Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Monday, August 20, 2012

A Well-Written Case Against the Re-election of Barack Obama

As a writer and a blogger, I stand for one thing: truth. Sadly, it seems that truth is hard to come by nowadays. But taking a deeper look at the concept of truth leads me to ask, "what does truth mean?" To me, truth means substance. It means real, cited, repeatable data. It means, and this is the biggest driver of why I write, when you have an opinion, you back it with fact. You back it with... truth. 

Now, of course, truth begets interpretation. What do I mean? Referencing my introduction paragraph, it means that I'm growing very tired of hollow opinions. I'm tired of empty rhetoric such as, "Bush was a bad president" or "Obama hates America" (to highlight how, yes, this does occur on both sides). Anyone can have an opinion, and debating what someone feels is useless, but opinions that are backed with facts, examples, citations, studies, etc. go much further than those that lack these opinion-promoting artifacts. 

Why did I preface this post with my strong-willed opinion of why facts are the most important part of an opinion? Well, it's because I read this article by Niall Ferguson of Newsweek that makes a great claim for why we should not re-elect Barack Obama: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html

In addition to reading the article, I read the comments after the article. Sadly, these tend to be nothing but attacks and hollow accusations. It definitely doesn't fall into the world of civil debate I so strongly support. The "you're lying" line is repeated often, along with this doozie: 

     "The factual inaccuracies in his assessment are stunning. This is what passes for journalism these days? Just another GOP shill."

To the maker of this comment I say, "care to elaborate?" His/her comment is what I'm talking about, and I see it more and more. 

Ferguson's five page write up is very clear. To break it down: 

- It is his opinion, or for a more academic word, thesis, that we should not re-elect the President
- He backs this with the following evidence of Obama's failure to do what he promised when he campaigned in 2008 (this is a brief summary of his points; I highly recommend reading the entire article): 

     - In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.

     - Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.

     - Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.

Of course, Mr. Ferguson goes on, and cites his reasons with deeper, expanded analysis and graphs. Again, read the whole argument. 

Personally, I think this is a well-written synopsis. Ferguson backs why he believes what he believes using facts. You can debate the subject of should we or shouldn't we re-elect the president all day, and that's a totally fair debate, but as far as why Niall Ferguson believes what he believes, he does a very good job of explaining it. Hollow, worthless, "you're a liar" one liners ping off Ferguson's backing like bullets off Superman's chest. I think every American should read this. Its analysis should be discussed openly, and the connections it makes should be absorbed by all.

So in getting all the "you better back what you say" stuff out of the way, I would like to have a debate. For those on the right, you might have already known this information, or the technicals might be new to you. Do you agree with Niall, or do you think he doesn't go far enough? For those on the left, after seeing this, what do you have to say? Is his case compelling? If it is, would you consider changing your vote. How would you put together a fact-based counter response? Do you support Obama to no end, no matter the strength of the counter position that exists? Please share your thoughts.

Obviously, in simple terms, I'm taking Niall's position, and I fully support his analysis. As I said, it's well written, and it doesn't carry a lot of emotional fluff. It gets straight to the opinion-backing details, and leaves little room for error. And to me, the biggest surprise of all: it made it to the front of Newsweek! Wow!

13 comments:

  1. Welcome back, LME! Glad to see you hit the ground running!

    I totally agree with you on the context and type of debate. I too am tired of the name calling, and, as you put, the hollow one liners like "you lie" and "you're a hater." Spare me the nonsense and have a civil, debate. That's why I love this blog. I too agree with Niall here, and I'd be happy to debate anyone who doesn't. But of course, he did such a nice job of laying it out for us.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi LME I'm so glad you're back - and great post!

    While I agree with almost everything Furgeson states in his article, and I love that he backed himself up with FACTS...I'm confused

    NewSpeak Rag are the people responsible for these: http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-most-controversial-newsweek-covers-slideshow/#7

    Many of the comments on these two sites follow the same unbacked promotion of the Pres's 'accomplishments'...

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ferguson-newsweek-
    obama-hit/2012/08/19/id/449051#

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/08/19/shocking-newsweek-cover-hit-road-barack-why-we-need-new-president

    And then there's always the liberal apologist spin:

    http://themoderatevoice.com/156578/newsweek-magazines-latest-cover-hit-the-road-barack/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi LME I'm so glad you're back - and great post!

    While I agree with almost everything Furgeson states in his article, and I love that he backed himself up with FACTS...I'm confused

    NewSpeak Rag are the people responsible for these: http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-most-controversial-newsweek-covers-slideshow/#7

    ...so, color me skeptical when a tiger 'appears' to change his stripes...

    Many of the comments on these two sites follow the same unsubstantiated promotion of the Pres's 'accomplishments'...

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ferguson-newsweek-
    obama-hit/2012/08/19/id/449051#

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/08/19/shocking-newsweek-cover-hit-road-barack-why-we-need-new-president

    And then there's always the liberal apologist spin:

    http://themoderatevoice.com/156578/newsweek-magazines-latest-cover-hit-the-road-barack/

    Again, it's great to have you back... you were missed!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oops! Sorry about the double post : (

    ReplyDelete
  5. Welcome back LME! Hope the trip went well. Good to see you jumping right back into the fray. :)

    I unfortunately don't have time to write-up a more detailed response, but I would just say this:

    I think an issue that seems to be forgotten is that the decision we face in the upcoming election isn't simply revolving around the question of (in the case of the article) why we shouldn't re-elect Obama... but also why we should elect Mitt Romney.

    I've seen reasonable, factual and well-supported write-ups for the former (as you point to one in your post), but there's very little convincing material for why to support Mitt Romney. And the 'anything but Obama' line of reasoning simply isn't a strong enough campaign or idea to rally around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ABO line is pretty dumb and immature. But the case for romney is strong.

      1. He is a leader.
      2. He turns things around (Olympics, many, many companies under Bain)
      3. He has experience.
      4. He is financially educated
      5. He did great working with the left while in MA

      That's my "thesis, and those are my quick backings behind it. I'm interested in this debate. Tell me, as the case is with NOT reelecting Obama, why shouldn't we elect Romney?

      Delete
    2. Let me play 'Devil's Advocate' with what I 'hear' when I bite my tongue and go to the LSM for 'information' and the facts as I've been able to research them.

      Romney:

      * Rode his pet dog on top of his car - in a spacious, airy, ASPCA approved carrier.
      ** Obama, by his OWN admission ATE at least - one dog.
      *** Romney's dog? LIVED a long happy life... Obama's dog? Carved into a Canine Casserole!
      * Cut a classmate's hair in 1965 - even the 'alleged victim's' family disputes this EVER happened.
      ** Obama, by his OWN admission, bullied a little fat girl.
      * Per Harry Reid - hasn't paid taxes in ten years.
      ** Dirty Harry a) won't disclose the 'little bird' who told him this b) is HIMSELF so crooked the undertaker will be FORCED to screw him into the ground when he dies c)who STOLE his last (2010) election with emailed threats to union members (FACT) and illegal alien voters (FACT: even tho, ol' Harry CLAIMS NV has NO problem - the ratio here is 14+% ILLEGALS) d)the old-timers in NV Gaming Commission (read: MOB) called him Hand-Out-Harry, due to his insistence on kickbacks for 'favors' e)as a life-long NV resident, I KNOW - you couldn't believe Dirty Harry - if his tongue came notarized.
      *** a)Where are Obama's college transcripts and thesis, passport info, Chicago real estate records b) why does he have a Conn. SS# - when he NEVER lived there, c)aside from Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers (who he threw under the bus) - where are the people who knew him growing up? etc, etc, etc.?
      * Massachusetts was 47th in job creation when Romney was Gov.
      ** With an unemployment rate of far BELOW 5%, during his tenure as Gov., there wasn't a lot of need to CREATE new jobs.
      *** a)We've had at LEAST 8% since Obama took office. b)If you count the people who've STOPPED looking..the REAL unemployment rate is more like 11%... c)and then there are those who's unemployment ran out - so they've filed for (and received) SS Disability, putting an even GREATER strain on THAT broken system.
      * Killed a man's wife when he worked for Bain which he left in 1999 - sad though it was a)the husband was offered a buy-out by Bain b)he refused it an worked for the company until 2001 c)the wife STILL had insurance from HER job until 2004 d)she passed away in 2006 - SEVEN years after Romney LEFT Bain Capitol.
      ** How many deaths can ACTUALLY be attributed to the Obama/Holder Fast and Furious fiasco? How many from drone strikes? How many WILL die as a result of Obamacare rationing?

      Why vote for Romney?

      Romney is:

      A successful businessman
      Has the skills, the stones and the wherewithal to REVERSE the tragic course Obama has set us on
      A great family man
      Honest and forthright (so far)
      PAYS his taxes (and for those who say it's NOT enough - do the math... 14% of $20M is a pretty good chunk of change.)
      Gives NO LESS than another 10% to charity
      Believes in We the People and American Exceptionalism
      Believes in our Free Market
      Stands with Israel
      Is NOT a socialist/communist/Marxist wannabe

      Obama? Aside from lying when the truth would do him just as well... he's a train wreck! His 'fundamental change for America' (b/c European Socialism has worked out SO well - for THEM!) has sent us OVER the cliff - we're now speeding toward the treacherous, jagged rocks on the beach below!

      Another four years with him at the helm would be bleak indeed... as in 'move over Greece!' No thanks - not for MY grandkids!

      Romney/Ryan 2012! They're not perfect and it won't be easy, but our America is worth it!

      We're due for a little R + R!

      Delete
    3. I still have to remain relatively brief, but the point I'm highlighting more is the fact that Romney has in large part avoided campaigning on his record (similar to Obama). His campaign's focus has mostly been on debasing Obama's record instead, which while all fine and dandy as a strategy still leaves uncertainty to convincing details of why Mitt would be any better (aside from simply not being Obama, which tends to be the main [but weak] fall-back).

      Mitt has certainly referenced aspects of his record on some occasions, but they're hardly a key piece of his campaign. In his defense, this is more than likely all to blame from what was essentially the 'swift-boating' of Romney's record during the primaries.

      But I feel that continuing to avoid it like this will hurt him in the long run, simply because again there needs to be more than just reasons not to like the other guy to stand the best chances in winning votes. And hesitance/lack of confidence in trumpeting your own record and accomplishments certainly weakens you as a candidate... surprisingly enough despite the generally poor outlook on Obama's record I've seen him more proud/confident in aspects of it thus far than Romney has.

      Delete
    4. Hi RKen

      'surprisingly enough despite the generally poor outlook on Obama's record I've seen him more proud/confident in aspects of it thus far than Romney has.'

      I'm sorry, but Obama remains proud/confident of his abysmal 'record' because he's a flaming narcissist. The original I, I, I guy. Adding insult to injury, the LSM have elevated him almost to deity proportions (in Lib/Dem circles) with their incessant pounding of his drum for the past five plus years, ie: Thrill up my leg 'reporting'.

      Unlike the proven Down and Dirty Chicago Style Thug-in-Chief, Romney is a gentleman, as is Ryan. I agree that he does need to start 'tooting his own horn' re: his accomplishments and ideas pretty darn soon - or he risks being drowned out by the LSM shriekers and blind shufflers, running with repeated stories of irrelevant dog car rides and shady 'reports' of phantom haircuts from 50 years ago.

      Rock Stars like Obama are a dime a dozen - We need a leader.

      Delete
  6. Dara -

    I support neither Romney nor Obama (though if I had to, I'd take Obama - not because I think he's done well but because Romney would destroy what's left of this country, in my opinion) but your 'Why vote for Romney?' leaves much to be desired. Mitt being a successful businessman in the private world has ZERO bearing on how he will handle Congress. The public process is one that cannot achieve what the private sector does - perhaps in the end but where a private company can make quick decisions and chose empoyees/consultants/contractors quickly, it cannot be done in the public arena. So his business experience has about nothing to do with anything. It is his judgement that must be sound and, from what I've seen about Romney, it is far from it - dog on roof, flip flopping with the money train, etc. (btw - do you really believe that because a carrier is approved by the ASPCA that that means it's ok to strap it to the top of a car? how about a plane?). Has the skills and stones, a good family man, honest and forthright - proof? Pays his taxes - proof? Has he paid taxes on his offshore accounts? Don't you think the president of this country should be 100% invested in this country? I, personally, don't care for a president who is so unsure about the financial viability of the country he/she wants to lead that they harbor money elsewhere (perhaps to avoid paying taxes on it - similar to the corporate tax loophole in this country that allows the likes of Mitt to harbor money offshore without paying tax on it - I believe this was done under Reagan). Also, isn't 14% of $1 the same as 14% of $20M (on a pro-rated basis)? Gives no less than 10% to charity - proof? Believes in 'We the People' (something I would vehemently disagree with you on) - proof? Believes in 'Free Market' - whatever that means - proof? Stand with Israel -is this a good thing? I don't think so. I like the idea of not supporting any terrorists, not hand picking those we will and won't support.

    What will likely happen when Romney gets into office is he will cease the government spending... you know, virtually the only thing keeping this economy afloat... and the economy will sink like a stone.

    The one area that I agree with you on is that we need a leader. Only one man has entered the race that fits such a billing... Ron Paul... my candidate and the only one who has bold enough and original enough ideas to turn this sinking ship around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a joke.

      "Romney would destroy what's left of this country???" - Get real dude. What is this from? Where did you come up with that? Did he destroy MA? Nope. Did he destroy the Olympics? Nope. Did he destroy anything he has lead? Nope. You're way off.

      "Mitt being a successful businessman in the private world has ZERO bearing on how he will handle Congress." - In this case, you're right. It has no bearing. His time as governor of MA, working with democrats does! Obama claimed he would bridge the divide. He has absolutely failed in this. Romney worked great in a blue state. And it's great that he has experience in both the private sector and the public sector. Obama had neither, and look at the results we got.

      "So his business experience has about nothing to do with anything." - False. And as I have said, he seemed to do pretty damn well as a governor.

      "It is his judgement that must be sound and, from what I've seen about Romney, it is far from it - dog on roof, flip flopping with the money train, etc. (btw - do you really believe that because a carrier is approved by the ASPCA that that means it's ok to strap it to the top of a car? how about a plane?)." - Seriously? I've read your comments throughout this blog, and I'm surprised that someone who seems intelligent is even holding any water to this. You're turning into a joke. Talking about his dog. Please. Rachel Maddow would be proud of you.

      "Has the skills and stones, a good family man, honest and forthright - proof? Pays his taxes - proof?" - Proof against? Show he isn't a good family man, honest, and on? Pays his taxes? Well, he has paid taxes for what, 40 years now? Don't you think if there was an issue, he would have been caught? Hmmm... In addition to Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews is in love with you!

      "Has he paid taxes on his offshore accounts?" - Al Sharpton for the trifecta! You sound ignorant going off on things you don't understand. All money's deposited into foreign accounts are done after tax. You can't have income (from an employer or from investments) direct deposited into a foreign account. If money grows in a foreign account, it grows tax free. When it is repatriated, it is charged all the taxes due. Romney has filed all appropriate forms (FBAFs) and they were all in check. You're really grabbing at straws here. I thought you were better than this. You usually have factual, well thought positions like rken. I didn't expect you to embrace the looney, baseless lines of the fringe left.

      "Don't you think the president of this country should be 100% invested in this country?" - What a joke. Daily Kos, eat your heart out. Please, enough with the liberal talking points. In my IRA, I have money spread everywhere, including many PACRIM funds. Am I not investing in this country? Your claims are so goofy.

      "What will likely happen when Romney gets into office is he will cease the government spending... you know, virtually the only thing keeping this economy afloat... and the economy will sink like a stone." - You clearly know nothing about economics. A country cannot be propped up by the government. Economies grow on the production of goods, and the selling of those goods. The government produces nothing.

      Oh and there it is: The one area that I agree with you on is that we need a leader. Only one man has entered the race that fits such a billing... Ron Paul... my candidate and the only one who has bold enough and original enough ideas to turn this sinking ship around.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA Ron Paul. Dude, you know NOTHING about what Ron Paul wants. You know NOTHING about his platforms. You don't even support his views at all. You're for big government and large government programs. Where in the world would Ron Paul support this. Put down the bong, dude. Come back to reality.

      Delete
    2. Not completely related and likely deserves its own thread for further discussion, but in reading your response it reminded me of a recent point made in the likelihood of Mitt's hesitance to release more tax returns.

      There's a belief that Mitt may have participated in the 2009 federal tax amnesty program that allowed those with off-shore accounts to bring the money back to the US without facing penalties/prosecution for tax evasion. While his participation in this would be perfectly legal, it would certainly hurt his integrity.

      The truth of course, is that no one actually knows for sure other than Mitt and those close to him... so who knows either way.

      Though, honestly, regardless of whether or not it is true doesn't really effect my opinion or decision come election time. But I still think it's an interesting point, and certainly a possibility even if unlikely.

      Delete
    3. If there were ANY hanky-panky in Romney's tax returns does anyone REALLY believe that Obama would NOT ALREADY have his IRS ALL over it?

      That he wouldn't REJOICE ON NATL. T.V. - and then send his lap-dog LSM with their cameras to Romney's headquarters to - Film at 11 - his arrest!?

      He sicced them on the Tea Party! (with NO proof of wrong doing, I might add.)

      He sicced them AND the Dept. of Labor on a Romney supporter in Idaho! (ditto above)

      We knew absolutely ZIP about the current resident of the WH - EXCEPT what was in TWO years of his tax returns (and 'his' 'autobiography')...

      Right now, TODAY we know more about Romney's BACKGROUND, than we knew in '08 or are EVER likely to know about The Won...

      The 'release your records' mantra is just MORE smoke and mirrors from TeamObama.

      And if he DOES release them - what then?

      Oh right, more ugly 'eat the rich' rhetoric. More 'stomp, stomp, stomp' 1%er garbage... AND THEN the LSM will giggle and snort about how Romney folded because he's sooo WEAK to boot.

      So he's rich! So was McCain! So is Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Wasserman-Shultz! The DIFFERENCE is that Romney WORKED for a living in the PRIVATE SECTOR.

      ALL the others have spent DECADES - SUCKLING FROM the GOVERNMENT TEAT.

      Silly Question: Just HOW did THEY ALL get SO RICH on the monies that We The People pay them?

      Hint: Their JOB performances would suggest they're NOT exactly FRUGAL or great at SAVING $$. : )



      Delete