This is just a reminder that Obama is not the "champion of liberal values" that many liberals would want him to be. It will be interesting to see how this whole "fiscal cliff" problem ends up, but I doubt anyone will be happy about it.

A variety of people that were in previous administrations give their opinion on what is most important and possible for Obama to do during his second term. This is one of those "room for debate" pieces on the NY Times, which I think present a nice variety of opinions.

This article really speaks to why I don't think there is a logical argumenta against Obamacare. There is no more conservative solution other than simply having no government involvement with healthcare. It bothers me that Romney isn't more candid about what "Romneycare" would actually do. It seems from his rhetoric that he wants all Americans to be covered, but that's exactly what Obamacare does in a free-market driven way. The only argument I've really heard against Obamacare is a partisan argument, Republicans versus Democrats. Does America really want to let 50 million people go without insurance or are they just ignorant to the fact that Romneycare would leave that many people uninsured?

This article spoke to what I thought about the presidential debate. I would be really interested to hear what the candidates had to say about the Euro-zone crisis or other real issues, but they were forced to tailor their comments to appealing to people in Ohio and other swing states. Classic American political system messing up real conversations from taking place.

I get so worked up when super-wealthy people act like they are somehow being persecuted when the Democrats asked them to "pay their fair share." I think this op-ed piece does a great job of explaining the frustration with the current socioeconomic divide. The author writes that "It is no accident that in America today the gap between the very rich and everyone else is wider than at any time since the Gilded Age." Although we can sit around and pretend that people "need to learn" from the rich. In reality, a of government policies are making it much harder to go from poor to rich, or even middle class. As the author describes the holes in the current American system, "Exhibit A is the bipartisan, $700 billion rescue of Wall Street in 2008. Exhibit B is the crony recovery. The economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty found that 93 percent of the income gains from the 2009-10 recovery went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. The top 0.01 percent captured 37 percent of these additional earnings, gaining an average of $4.2 million per household." This article doesn't blame Romney or Obama, it just explains why people are starting to have problems with the idea of the "1%." I personally don't think the outcry is against the actual members of the 1%, but rather agains the policies that it make socioeconomic inequality greater.

The number of millionaires may be the highest in history, but the percentage of Americans below the poverty line is 15%; the percentage of Americans that don't have a secure food source is 11%. So, great we have more millionaires, but also a lot more people that are in poverty or don't have enough food to eat on a consistent basis. If we were to tax the rich a higher rate, we coud have a system that lets fewer people slip through the cracks. Like this article mentions, rich people's kids go to private school and get first rate educations, while poor kids go to public schools with smaller and smaller budgets every year; this cycle stagnates social mobility. The rich get educated and get good jobs, while the poor go to failing public schools and receive second rate educations and are stuck in second rate jobs. In California, we have a proposition on the ballot that would raise the income tax on people making over $250,000 a year to provide more money for education. That kind of tax policy makes a lot of sense to me, if we look at the cycle of social immobility caused by education that I previously mentioned. I personally care much more about how many people are in poverty than how many millionaires we have.

here's another article that isn't an op-ed piece about the overall economic impact of income inequality: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/business/economy/income-inequality-may-take-toll-on-growth.html?ref=global-home This makes the income inequality situation not just a problem of more poverty, but also an overall economic problem. "The concentration of income in the hands of the rich might not just mean a more unequal society, economists believe. It might mean less stable economic expansions and sluggish growth."

This piece talks about why the South continues to be extremely conservative politically. I've never been to the South and have always wondered what's going on with the political conservative climate, because it seems to me that conservative economic policy actually hurts a lot of regions in the South. These "Room for Debate" pieces on the NY Times are awesome, because they provide a lot of different perspectives. I'd love to hear all your guys take on this: San Franciscans and Atlanta peeps alike.

This article is a great explanation for the article that Miles posted last week, "Romney Adopts Softer Tone in Critique of Obama." Obamacare is the epitome of a centralist solution to healthcare, but the Republicans in the house are too caught up in politics to admit that it is actually a good compromise. It is interesting looking at Romney's own plan for Massachusetts in comparison to Obamacare, because they are essentially the same plan. Because Romney has taken up the issue of "repealing Obamacare," he has really dug himself a hole, because what is the conservative alternative? No healthcare plan? It seems to me that this kind of partisan politics is the reason that Romney is doing so poorly in the election.

This is an old op-ed piece from one of my favorite economist's, Paul Krugman. I think what he says still rings true. When we hear politicians talk about debt, it always seems so simple; countries borrow money and then owe that money. Krugman explains that it isn't that simple. Ever since reading this piece, I've had a much different take on the idea of "national debt." Let me know if guys find him convincing.

As I watched the video of Romney making those inflammatory remarks (here: http://www.motherjones.com/transition/inter.php?dest=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser) about these "freeloaders," I wondered how this would play out politically. I loved this op-ed piece, because it did a nice job of explaining the political impact of Romney's remarks. Conservatives have been bashing Obama and the democrats for criticizing success and instigating class warfare. To me, this is actual class warfare; Romney has divided Americans into two categories of "makers and moochers" that is completely un-American. If the Romney campaign thinks he can win running on ideas like this, I think they are truly mistaken.

Cameron, I understand where you're coming from in terms of people needing work hard if they want to succeed, but where do you expect people that work hard but don't come from wealthy families to get the money for college? Someone on student-aid at at a public university would fall into that 47% that Romney referred to. This money for college is not a hand-out, but rather should be looked at as a right. If people in this country work hard enough to get into college, America needs tap into those hard workers by paying for their college education. So if we take a look at how those people in the "1%" were successful, they probably went to college. In order for people in this country to go to college, a lot of them need aid from the government. On another less important note, your comment about a "French Art Undergound Gothic History Degree" frustrates me. There is nothing wrong with someone pursuing a career in art if that is what they are interested in. Art is an extremely important part of self expression and as a country, I believe we are too focused on the conventional notion that success means being wealthy.

This article stood out to me, because it is exactly why I see Romney's plans as a completely the opposite of what American needs: they aren't any different than George W. Bush's. Americans saw what happened under George W. Bush, and nobody wants to go back to that. This line in the piece really summed up why Romney is doing so poorly, "To win the kind of victory that conservatives seem to think they should be winning, the Republican Party needs two things: A domestic agenda that offers more to hard-pressed families than just generic conservative rhetoric about the genius of capitalism, and a foreign policy program that reflects the hard lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan." As a liberal, I would never vote for Mitt Romney, but I do understand that the economy is not where a lot of people wanted it to be after Obama's first term. The question is: can Romney do a better job? I see a lot of similarities between Romney's policies and George W. Bush's policies, so I think that the economy would do worse. If other Americans, like the author of this article, see the same similarities, I don't see how Romney can win in November.

I found this op-ed piece interesting, because I think it gets at the underlying problem with the current Republican party: there is no room for middle ground, because nowadays that means weakness. Although a centrist to philosophy to all problems does not work, I thought Friedman painted a nice picture of why little gets done in Washington due to the stark contrasts between the two parties. Basically, radicalization of the Republican party is one of the biggest problems with the current political situation.