5 reasons to vote for President Obama and the Democrats in 2012

With the 2012 election under a year away, it's shaping up to be a roller coaster ride. As the 2010 mid-term elections went towards the Republicans, we are seeing the aftereffects now. As President Obama has tried to push through programs that would help the economy and country, the Republicans and their Tea Party members have put up a roadblock on every corner.

While the president has been forced to give in to the destructive demands of the Republican party, the GOP has simply pointed the finger of blame at President Obama when they should be pointing that finger back at themselves. Here are five of what could be a very long list, of reasons you must vote for President Obama and the Democrats in 2012.

1. The Economy and the destructive Tax Code - For the last 30 years, the United States tax code has helped destroy the American economic climate.

It began in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan, one of the worst Presidents we have seen in our country's history. Reagan lowered the top tax rate from 70% to 28% during the eight years he was in office, and raised taxes that primarily hit the middle and working class eleven times. As he managed to triple the national debt, Reagan borrowed from the Social Security trust fund to make up for his reckless tax policies. The economy began to pick back up as President Bill Clinton raised the top tax bracket back up to 39%. When George Bush was sworn into office in January of 2001, on the top of his "to-do" list was to bring taxes back down.

With the start of the "Bush Tax cuts," the rich got richer and the rest of the country began to struggle. With dangerously low capital gains rates, more loopholes for big oil and gas companies and wall street running wild, the economy finally felt the pressure and crashed in 2008. As President Obama continues to try to bring the economy and country back on track, he can't do it with the Republicans overwhelming him in congress. The destructive tax code and our economy are at the top of the list for reasons to vote for President Obama and the Democrats in 2012.

2. "Entitlements"- The big three as they are known, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, are three of the most successful programs that Americans have relied on for decades.

While the Republicans want to privatize these programs and put them in the hands of the private sector so they can gamble and continue to add to their profits, President Obama and the Democrats want to preserve these programs and help them become stronger. Republicans often spew out unfiltered false information about these programs, calling them broke, un-American or a Ponzi Scheme. Social Security itself has a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus and can pay out 100% of its benefits until 2037, and 80% of its benefits until 2057.

Currently, there is a cap on Social Security. Those who make over $106,800 a year don't pay into the Social Security tax on their addition income. A person making $1 million a year would pay around 10% of their income into Social Security, while the average household making around $50,000 a year, pays 100% of their income into Social Security. The president and Democrats want to raise the cap, having the wealthy pay their fair share, adding more money into the fund to make it solvent for decades longer. As the Republicans try to raise the retirement age and send these programs into the hands of the private sector, The president wants to keep it in the hands of the people.

3. Wars - The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken a toll on America. Whether it's the trillions of dollars it has taken from our economy or the thousands of lives that have been lost, the cost is too high.

George Bush jumped the gun with false information and invaded Iraq that, almost a decade later, we still sit and try to rebuild To his credit, President Obama has removed the majority of the troops from Iraq and with even more to come home within the next two years. The idea of invading Afghanistan was somewhat tricky as we were attacked on 9/11 by a terrorist group, not a country. However, a major part of that terrorist group was from Afghanistan so the idea of invading that country was so what more warranted. However, just months after the US entered the country, the George Bush led military had Al Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden, on the run in Tora Bora. Somehow, the beaten down old man with a cain found his way out through the mountains.

Fast forward almost a decade later, President Obama takes troops out of Iraq, loads them up in Afghanistan and finally brings down the mastermind of those horrible attacks, Osama Bin Laden. President Obama has gotten involved in strikes in Libya, but those are not direct wars with the US, but partnerships with the United Nations. While the hypocritical Republicans talk about cutting spending they don't seem to ever want to cut where the biggest fat is, military spending. The president plans to pull troops out of both unwanted wars and cut money from unneeded projects.

4. Civil Rights - The world is changing and people's views change with the times. However, not everyone seems to have changed their mind.

The conservative mindset still punishes people for not fitting an exact line of thinking. Whether it's the utter hate of homosexuals, minorities, African-Americans, women and many others, the Republican Party has taken a stance towards bigotry. The first bill that was passed by the Obama administration was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, that gave women the right to be paid at the same rate as men.

In addition, Democrats around the country have rallied for same-sex equality, getting its greatest victory in New York, with the legalization of same-sex marriage as well as the official overturn of Don't Ask, Don't Tell that now lets gays and lesbians serve openly in the military. The conservatives have also taken a hard stance on abortion, making their voice heard that a woman must be forced to give birth to her unwanted baby, and sometimes even in cases of rape and incest. In order to keep the ball rolling on equality, Democrats must be voted back in office or the Republicans will turn back the clock on our country's progress.

5. Simple Science - Science is something that should be embraced not denied.

Whether you are a person of faith or not, turning away from science because it might not fit in with your religious beliefs, is a handicap on your brain. Teaching young children to deny scientific facts and knowledge that are accepted by nearly 99% of the scientific community is nothing short of irresponsible parenting. As the Tea Party has pulled the Republican Party to the political right, they have stepped all over science in doing so.

With their denial of man-made Climate Change and their ludicrous and dangerous stance on evolution, the Republican Party has proven that if they gain anymore power that the teaching of facts might be a thing of the past.

Now, President Obama and the Democrats have their faults. Not everything they do you might agree with, sometimes you might heavily disagree. However, the difference between the two major political parties are very clear. Voting to put more Republicans in charge will only bring the country to the break of failure.

Continue reading on Examiner.com 5 reasons to vote for President Obama and the Democrats in 2012 - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-orlando/5-reasons-why-you-must-vote-for-president-obama-and-the-democrats-2012#ixzz1fioS7Vzi

Is Cheney Right? Will Democrats Cave on Iraq Funding?

By Ray McGovern
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributor
Monday 16 April 2007

The rhetoric over recent days and this morning makes it clear that Vice President Dick Cheney is still in charge of Iraq policy. He seems supremely confident that the Democrats can be intimidated into giving the White House the only thing it really wants - enough money to stave off defeat until President George W. Bush and Cheney are safely out of office.
That, of course, is also what lies behind the "temporary surge" in troop strength.

Was Defense Secretary Robert Gates being naive or disingenuous on January 11, when he appeared before the Senate Armed Forces Committee and addressed the "surge?"

I don't think anybody has a definite idea about how long the surge would last. I think for most of us, in our minds, we're thinking of it as a matter of months, not 18 months or two years.

I know Gates; he is not naive. And, whatever the relative merits of positions on a policy issue, neither he nor anyone else in the small coterie of presidential advisers is likely to stand up to Cheney. The $64 question is whether the Democrats will. To me, that appears a long shot.

While some Democrats in Congress have shown backbone since becoming the majority, key members like Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin of Michigan seem willing to acquiesce in giving Cheney and Bush funding to continue the war, no matter what. On April 8, right after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he would cosponsor legislation cutting off all funding for combat troops next March, Levin undercut Reid by telling ABC's "This Week, "We're not going to vote to cut the funding, period.... We're not going to cut off funding for the troops. We shouldn't cut off funding for the troops.... We're going to vote for a bill that funds the troops, period. We're going to fund the troops. We always have."

Do you want me to repeat that?

Levin is a smart fellow, but his progressive credentials have been tarnished by his caving in on funding for an unworkable National Missile Defense project; by his working out an unsavory compromise with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) on depriving detainees of rights formerly guaranteed them by the US Constitution. And now this.

What would prompt Levin to pre-empt his own majority leader? One possible explanation might be found in the chutzpah-laden admonitions coming from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, and the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) cheerleaders for Cheney, who do not disguise their fervor for the US continuing the war in Iraq. Their gratuitous warnings at last month's AIPAC meeting in Washington that US politicians not show "weakness" on Iraq spring from their conviction that withdrawal of US troops would make the neighborhood more dangerous for Israel. (Israeli politicians should have thought of that before goading Bush and Cheney into attacking Iraq in the first place.)

Rove in new controversy over e-mails

By Steve Holland

Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:12PM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House political adviser Karl Rove was embroiled in a new controversy over potentially missing e-mails on Friday, the latest twist in the firings of eight U.S. prosecutors last year.

The White House disclosed the Republican National Committee in early 2006 took away Rove's ability to delete e-mails sent and received through a party e-mail account.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino had no explanation for why the RNC, the governing arm of President George W. Bush's political party, would stop Rove from deleting e-mails.

Perino said a White House review showed up to 5 million e-mails to and from as many as 1,700 executive branch employees might have been lost when the administration converted from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook in 2002 and 2003.

Democrats looking into the Justice Department's firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year, which critics say appeared to be politically motivated, are seeking Rove's testimony and documentary evidence to determine whether he was involved.

The White House revealed this week Rove and 21 other White House officials have for years kept e-mail accounts through the RNC to conduct political business without violating the Hatch Act, which forbids government employees from using government property for partisan activities.

Democrats want to know whether Rove and the others conducted government business on the party's e-mail accounts as well to get around record-keeping requirements under the Presidential Records Act and avoid leaving a paper trail.