives generally, which I have laid out.

Ironically, if the oil industry had not enjoyed such a staggering unfair advantage over other forms of energy for years and decades, other forms of energy would probably be very well-developed vibrant and mainstream in the economy. Thus the economic crisis very well might not have been this bad. But as long as the entire economy dances to the tune of the oil market's whims, it is not as robust or stable as it could be.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

secularist10

''other forms of energy would probably be very well-developed vibrant and mainstream in the economy''

OUR GOVERNMENT IN ACTION

why there are no jobs??? unfair to use taxpayer money ?

an interesting fact.

GRANT AIDS HIRING FOR GREEN JOBS ( stimulus in action)

US Labor Secretary Solis announced that the Opportunities Industrialized Centers of America was one of six organizations tapped to get $38 million in GREEN JOBS Innovation fund GRANTS to train workers for various green jobs. As a result of a previous similar $ 4.9 million GRANT, OIC has placed 50 Arizonian workers in green jobs since march 2010.

The organization was founded as a NATIONAL NON- PROFIT NETWORK of employment and training programs aimed to help people who have a HARDER time finding jobs because they LACK SKILLS OR BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN IN PRISON.

Grants are hand outs by the Government that need not to be paid back.

May 2, 2011 ... Labor Secretary Hilda Solis Announces $100 Million in Grants for Green Jobs

Wouldn't it be far better to give so called trainees jobs (on the job training )and use the $$$$ to pay a little bit more while in training at the low pay rate.

Unemployment for young citizens is over 20%.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 5 years ago from New York City Author

You make good points, but again, that is a separate topic.

I agree the government could do a much better job when it comes to jobs. There are many creative solutions that would be more effective than the typical established wisdom in Washington. Unfortunately neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have the capacity for innovative solutions these days, just the same old tired hobbyhorses.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

secularist10

A RECENT REPLY TO ANOTHER HUB

I enjoyed the hub simply because of the points that you raised.

Small Government is Better, Lower Taxes is Better, Logical Business Regulation, but not Constraining Business Regulation:, Peace Through Strength and last but not least Preservation of Values the Country was Founded On.

All of the above made the United States of America ,the envy of the world today.

I have a family member who works for the federal government who tells me ‘’ the government wastes too much money and they can’t do anything right ‘’.

The people elected a president who promised to change government, promised jobs and a better economy. He promised transparency in government and to rid Washington of special interest. He promised to close gitmo and end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He promised to bring bipartisan government and to cut the deficit in half in his first term.

He is not who the people believed he was, seems like he is just the opposite in all that he has done. Yet he and his party who controls 2/3s of the government since 2007 continues to blame the other party for all of the problems.

We celebrate our nation’s independence on July 4,2011 with14million people on unemployment, 43,000 on food stamps and 9 % unemployment.

The ideology between a liberal and a conservative is what the country faces today.

LET’S PRAY

God Bless America and God Bless the Freedoms we enjoy on the 4th.


Skin Deep 5 years ago

Not picking sides here, but was intrigued by the argument. I just spent the last 15 minutes looking up oil company profits. It appears that their profits have been rising consistantly for a very long time. The numbers actually reflect the poor economy actually having a positive effect on the oil companies.

As a result, I can't say that I am sympathetic to any leases that the oil companies have to pay, considering they are making these record profits off of American assets.

Why would we invest in alternative sources of energy? Because it is wise to think long term, and it is wise for a country to be able to function independently of any company or industry.

Regardless, I appreciate the insights that I have received from both sides of this argument.

Thanks guys!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

secularist10

The pie chart of US energy production.

Petroleum 36.7% , Natural gas 26.1% ( $4 billion in subsidies )Renewable 8.2% ( $9 BILLION )

It is evident which industries produce the most, so isn’t it reasonable to say that those industries make more dollars of profit.

Oil is by far the cheapest to produce and returns to the treasury billions more than the subsidy .Obama says ‘’we must wean the US off THE NEED of foreign oil ‘’.What he says is not what the Obama administration is actually doing. Suppressing production of our resources is not the way.

Don’t be fooled by the numbers. The oil industry makes 3% to 4% profit on their investments, yet they pay 40% in taxes.

We should be happy when they make a profit ( profits are not bad )because the US government treasury receives a ton of $$$$.Bigger profits, more money for taxpayers.

Obama says, we need to RAISE TAXES ( on the rich ) to fill the treasury, SPEND MORE AND INCREASE THE NATIONAL DEBT LIMIT. The Republicans say we must reduce taxes , lower spending and reduce the deficit The government takes in $200 billion a day, the problems are that the gov. needs to curb spending. Realize that any company that don’t make a profit will not need more workers and probably will need to cut workers. The result is 9.1 % unemployment and the treasury not having as much money. Another 14 million workers not in the insurance pools which increase premiums for those paying customers.

‘’Why would we invest in alternative sources of energy’’ there is nothing wrong with that assumption except that the government has spent $$$ billions of tax payer dollars when we are in a recession. The industries cost can’t compete with other sources of energy.

Oil has been used in many other products produced in the US, check it out.

We need cheap oil, we have an abundance of OIL, NATURAL GAS and COAL that could be produced if the Obama administration and the Democrats would permit drilling.

Seek the truth and don’t be fooled by the propaganda.It’s not a debate, it’s the facts.

Please excuse the long reply


Skin Deep 5 years ago

So I of course went back to look up more numbes based on your response. Specifically what I learned was that on average, CEO's at Oil Companies make $34 million a year, not including often up to $20 million a year in bonuses - which are not always cash, but often a combination of cash, stocks, and other forms of incentives. If the companies themselves are only making 3% - 4% profit a year, this seems a little unfair to the their shareholders.

Again, as far as long term thinking: I am aware that it requires oil to create almost all products that we use, not to mention the transportation of all those products. Doesn't that make us even more reliant on one specific industry. For the longevity and independence of the economy, doesn't it make sense to forcibly bolster other sources of energy?

Again, why shouldn't they pay for leasing rights if it is our natural resources (as a country) that they are pulling from the ground for profit? Forty percent taxes does not seem to far out of line with the 47% that the average citizen pays (34% on income, plus the additional on expenditures and property taxes.)

As far as the claims that Obama is raising the taxes for the rich - correct me if I am wrong, but is he really raising the taxes on the rich? Or is he actually removing a temporary tax break? My understanding is that the tax break was in place specifically so that the rich could re-invest in the market and create more jobs. That was the justification. It has been proven that the re-investment mentioned did not happen.

If that is the case, which all research says is the case, why should they continue to benefit from the tax break?

The fact is that when Bush created these tax breaks in 2003, there were set to expire in 2010. Obama actually extended them until 2012. It is not accurate to say that Obama is raising the taxes on the rich, when he in fact extended the savings.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

Skin Deep

You are mixing to much in the soup and not comparing apples with apples.

With due respect of your comments.

1. ‘’I learned was that on average, CEO's at Oil Companies make $34 million a year, plus’’

Are you aware that 95% of the oil produced in the world is owned by GOVERNMENTS? OIL COMPANIES get over 80% of their profits from outside of the US. With the need not to import foreign oil doesn’t it make more sense to produce more of our own and keep the tax dollars and the jobs here.

2.’’doesn't it make sense to FORCIBLY bolster other sources of energy?’’

NOT AT THIS TIME. On my electric bill there is a charge ( hidden government tax ) for paying for building solar and wind energy. Besides in the open , the stimulus funds in the billions have gone to alternate energy production. GE manufactures wind and solar equipment ( friends of Obama) got billions and paid 0 taxes.

3.’’Again, why shouldn't they pay for leasing rights …. (as a country) for profit?

The oil companies are not protesting paying for lease rights ( a lease could end up paying $ 4 billion ) or 18% royalty fee on the oil pumped. The government has 37 leases available to lease yet for whatever reasons they have released only 2.4 leases.

Former Shell CEO: Oil Companies Don't Like High Oil Prices

John Hofmeister on push to end tax breaks for oil companies

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/in.../v/4685466/

4. ‘’Obama actually extended them until 2012. It is not accurate to say that Obama is raising the taxes. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire meant that everyone would have had a tax increase. HE DID NOT LOWER TAXES !.

NOW he wants to void the extension that he and the Dems agreed to and choose that the increase is for $250,000 and up ( $250,000 and up are the small businesses not millionaires ) Obama is not telling the American people THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. HE SAYS ONE THING AND IS DOING OTHER THAN WHAT HE SAYS IN THE PUBLIC.

THE KEY is when the Senate and Obama present their 2012 budgets for debate. The National Debt is only a diversion on what Congress needs to do to resolve issues.

It’s another Hollywood production where the hero ends the story.


Texasbeta 5 years ago

To address:

1) John, there isn't enough oil in our shores and lands to cover more than 1 year of use. You can use the same old Bakken Oil fields argument like the Republicans always cling to, but facts are facts...there is a reason that argument gets shut down in 2 seconds. We don't have the oil to sustain us. We have no choice but to go outside. The only thing opening up more drilling in the country would help, and that is oil companies profits, nothing more.

2) Again, the argument has been boiled down and you have shown your colors. FOLKS - Republicans don't think there is a problem, don't think we need to invest in new ideas, and think we should ride the oil thing forever...they can do this because they ignore the fact that it is finite.

3) I don't want to look this up to argue it. Who knows

4) The Democrats NEVER agreed to extend them a second time, hence the TIME LIMIT on the extension. Obama was blackmailed practically into extending them in the first place. Eliminate that tax loopholes and let's move on!

Reality and your points don't match up...big shocker, being that you are a Republican.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 5 years ago from New York City Author

For what it's worth, Wikipedia tells us that the US contains about 21 billion barrels of oil in reserves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Estimate...

And it consumes about 21 million barrels per day, which is (21 x 365 days) 7.7 billion barrels per year. So if the US relied exclusively on its own oil reserves, it would last for a few years if consumption was constant.

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

If anybody thinks that is a permanent solution to anything, they are kidding themselves. Even if the US continued to get much or most of its oil from abroad, the effect on oil prices of releasing all these reserves into the market would be limited, and would only last for maybe 5 to 10 years (guesstimating).

And anyway, as some have pointed out, if the US releases its reserves, other oil-producing countries can just reduce their production for however long it takes to keep prices where they are. They can just wait us out.

Ultimately, it would be a short-lived quick fix that would lull the country into a false sense of security, and then we would be right back to where we started in terms of depending on foreigners for oil, or developing alternatives.

The bottom line is that the US has been blessed with many resources, but oil is not one of them. So it must either continue to depend on foreigners, or actively invest in alternatives if it wants to improve its energy situation. Investing in alternatives is relatively straightforward if we remember that the oil industry is currently heavily subsidized by the taxpayer as it is.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

Texasbeta

Why won't Obama and the Dems allow the oil companies to drill, one less barrel imported today is a savings? You haven’t spoken about the abundance of natural gas (clean fuel) or our coal industry.

You said ''to invest in new ideas,'' we are in a recession and the nation needs jobs.Obama has already invested a $1 trillion in the new economy. Solar and wind can't compete with oil on an economical base.

P S I’m an independent and know how to think for myself. The Obama propaganda don't fool me, like many who follow the bull!


Texasbeta 5 years ago

Jon - As has been explained, there isn't enough oil under our soil or in our waters that we can utilize for more than a year or two...so the monetary benefit to the country is nill. The only ones who would benefit from completely opening up the oil drilling is oil company's profits. Considering the substantial environmental hazards involved, there isn't a reason to put ourselves at risk for 1 year's worth of oil, equating to pennies off of gas for a few months. It wouldn't touch anything else. Does that make sense? The juice isn't worth the squeeze. Now, that being said, I am curious...considering it doesn't financially help anyone but the oil companies if we open drilling, and increases risk with each well, why would you want to?

With regards to natural gas, I fully support it. We have a crapload of it. Fracking is screwing up communities, but let's be honest...that doesn't appear to be a problem with the process, but with the lax regulations and shoddy containment plans of the companies involved. SO...what do you do to fix that? Regulation.

With regards to investing in new ideas and Obama's $1 trillion, that isn't true. Not too much was invested in green jobs, as most of it was infrastructure spending, which was needed and yes, creates jobs. Historically, the country who controlled the means of energy ruled. Oil became the means of fuel, and we didn't control it, so what happened? Get your history books out sir, we put in the regimes that gave us cheap oil, starved their people, and when they tried to nationalize it, we killed them and put back in a regime that would give us cheap oil. The is how we pulled it off. The world changes however. China and India are putting massive amounts of money into renewable fuel, new inventions and innovation to existing industry measures. We are pretending that climate change isn't real, that evolution is fake and Adam rode on a T-Rex, oil will never run out, and the earth is 6000 years old. How exactly do you think we are going to fair in 20 years? That only industry in this country that has grown in 30 years is the finance industry, and they have done it by creating new financial instruments out of nothing, that basically do nothing but fleece the world, beginning in our neighborhoods. I see how old you are. This is the world YOU created, not me. I am 35. We have to live with what you allowed to happen, and still have to fight with you to get measures accomplished in order to put our country in a foothold by which we can continue with even a measure of our previous success. At some point, it would be nice if your generation owned up to the BS of supply side economics, the Laffer curve, and deregulation with regards to what you have left us to fix. It is shameful.

You can claim independent all you want. You vote Republican and Tea Party. You are a conservative. Period.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

Texasbeta

WOW ALL OF 35 AND ALREADY BRILLIANT, WAKE UP FOOL.

OBAMA held a news conference today and allowed questions, a rarity in the past two weeks. A pitiful example of a bumbling idiot, stutter stepping all the way. Obama admitted much of the Stimulus went to States to prop up union pensions and to save the jobs for public sector unions, meaning firemen, policeman, teachers and others.

AFL-CIO president Trumka as of today has visited the Whitehouse 57 times. The Obama administration's top priority is union business?

The president even admitted that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will need adjustments to come up with a solution to the national debt crisis. Sounds like he is moving in the opposite direction on previous positions. Again he used the ‘’I ‘’ and his need to be a progressive to the solutions. More hokus pocus for those who are not in the know.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 5 years ago from New York City Author

As entertaining as this is, fellas, both of you watch your language. I have a "deny" button and I'm not afraid to use it. Watch the personal stuff--fair warning. Stick to the issues and nobody gets hurt.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

secularist10

Thanks for the compliment, wasn't intended to offend anyone.

HAVE A GREAT DAY


diegomaher 5 years ago

What a cute picture of Sarah Palin. I'd vote for her or Tina Fey if either was running.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 5 years ago from New York City Author

If only physical looks were correlated with governing ability, diego.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working