Debate: Should Obama get his second term?
Side: No

Please somebody own me on this....My answer is going to be lengthyI 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.