Obama's Second Term

[Coito ergo sum]

What do you think he will try to accomplish in his second term?

[HomerJay]

Compulsory Gay Marriage, unless you've already taken a wife.

[FBM]

Other than surviving it?

Avoid new wars. End the remaining old ones he inherited.

Kill more terrorists who are out to kill innocent bystanders.

Nookie.

Figure out how to profit off China. (nationally, I mean. Not just personally.)

Look good.

[laklak]

Overturn the 22nd Amendment.

[FBM]

22nd?? Wtf? How many are there?

[FBM]

Or the deficit: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/07/polit ... ?hpt=hp_t2

[amused]

Keep the economic recovery going so that in 2016 the Democrats can point to it.
Solidify Obamacare.
Raise taxes on those making over $250,000 a year.

Things I'd like to see him do:
Replace Scalia and Thomas on the Supreme Court.
Destroy the student debt industry.
Promote science over religion. (Not going to happen, but, hope.)

[Kristie]

I think since he's been called out so much about promising immigration reform and not delivering, that's something he'll try to tackle.

[Ian]

* Avoiding the fiscal cliff (actually, that's supposed to happen before his 2nd term begins, assuming the can isn't just kicked further down the road). Hopefully a long-term agreement can be reached, one that includes some tax increases as well as cuts to major spending areas (most notably defense). With the deficit going down and uncertainty towards future tax structures alleviated, the economic recovery will increasingly pick up steam.
* Fully implement the Affordable Care Act.
* Augment Dodd-Frank and make it tougher. It probably won't happen, but I can dream.
* Immigration reform legislation. Republicans will compromise on this, or they will wither away as a party.
* Minor tweaks to Social Security. Removing the upper limit of SS taxes taken from people earning six figures or more would keep the system going a very long time.
* Appoint a new Supreme Court justice. Maybe two.
* Withdraw from Afghanistan without risking collapse in Kabul and the Taliban returning to power (i.e. a redux of the withdrawal from Iraq).
* Keep an eye on Pakistan. The risk of that nation becoming a failed state/civil war is high - and they've got nukes.
* Manage impending economic problems emerging in China with respect to US-China trade relations.
* Invade Canada.

[Tero]

Fiscal: nothing will happen. Tax cuts expire, military soending is cut. Life goes on. Unemployment will go down 1% first year.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Kill Citizens United.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think since he's been called out so much about promising immigration reform and not delivering, that's something he'll try to tackle.

Immigration reform is a tough road to hoe, because our immigration system is such a disjointed, complex system that anything short of a complete overhaul at this point is sure to be a dismal failure or a stop-gap measure.

If the average person really knew anything about how immigration works in the US, they'd die laughing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Kill Citizens United.

The majority opinion in Citizens United is that the Campaign Reform Act §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations unions, and any associations of persons, violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. Justice Kennedy wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." Justice Kennedy's noted that because the First Amendment (and the Court) do not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs


So, if Citizens United were reversed, or killed by Constitutional Amendment, then the government would be permitted to prohibit all independent expenditures by associations of persons -- it would also allow the government in so doing to suppress the political speech not only of commercial corporations, unions and associations of persons, but also nonprofits and even newspapers, book publishers, television/radio stations, and blogs.

There must be a middle ground between "no campaign reform" and the drastic prohibitions in Section 203.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't see a problem with banning contributions from non-persons. The expenditures are ridiculous as they stand now.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't see a problem with banning contributions from non-persons. The expenditures are ridiculous as they stand now.

It's not about contributions. It's about spending money on publications that can be considered political. So, as Justice Kennedy noted in the opinion, Section 203 did not distinguish between commercial corporations like ExxonMobil and nonprofit corporations like PETA or media corporations like the New York Times, Inc.

Corporate and individual campaign contributions are already limited -- (under Buckley v. Valeo) contributions to candidates by anyone — individual or corporation — can and are already be limited. Federal law, for instance, limits contributions to $2500 per election. IBM or the Service Employees International Union are thus limited to contributing $2500. Citizens United has absolutely NOTHING to do with that, although most everyone for some reason thinks that it had everything to do with that.

Citizens United involved independent expenditure on things like advertisements, publications, radio/tv commercials, etc., and if the prohibition stood, then the government would be able to stop Simon & Shuster, Inc. from publishing a favorable (or negative) biography of a candidate and prevent the New York Times, Inc. from publishing political articles, or Joe Dick's Political Blog, Inc. from railing against Republican injustice.

That's why Citizens United was the right decision.