Interesting Perspective on the United States

[iluvstrats2]

I'd rather have a chimpanzee in the White House than Romney or Obama.

 

That's why I voted for Kony

[Prunes]

I won't get into the debate as to who is better than who, but please stop calling Obama a socialist. In most countries in Europe, Obama would be considered a very liberal politician. And there is very few countries in our modern world that is actual socialist. Pretty much all countries today are social liberal, which is a mix between the socialism and liberalism. Some countries are more socialist and some are more liberal, but pretty much all countries are a bit of both. That goes for the US, Denmark (my country), France, Brazil etc. etc.

So please quit calling Obama socialist. And socialism =/= communism.

 

I do not intend to offend anyone, and I will leave this discussion again. Just wanted to clarify this.

[malmsteenisgod]

For some reason, people get the impression that Obama has somehow changed welfare requirements to make it easier for people to get a free paycheck. But he hasn't. They get the impression that people are lazier these days than "back in the good 'ol days." But they aren't. Welfare spending is up because the economy is down, and unemployment is up. It's called the social safety net and it's not free money that's just being thrown out to the poor. It's an investment so that these people who have been laid off through no fault of their own can scrape by a little longer until they can find work and pay back in taxes to help the next guy.

 

 

How about spending twice as much in 4 years as Bush did in 8.

 

 

False. Here's a spending graph. Obama took office in 2009, just AFTER the peak in spending from Bush's second term.

 

 

You must be referring to total debt, which is spending minus taxes. So here's the measure of public debt as percentage of GDP. Again, notice the spike in 2008.

 

 

So let's see where this increase in debt came from under the policies of the two administrations.

 

*all numbers are in billions of dollars

Bush's policies

Bush tax cuts: -$1,812

Iraq and Afghanistan: -$853

Other Defense: -$616

Non-defense discretionary: -$608

Prescription Drug Bill: -$180

TARP and HERA: -$224

Other tax: -$480

Other entitlement changes: -$293

 

Total Cost of Bush's Policies: $5.1 Trillion

 

Obama Policies

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act: -$874

Two-year extension of Bush tax cuts: -$620

Other mandatory spending: -$324

Other Revenue: -$113

Automatic Spending Cuts: +$503

Defense: +$271

Health Care: +$123

Non-defense discretionary: +$51

 

Total Cost of Obama's Policies: $983 billion

In fact, spending has decreased under Obama's first term. From Politifact,

[malmsteenisgod]

Socialism for the win. It's working so well in most of the EU.

 

The EU is hardly socialist. If anything, they're suffering right now from going to austerity. Spain and Greece both have unemployment numbers over 25%. The US would be in same boat if we went with austerity cuts.

[Coors]

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

 

He sure as hell hasn't done much to reduce it either now has he? The Gov't needs to butt out and let the States handle things as they see fit.

[malmsteenisgod]

He sure as hell hasn't done much to reduce it either now has he? The Gov't needs to butt out and let the States handle things as they see fit.

 

Lol the states?

 

Yes because all the past presidents did exactly that -- they let the states handle things. /sarcasm

[Waco]

I don't think he's saying past presidents did. I think he's saying they should have.

[Coors]

I don't think he's saying past presidents did. I think he's saying they should have.

 

 

It almost seems like he's assuming I'm a Bush supporter/far right republican/conservative. Because if you're not a democrat you're obviously a republican right?

[malmsteenisgod]

It almost seems like he's assuming I'm a Bush supporter/far right republican/conservative. Because if you're not a democrat you're obviously a republican right?

 

No. You're quite clearly another Ron Paul fanatic who thinks that diluting powers to the states will magically create a better democracy with more individual voices being heard. But quite the contrary. It was the states who suppressed voting rights for women, blacks, the poor, and other minority groups. Consistently, the federal government has had to overturn oppressive behavior from states in areas of women's rights, civil rights, voting rights, environmental rights, and much more. Furthermore, states are just as easy, if not easier, to lobby than the federal government, leading to more power in the hands of corporate interests. Only federal anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws can counteract this. But if you dream of a kind of fascist society where you have even less of a voice than you do now, then keep on screaming for states' rights.

 

Edit: But the point I was making with my last post is that there is a good reason that states aren't given much power over a national economy. Quite simply, the states are incapable of leveraging the kind of investments needed to create a competitive global economy.

[Onion]

[Waco]

No. You're quite clearly another Ron Paul fanatic who thinks that diluting powers to the states will magically create a better democracy with more individual voices being heard. But quite the contrary. It was the states who suppressed voting rights for women, blacks, the poor, and other minority groups. Consistently, the federal government has had to overturn oppressive behavior from states in areas of women's rights, civil rights, voting rights, environmental rights, and much more. Furthermore, states are just as easy, if not easier, to lobby than the federal government, leading to more power in the hands of corporate interests. Only federal anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws can counteract this. But if you dream of a kind of fascist society where you have even less of a voice than you do now, then keep on screaming for states' rights.

The Federal government is there precisely to strike down states that overstep their bounds...but the Fed isn't supposed to do everything. Nobody is saying the States would do it perfectly but IMHO they'd do a better job than the Fed.

[malmsteenisgod]

The Federal government is there precisely to strike down states that overstep their bounds...but the Fed isn't supposed to do everything. Nobody is saying the States would do it perfectly but IMHO they'd do a better job than the Fed.

 

Well then since this topic has mostly been about the economy, please point to areas that states should have more power instead of just continuing with generalizations. Also note the addition I made to my previous post regarding this.