I think it would be better to privatize the police force. Right now the best way for the police force to make money is to give out tickets and fines... In the words of my friend Frankie Verdi... Pig Food. Solving murders and other crimes is very costly, time consuming, and doesn't bring the pigs much food. if instead however police forces had to compete for contracts based on their performance their motivations would change. Doing the best police work possible would be the way to get the most food, not giving out tickets and fines. This would also cause them to maintain a good relationship with the community that funds them. Especially when it's time for contract renewal. Some might whine that this leaves the poor without adequate protection. Well... all the more reason to get a decent job and move your ass out of the poor house. This would also be good motivation for people to be less careless with their money. I don't see much of a downside to it.

Oh Yea, there is something obvious that I forgot in my original point, or points:

Borrowing money. Borrowing money from people who print money and devalue their currency is just as bad a printing money. Actually it's worse, it' puts you in debt the your borrowers i.e. China. Only if every country is free of debt to another will they truly be free.

Just like there are casualties of ware over territory,security, goods and other things, now there is a different war over debt that may require casualties in the name of true freedom. Though these will not be as obvious as soldiers on the battlefeild. They will be the ones who die due to cuts in medical programs and welfare programs. Medicare, Medicaid, and social security are the biggest share of our debt and we keep borrowing money from countries with no working standards or conditions to avoid the inevitable. The pay out that will leave us all broke. When the elderly outnumber the people working to support them. Or better their bills outnumber the wages of those who support them.

Freedom comes at a cost. Only those who are willing to make the sacrifices will get it.

So far I see Obama is willing to make some sacrifices, but not the tough ones. Tough ones are required to climb out of the hole which we have dug. The borrowing has to stop. The printing has to stop. Or we will never get out.

I'm sorry that's just what logic dictates. Once again I ask... somebody own me on this... I want your best arguments seriously....

Please somebody own me on this....

My answer is going to be lengthy

I have a few problems with the question.

First of all the question is untimely. We don't know who his competitors will be( even if we think we can guess)

Second of all, consequently we have no idea what the competitors ideas or arguments will be.

The answer is neither Yes nor No, it's "I don't know". We have to wait till the evidence is in.

There is a problem with this as well. The problem is that most political reforms don't have impact till years after they have been approved. This makes it hard to evaluate certain decisions; while lending reinforcement to the saying "Hindsight is 20/20.

But evolution has blessed us with the gift of playing out scenarios in our heads before they actually happen.

Before I get off topic let's look at some logical facts. Money and value are imaginary ideas that we give to certain attributes of life. Of course one is the physical manifestation of the other. Money is supposed to equal value. How do we determine value? There are three main reasons that I can think of.

1. Rareness (as in gold or diamonds) These are just elements arranged in certain patterns that we give value to mostly for aesthetic appeal. They are both useful in other ways, but this is not normally valued over aesthetic appeal, thus diamonds cost fucking a lot.

2. The next is effort. Money is meant to be a measure of effort that can be traded amongst others for their effort. I think this is a good thing, but at the same time it makes me sad. Large hunks of metal decorate college campuses all over as sculptures that could have been put to use as cars or something else, yet they are valued more for they're aesthetic appeal (see example 1.). Despite this waste,(and many others) money is a good system. It measures our irrational and rational feelings towards certain things, and we can exchange our effort for what we value with a neutral measurement of currency.

3. Originality. This may be a new invention or a new idea that we have our evolution given foresight to value. It is also in a sense rare like example one. It may also require a great deal of effort like example two. Thus originality is valuable.

(a quick side note: don't confuse this with harmful original ideas like cannibalism or religion. They are both original but neither is truly helpful, if not completely detrimental.)

What am I getting at?

MONEY and SUSTAINABILITY!

That supposed measure of effort that we have to trade for the things we want. The more we print the less it's worth. (the less rare, the less valuable; i.e. if gold was everywhere we would have no value for it...after all it's everywhere)

Actually then maybe it would be valued for what it's actually good for...

The point is that, if we have a standard for the measure of effort to pay for the things we want, and need; this standard cannot be allowed to change. What good is a standard for measurement if it can be changed at inconsistent intervals? This leaves no measure.

If Obama is willing to stop changing the standard of effort, i.e. stop printing money. Then yes I would be willing to give him a second term, however this seems unlikely.

He seems to want to use a scalpel because he doesn't have the balls to use an axe when needed. He can print more money and the standard will change in amounts of numbers, but THE EFFORT DOES NOT CHANGE! The effort will remain the same or most likely grow stronger regardless, if not because of, the variable change in the measure of effort. i.e. speculation in the trading of currency (measure of effort) on the stock market. As well as deep questioning about the worth of everything. When a standard changes, all that were measured by that standard must be re-evaluated.

Once again I say the answer to the question is a matter of how he handles the standard of money and how sustainable it stays as a measure of effort; but I remain skeptical...

I will elaborate further if I even get a reply to this argument.