CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should Obama get his second term?
Down to that bottom year, he has claimed that he can make all right in the world within 8 years after his election. Should we as Americans give him that opportunity?
I wouldnt necessarily say that Obama isnt exactly trying his hardest or not doing anything at all, I just personally dont believe that the direction that hes taking is a very good one or beneficial one. He has more or less driven himself into a hole of favor debt, one that he pays back in biased legislature, and hes part of the Democratic Political party which is essentially using him, regardless of what he thinks. Under such, I believe that Both a new candidate is required, preferably one from an independent party for some fresh air and far less political agenda, and eventually a massive political overhaul of parties and lobbying. But since were talking about Obama specifically, youve got youre answer. No, its not a good idea. No, we dont have a good candidate replacement, but still no, its not a good idea.
in a long run it wont make any difference... Nature will take care of US... Americans will have to work hard eventually even if they do not get concept anymore.
I strongly believe that Obama should be given a second term. Since Obama has been in power, he has been trying his best to make certain achievements. We all know, that in the state that our ecomony is, it will not take weeks or months but possibly years to fix or embetter and for this reason, we should give him another chance since his leadership has cultivated many presidential achievements. We tend to blame him for not trying his best to embetter the economy but what we are failing to understand is the fact that this is his first term in office and the economy is not something you can fix in a second, it is a critical aspect that requires careful thought, planning, analysis and actions which can take several years. It is also through President Obama and his supporters that the health care bill, legislation to curb green house gases and improve the environment passes, preventing a second great depression by saving three large car manufacturers from going out of business and which would have possibly leave hundreds or thousands without jobs, and also passed the largest economic stimulus bill, bringing the war in Iraq to an end, thus saving the economy a lot of money and innocent lives from being taken, nuclear non-proliferation movement, repairing our image abroad, reversed George Bush's ban on federal funding to foreign organizations that allows abortion, lifted Bush's ban on embryonic stem cell research, implementation of education system reform, tobacco regulation, financial industry reformation, appointing two Supreme Court Justices. These are the presidential accomplishments achieved by Obama and these are proof that the president is determined to fullfill his promoses he had first made to the nation. Now, it is our turn to give him the chance he need to do so and give him some more time.
I agree because Obama has done a change to the United States of America an he should get his second term. He's changed many thing and trying to sort other promblems nobody thinks about.
First of all, he has had several years to fix the economy. No real greenhouse bills have been passed, they have accomplished nothing besides increasing spending. Saving the car companies did not prevent anything and he basically just plugged leaking holes in corporations that will never work due to the extreme wages payed to workers. The war in Iraq is not over. Anyone could have appointed two Justices and he really didn't do a good job there creating the biggest controversy in the history of the Supreme Court. He already had his chance, he failed at basically everything he said he would do. You are going to have to do better than that if you want to convince anyone he did a "good job"
Bush had several years to fix the economy as well. Did he fix it? Several years like how much? Do you think the economy is something you can fix in 3 or 4 years? If that was the case then we wouldnt have need a president when President Bush could have done it?
Saving the car company prevented many from being unemployed and also prevented a strain on the government providing unemployment benefits to recipients. We need taxpayers money to help maintain the economy of this country. The war in Iraq is not over but atleast the president is making an effort to tend to it. People make it seem as if political and social issues are something you can fix in less time and point their fingers at the President for that. If other people can do it, then they should have run for office as well.
Really? Anyone could appoint Supreme Court Justices? That all political parties and the entire nation did not dispute or challenge? Having a perception that something is far more easier than it looks is just a myth not reality in a world like the one we are living in today.
That largely depends on who he is running against. If he is running against someone better than himself, I will vote for that person. If he is running against someone worse than himself, then I will vote for Obama.
Besides, that, I mean, being the way I am, I would fight for the man who can get the job done without pushing too much to the economic extreme. Obama is the man I know I could trust on that issue. Although we all know the stimulus was too small and that the marginal disutility of labour right now is less than desirable because of shrinking pay checks, which is counter productive in a liquidity trap.
That is my only qualm, that he failed to push through a more ambitious plan to capitalize on the deflation of the dollar and the economic recession to modernize many of America's public works, water, roads and such. Because, really, for the last 20 or so years most haven't been upgraded or anything.
That being what it is, the multiplier effect was much too small to make up the fall in aggregate demand from the collapse.
Tell me what would have been better? To let things sit like Herbert Hoover did, do nothing at all? What is the rationale behind doing nothing? The belief that the market will fix it? I hate to tell you, but the market says that, right now, the lack of demand is the biggest problem.
Ron Paul could never win North of Tennessee in any political capacity.
His ideas are too simple.
Not that I don't like some of what he does, however, some of his ideas, simple as they are (flat tax) simply do not work in the real world, and most understand they are not doable.
No one has a chance if elections were today. Even at his least popular he's been more popular than either politcal party, and more popular than any potential candidate.
If unemployment is still above 9% in two years there may be someone who can beat him. That likely is not going to happen though.
For passing a huge stimulus bill that fact checkers agree (check factcheck.org) helped us from going into a depression, as well as the bank bailout and auto industry bailout that, left unaddressed, could have cost the economy even more jobs, I will vote for him again.
For being a leader in the midst of criticism from both sides and having the audacity to believe that millions more Americans deserve health care as opposed to the Republican plan of not giving those millions of Americans health care, I will vote for him again.
For standing up for gay rights and leading the fight against the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prevents patriotic Americans from serving their country for something as silly as sexual preference, I will vote for him again.
For negotiating the START treaty and seeing it passed in a bipartisan way, I will vote for him again.
And for the times when his heart was in the right place and he tried to do but could not thanks to Republican and Blue Dog opposition in Congress (a public option, reducing the deficit by not granting tax cuts to the richest Americans, the DREAM act), I will vote for him again.
Electing him again, to me, is a no-brainer, but he can not be as effective until we put people in Congress who agree with his vision.
YES WE SHOULD!! I think that he has been doing a good job. When he became president, the country was handed to him in really bad shape!The country is in way better shape now. I think many people expected too much from him and some people just hate him 100% for no reason
Tell me how the country was in bad shape when he was elected.The main difference between BUSH AND OBAMA is that Bush sent troops to Iraq and Obama sent troops to Libya.
He is actually trying, the only flaw is that we the people tend to expect a lot out of our leaders, as many did when Obama was elected. The only reason why people even see him as a bad president is because they expect him to do so much that he is actually trying to fulfill in his presidency, since most of us thought we got a superhero who would automatically make things better. However, he is human, and we should let him do what he needs to do to help our country. For Bill Clinton, a great president, also faced this same dilemma so chances are we could have another Bill in store for our country!
oh yes barack Obama should get reelected because,,,
heathcare reform - he was the first president to ever tackle heathcare it provided acces to heathcare and will finally get rid of the waste in heathcare and get people uninsured insured
fincial reform- made the banks do their buincess right
If elected, of course. I don't know who the competition is, and I'm looking for a really strong third party candidate, so I can't claim whether I will vote for him or not.
But if he wins, he wins. That's how this game is played.
It's either Obama or a republican. It's a true dilemma that is solved by remembering what a lousy president GW Bush was. We don't need another republican touting trickle down economics (voodoo economics). Although Obama and Bush have more in common than either democrats or republicans want to admit, I'll still pick Obama for the reason that democrats seem to be less destructive than republicans. In general, both dems and reps will screw the working class but the dems at least apologize.
Obama has been helping and taken control of a lot of important things that would have turned out badly. In his second term, if he gets it, he will be able to adress more and more problems.
I agree...Osama's death is some proof that Obama is a good leader. He did not reveal he knew where Osama was in his campaign, which would have guaranteed his victory. This makes him an ideal president.
For a guy that bunch of government mafias pointing guns to his head, he stood up for the best as much as he could. I don't care about his skin, I care about his ability, education, thoughts, and sincerity.
yes i think that obama 'the best one yet' should be re-elected ! he is amazing and gives a better look at amarica...that was clerly no there be for!! he is amazing and if you dont like him well then your just raicist! all us canadians would love to have him!!!
I think that no President has managed to complete everything that they have planned in a single term, or even in two terms. Obama has done well for a first term. I think that if we can give someone like Bush two terms to produce such a sh*t storm, it is imperative to give Obama the same amount of time to try to resolve SOME of the issues.
Looking back, years from now, people could very well say, "This was the moment when American power began to recede. This was the moment when America lost its way. This was the moment when America begin to die."
If someone better runs I am completely for it. Obama was only elected due to all the media hype and "young voters" who no nothing about politics to being with. If he was doing all that he could, why is it that they elected a democrat (Obama) but fought back with republicans this past election day? Nope I'm not up for all this Obama care crap. Save it! I think their is bigger fish to fry and more things to worry about than our health care system.
I think their is bigger fish to fry and more things to worry about than our health care system.
The United States spends more on health-care than any other country in the World, and unpaid medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States. How can we possibly expect to manage our national deficit if we maintain this system that clearly isn't working but continues to hemorrhage debt?
Absolutely not! He has tried to do what he said, but if you rate him based on a scorecard of how well he is implementing change, I would say he is failing.
Would you not give him any credit for anything he has done so far? Or are you against him 100%?
Do you feel like his health care bill was a mistake?
Would you not also say that he entered the presidency in an extremely rough time?
In my opinion I say we give him the next four, he is not nearly as bad as the eight years that preceded him. I feel like he is trying to implement change, and do what he set out to do in the beginning of his campaign.
I really see no president that is going to do a better job ( at least that has a chance of getting elected ) than Obama, unless you had someone in mind that had a hope of winning?
Would you not give him any credit for anything he has done so far?
Sure, he should be granted credit for instituting progress towards socialism.
Or are you against him 100%?
Correct.
Would you not also say that he entered the presidency in an extremely rough time?
Sure, to a certain degree. Only because of bad government policy.
he is not nearly as bad as the eight years that preceded him.
What was so bad about the last eight years besides the war?
I feel like he is trying to implement change, and do what he set out to do in the beginning of his campaign.
Doesn't mean that it is change for GOOD. He never said Change was going to be for the better.
I really see no president that is going to do a better job ( at least that has a chance of getting elected ) than Obama, unless you had someone in mind that had a hope of winning?
"Sure, he should be granted credit for instituting progress towards socialism."
What is wrong with a de-centralized planned economy? It is not taking away your democracy. Rather, it encourages more democracy.
In our current capitalist societies, 5% of the population controls 95% of the nations wealth. A nation that disproportionate sounds more like a caste system, not a democracy
A de-centralised planned economy is one where ownership of enterprises is accomplished through various forms of worker cooperatives; planning of production is done from the bottom up by local worker councils in a democratic manner
In other words, giving people MORE freedom.
Do you hate freedom?
or just the word 'socialist'?
"Sure, to a certain degree. Only because of bad government policy."
Yes, but not HIS bad government policies. He had to clean out the monkey's cage.
"What was so bad about the last eight years besides the war?"
US withdraw from a number of international treaty processes i.e.Kyoto protocol
public protests occurring even during visits to close allies, such as the UK
the United States entered the longest post-World War II recession
"Doesn't mean that it is change for GOOD. He never said Change was going to be for the better."
it was implied. There is absolutely no way you can argue that he is actively trying to change things for the worse.
"Ron Paul"... supports eliminating most federal government agencies, calling them unnecessary bureaucracies
Sure, he should be granted credit for instituting progress towards socialism.
Such as? If you say "healthcare" you fail.
Correct.
Black and white thinking.
Sure, to a certain degree. Only because of bad government policy.
And Dubya.
What was so bad about the last eight years besides the war?
Well, let's see... the whole 9/11 debacle, Katrina, the choice to invade Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia, The 2007 Financial Crisis, Guantanamo Bay and the black site operations, The Patriot Act, etc.
Not all of these are related to Bush, but you asked.
Doesn't mean that it is change for GOOD. He never said Change was going to be for the better.
If you don't like it, he must be doing SOMETHING right.
Have you seen government spending lately? President Obama's 2010 Budget Deficit was $1.3 trillion.
For every dollar the government spends, that is one less dollar in the private economy, which the economy shrinks, which means less wealth is created.
Here is a predicted graph of government spending, and this is only FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Graph So, sometime between 2030 to 2040, entitlements will alone consume the entire budget unless more taxes or less spending.
Black and white thinking.
If you are not an liberal and vehemently support Obama, why are you seeking an dispute of my response?
If so, then what percentage roughly do you agree with ?him
And Dubya.
No, doubt he was a failure.
Well, let's see... the whole 9/11 debacle, Katrina, the choice to invade Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia, The 2007 Financial Crisis, Guantanamo Bay and the black site operations, The Patriot Act, etc.
What you pointed out are failures of government policy. 9/11=Bad Intelligence, Katrina=Bad Emergency Response, Iraq=Warmongering; Guantanamo Bay=Government doesn't torture unless given authority, The 2007 Financial Crisis=Actually 2008, Bad Housing Policy and Monetary Policy, Patriot Act=Big Brother doing its thing.
Have you seen government spending lately? President Obama's 2010 Budget Deficit was $1.3 trillion.
For every dollar the government spends, that is one less dollar in the private economy, which the economy shrinks, which means less wealth is created.
We just entered and exited a great worldwide recession over a period of three years, in which Obama spent almost a trillion in economic stimulus.
Plus, we were in war, which is always expensive.
One other thing, prove for me that governments cannot create wealth.
If you are not an liberal and vehemently support Obama, why are you seeking an dispute of my response?
If so, then what percentage roughly do you agree with ?him
I agree (more or less) with the healthcare reforms, his overturning of policies involving Embryonic Stem Cells, the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act", "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010" and his ending of the War in Iraq. I am ambivalent about his economic policies but I do not believe a Republican President would have done much different, because only Libertarians support doing nothing as massive businesses go bankrupt and take their employees and investors with them.
His diplomacy might be a step in the right direction, I do not know however. It seems to me that a majority of these Islamic States would want to work with us in eliminating terrorism since they are have their own share of sectarian bombings, but the religious mindset is an odd one.
What you pointed out are failures of government policy. 9/11=Bad Intelligence, Katrina=Bad Emergency Response, Iraq=Warmongering; Guantanamo Bay=Government doesn't torture unless given authority, The 2007 Financial Crisis=Actually 2008, Bad Housing Policy and Monetary Policy, Patriot Act=Big Brother doing its thing.
We just entered and exited a great worldwide recession over a period of three years, in which Obama spent almost a trillion in economic stimulus.
Which hasn't done anything except waste 1 trillion dollars on borrowed money.
Proof: 9.7% unemployment in America.
Plus, we were in war, which is always expensive.
Which is a waste. Money wasted due to two warmongers, Bush and Obama.
One other thing, prove for me that governments cannot create wealth.
Creating jobs and wealth is interchangeably linked because if jobs are created by producing an new good or service, then wealth is created, so in a capitalist economy, government has no assets to produce anything without taxation that is taken out of the private sector, government doesn't create jobs and wealth, it merely transfers jobs and wealth from private to public.
Government spending has three sources of misrepresented stimulus.
1. Taxation doesn't create new jobs or wealth because it only transfers wealth from one who creates new wealth. Sure, government employees received incomes, but it is at the expense of those who produce. Government employees don't produce anything new, they only take from the general public.
2. Government borrowing is just as inadequate as taxation, yet at least in taxation, it is paid. It reduces investment in capital, labor and land. Consequently, this translates into fewer new factories, machines, and homes being built. Not only does this decrease in private investment slow economic growth, it results in additional unemployment in these industries. Government borrowing has the illusion of wealth.
3. The worst source of additional government spending is creating new money either by simply printing more money or lower interest rates. Thus, this monetary event always results in inflation by eroding the value of the currency, and consequently, it started the Great Depression.
In addition,
"But though government can consume wealth and redistribute wealth, it can't create wealth. And unless wealth is created, there is nothing to consume or redistribute. That's why -- even when government is doing something we all agree must be done or most of us want to have it do -- government is a parasite. All it has is what it takes from the producers of wealth... For the economy to grow, government must shrink." Wealth 1
"In a capitalistic economy, labor and capital freely flows to the most productive enterprises precisely because they’re the most profitable. All government can do is inefficiently redistribute wealth that the private sector creates."Wealth 2
"But it is a fallacy of the Keynesian legacy that government can reduce unemployment by priming the pump with spending programs. Government needs to reduce spending and taxes in order to leave income in the hands of individuals who earned it and who can spend it much more efficiently than the government can." Jobs 1
"Governments have only three ways of paying employees — taxes, borrowing and printing money. Each of those reduces income and wealth among those paying taxes, servicing debts or stuck with shrinking greenbacks. In short, governments can't "create jobs." Adding government jobs is never a net addition to employment opportunities, because it means a heavier burden on private employers and employees. " Jobs 2
"It overlooks the fact that, in the real world, government can’t inject money into the economy without first taking money out of the economy. More specifically, the theory only looks at one-half of the equation — the part where government puts money in the economy’s right pocket. But where does the government get that money? It borrows it, which means it comes out of the economy’s left pocket. There is no increase in what Keynesians refer to as aggregate demand. Keynesianism doesn’t boost national income, it merely redistributes it." Jobs 3
"When the government attempts to create a job, all of these natural forces are removed. The market has produced no demand for the government-created job. In other words, no buyer has voluntarily agreed to purchase those services, because to do so under current market conditions would be unprofitable. Were it profitable to hire someone to do the government-created job, an employer would have done so voluntarily. So, the government steps in and forces the taxpayer to purchase those services against his will. In additional to violating the taxpayer’s rights, the entire coordination that existed between employer, employee, and consumer is disrupted. " Jobs 4
To illustrate further, this is what government does to destroy wealth or job creation because it thinks it can create jobs and wealth. WATCH VIDEO
I agree (more or less) with the healthcare reforms, his overturning of policies involving Embryonic Stem Cells, the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act", "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010" and his ending of the War in Iraq.
More insurance isn't going to contain costs in premiums and deductibles. It is only going be more expensive. When you buy a car, you pay for what you get. If you want a Mercedes E-Class, you have to pay for it compared to a Ford Fiesta. More coverage = more money. This is what the bill does, just more insurance.
As for Embryonic Stem Cells, it should be left to private research. Polo's cure was invented by a private scientist, not government, where in the goodness of his heart, he donated it without patents for profit.
As for Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal, we will see how effective it is in the years to come. One way or another, I don't care. Military recruitment should be non compulsive and open to anyone regardless. Why does the government need to even know your sexual orientation? WHY RED TAPE!! That is irrelevant to a solider.
because only Libertarians support doing nothing as massive businesses go bankrupt and take their employees and investors with them.
Again, you are an odd creature, you absolutely chastise business because it is inherently corrupt and greedy, but get all sympathetic for big business when they go bankrupt because of bad management. Where is your sympathy for when small bushiness goes out of business? There is none because that is business. Bad management equals failure, and you support it. No wonder you like government. You enjoy bad management.
Not all of these were related to Bush however.
Doesn't matter. It was still failure of government. It is central planning at its finest. A series of failures, but no sees that. It is government attempting to control to many things, and it fails.
How about some new blood that understands the issues of today? We don't need fossils screwing up progress due to their old prejudices.
Looks like someone has a conspiracy, someone who doesn't engage in conspiracies.
That controversy is as accurate as the Obama not born in America.
Which hasn't done anything except waste 1 trillion dollars on borrowed money.
Proof: 9.7% unemployment in America.
It's debatable. I prefer not to get into it because it will be a few years before we can gauge its effectiveness without polemics.
Which is a waste. Money wasted due to two warmongers, Bush and Obama.
I don't think so. While I would have preferred Saudi Arabia to Iraq, it still gives us a possible ally in the middle east (it's an Islamic State however, so that might be in vain). It also rooted out a number of terrorist factions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The big disappointment is that we allowed them to make the state a theocracy. This means that there is a strong possibility that sectarianism will continue in Iraq long after our forces leave, and that the government will ultimately make an enemy of us.
Creating jobs and wealth is interchangeably linked because if jobs are created by producing an new good or service, then wealth is created, so in a capitalist economy, government has no assets to produce anything without taxation that is taken out of the private sector, government doesn't create jobs and wealth, it merely transfers jobs and wealth from private to public.
I think you contradicted yourself. If the creation of jobs is interchangeable with the creation of wealth, then it must follow that the government creates jobs (and wealth) whenever it creates new organisations (like NASA, the FBI, Military branches, etc.).
Those are not transferred jobs because there was never a private sector equivalent.
1. Taxation doesn't create new jobs or wealth because it only transfers wealth from one who creates new wealth. Sure, government employees received incomes, but it is at the expense of those who produce. Government employees don't produce anything new, they only take from the general public.
They produce technologies and monuments which are too expensive for corporations to create. Examples being space exploration and all of our military technology. Taxation takes surplus wealth from producers and uses it to fund the creation of these things.
3. The worst source of additional government spending is creating new money either by simply printing more money or lower interest rates. Thus, this monetary event always results in inflation by eroding the value of the currency, and consequently, it started the Great Depression.
Right. Except for the last point. The great depression was caused by insider trading and corruption of the stock market.
"In a capitalistic economy, labor and capital freely flows to the most productive enterprises precisely because they’re the most profitable. All government can do is inefficiently redistribute wealth that the private sector creates."Wealth 2
"But it is a fallacy of the Keynesian legacy that government can reduce unemployment by priming the pump with spending programs. Government needs to reduce spending and taxes in order to leave income in the hands of individuals who earned it and who can spend it much more efficiently than the government can." Jobs 1
If the market works like Natural Selection, and businesses behave like animals, then Keynesian policy would merely be that which applies artificial pressure to the evolution of business. If this is true, then it follows that the market's behaviours can be changed to correct social problems like unemployment.
"Governments have only three ways of paying employees — taxes, borrowing and printing money. Each of those reduces income and wealth among those paying taxes, servicing debts or stuck with shrinking greenbacks. In short, governments can't "create jobs." Adding government jobs is never a net addition to employment opportunities, because it means a heavier burden on private employers and employees. " Jobs 2
If this is true, then private businesses may never create a net addition to employment opportunities because they produce a heavier burden on other private businesses and employees, because a private business "charges money for a service (same as tax), borrows money (loans), and prints coupons (similar to printing money practically)."
What I would be interested in hearing is how a tax is different from a sale, practically speaking. I'm not interested in how you're compelled to pay tax, because force is irrelevant to the immediate equation, which is the creation of jobs (and wealth) through the trading of money.
"When the government attempts to create a job, all of these natural forces are removed. The market has produced no demand for the government-created job. In other words, no buyer has voluntarily agreed to purchase those services, because to do so under current market conditions would be unprofitable. Were it profitable to hire someone to do the government-created job, an employer would have done so voluntarily. So, the government steps in and forces the taxpayer to purchase those services against his will. In additional to violating the taxpayer’s rights, the entire coordination that existed between employer, employee, and consumer is disrupted. " Jobs 4
Force, either real or perceived, is irrelevant to the equation. Force only matters in a discussion about social rights. In the discussion about economics, what matters is that money changes hands.
To illustrate further, this is what government does to destroy wealth or job creation because it thinks it can create jobs and wealth. WATCH VIDEO
Those state sales permits and laws which prohibit business startup are usually motivated by business interests who wish to stifle competitors. It's how capitalism works in democracy.
More insurance isn't going to contain costs in premiums and deductibles. It is only going be more expensive. When you buy a car, you pay for what you get. If you want a Mercedes E-Class, you have to pay for it compared to a Ford Fiesta. More coverage = more money. This is what the bill does, just more insurance.
Right. We also needed it, since our healthcare coverage is so poor in this country.
As for Embryonic Stem Cells, it should be left to private research. Polo's cure was invented by a private scientist, not government, where in the goodness of his heart, he donated it without patents for profit.
Government-funded research exists because most research is costly and unprofitable to the private market. It is costly in the case of medicine because of laws imposed due to our lessons learned with free market medicine (remember Radithor and Snake Oil?) and due to the lack of ethics in general which existed (the Smallpox vaccine was tested by picking a vagrant child off the street and injecting him with the virus, for example). Polio's researchers and early efforts to make a vaccine used a similar lack of ethics: 3000 children were injected with an unsuccessful mixture which caused allergic reactions in some of them.
In other words: government takes over where private industry would fail or be less successful.
As to the stem cells: you can thank Bush for regulating stem cells in the first place. Obama rescinded his laws.
As for Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal, we will see how effective it is in the years to come. One way or another, I don't care. Military recruitment should be non compulsive and open to anyone regardless. Why does the government need to even know your sexual orientation? WHY RED TAPE!! That is irrelevant to a solider.
It didn't, and wouldn't ask, as long as you didn't provide it. However what happened was that many officers and recruits were discharged annually because they were spotted in gay clubs on shoreleave, or "outed" by malicious coworkers.
Again, you are an odd creature, you absolutely chastise business because it is inherently corrupt and greedy, but get all sympathetic for big business when they go bankrupt because of bad management. Where is your sympathy for when small bushiness goes out of business? There is none because that is business. Bad management equals failure, and you support it. No wonder you like government. You enjoy bad management.
I'm not sympathetic for big business. I care about the thousands (perhaps even millions) of employees who would lose their jobs, pensions, etc. because a handful of sociopaths gambled with the system. When you've worked your entire life in a career and you lose everything, it is tragic. I feel bad for the people.
Doesn't matter. It was still failure of government. It is central planning at its finest. A series of failures, but no sees that. It is government attempting to control to many things, and it fails.
I think it does an admirable job handling the roads, sewers, water, schools, medical research, space programs, and research.
I certainly know that only a state could afford a project as big as the Large Hadron Collider.
Looks like someone has a conspiracy, someone who doesn't engage in conspiracies.
That controversy is as accurate as the Obama not born in America.
If it's a conspiracy, I'd like more than just his word that he didn't say it. You are the one who is suspicious of government and politicians, so I shouldn't have to tell you than I don't take any politician at just his word. The best I got was that the grammar of the writings don't match his style.
If the creation of jobs is interchangeable with the creation of wealth, then it must follow that the government creates jobs (and wealth) whenever it creates new organisations
Answer these questions.
How is government funded? Does government possess any assets without taxation? Does government have any financial spending power without taxation?
Government is funded by private citizens in an capitalist economy. Government has no assets so none of the taxation is generated by its own means.
Those are not transferred jobs because there was never a private sector equivalent.
There is no transfer because government prohibits these types of jobs to the provided by private sector through law.
They produce technologies and monuments which are too expensive for corporations to create
Again, you only presume government is the only entity that can provide certain services. The private sector may be unable to provide a service because of the laws prohibiting competition such as NASA or USPS.
All of the employees who work at NASA or Defense, whose money is it that they are using? Are these organizations self funded through their own personal money?, No because the employees whom work at these places are funded by taxation, who is paid by private citizens. Government employees taxes are just recycled into the system because their source of money came from the private sector. It is government taking from private citizens.
Taxation takes surplus wealth from producers and uses it to fund the creation of these things.
There is no such as as surplus wealth. If government accounts for 40% of the 100% of the economy, that means that 60% of the economy must provide for 100% of the people because 40% is being transferred from private to public.
For instance, lets say I am a private citizen and you are government. I produce 100 dollars of the entire economy in our world for 100% of the population, so you impose a tax of 5%, so now I only have 95 dollars. Next, you say that you will create more jobs. Where are you going to get it? Well, me because you don't possess any assets. So, you impose a tax of 10%, now, I only have 90 dollars. Now, you want more government jobs, impose 25%, now, I only have 75 dollars. Now, I have to support our economy on only 75 dollars where it was 100 because 25 are being diverted to the public sector.
The great depression was caused by insider trading and corruption of the stock market.
No, The Great Depression was caused by failure in central bankers.
If the market works like Natural Selection, and businesses behave like animals, then Keynesian policy would merely be that which applies artificial pressure to the evolution of business. If this is true, then it follows that the market's behaviours can be changed to correct social problems like unemployment.
This only shows your lack of knowledge of Keynesian economics. It is not about fixing social problems.
If this is true, then private businesses may never create a net addition to employment opportunities because they produce a heavier burden on other private businesses and employees, because a private business "charges money for a service (same as tax), borrows money (loans), and prints coupons (similar to printing money practically)."
OH MY GOD. Anyway. What Next?
What I would be interested in hearing is how a tax is different from a sale, practically speaking. I'm not interested in how you're compelled to pay tax, because force is irrelevant to the immediate equation, which is the creation of jobs (and wealth) through the trading of money.
Because private entrepreneurs use their own money by saving and invest or if they borrow money, then they pay it back, government doesn't use its own money because it doesn't have any of its own, so any money it borrows, neither are they paying it back with your own money, that burden is put onto the shoulders of taxpayers.
For instance, if a man wants to sell lemonade, he will get a loan from somewhere of 5 dollars. So, over the course of the summer, the man makes 15 dollars in revenue, but he must pay back the 5 dollars in loan, and now he has a profit of 10 dollars where he created new wealth and a job.
However, if government wants to sell lemonade, it must tax the man 5 dollars because it can't invest in anyone that of which it does not own because that is what it cost him to produce, so now, the child only only has a profit of 5 dollars, so the output is still 15 dollars, but it was transferred from private to public sector. Then, the 5 dollars that the government took, he could have reinvested and hired a partner to grow.
In the discussion about economics, what matters is that money changes hands.
And that money is who does the money belong to.
Those state sales permits and laws which prohibit business startup are usually motivated by business interests who wish to stifle competitors.
This is what I have been saying time and time again.
It's how capitalism works in democracy.
It's how corporatism works in democracy.
Right. We also needed it, since our healthcare coverage is so poor in this country.
Healthcare coverage is so poor because it is rationed care not driven by market forces, but you want government run health care where even more ration care will emerge.
If you wanted more expensive coverage, that is what you got. Congrats.
Government-funded research exists because most research is costly and unprofitable to the private market.
Never said that it is for only profit market. Research should be non profit.
Mayo Clinic is one of the most respected nonprofit medical research organizations in the world.
Polio's researchers and early efforts to make a vaccine used a similar lack of ethics: 3000 children were injected with an unsuccessful mixture which caused allergic reactions in some of them.
Well, they cured Polio. BUT
Your going to cry over the few for the many. REMEMBER YOU ARE A BIG ADVOCATE FOR GREATER GOOD.
Polio was a life threatening disease, and it is gone.
government takes over where private industry would fail or be less successful.
There is nowhere where government has done better than private industry if so, because government has no competition, NASA, USPS (First class mail), and Education
As to the stem cells: you can thank Bush for regulating stem cells in the first place. Obama rescinded his laws.
Why do you keep assuming I applaud Bush? Those laws hurt non profit search as well as your government research.
It didn't, and wouldn't ask, as long as you didn't provide it. However what happened was that many officers and recruits were discharged annually because they were spotted in gay clubs on shoreleave, or "outed" by malicious coworkers.
Again, this resorts to bad government military policy because before, you could get dishonorable discharge for being gay. This type of policy is stupid.
I'm not sympathetic for big business.
Despite your sentiments for the little guy, you are because no matter how much of a complete failure management was, you think that they should be bailed out. Those workers would just find different jobs.
I think it does an admirable job handling the roads, sewers, water, schools, medical research, space programs, and research.
Well, Great! I am so glad that you feel proud of the progress that you support.
I certainly know that only a state could afford a project as big as the Large Hadron Collider.
I am certain that one man, Branson, will be able to provide space travel for any paying customer instead of the select few the government picks. Maybe, space travel may become as inexpensive that anyone will be able to fly and experience it.
How is government funded? Does government possess any assets without taxation? Does government have any financial authority without taxation?
Technically speaking our government owns nothing because it is public, however practically speaking it owns its institutions and their collective works.
Does a business have any financial authority without charging a bill? In other words, speaking in the context of our discussion, taxation and a private bill are practically the same.
Government is funded by private citizens in an capitalist economy. Government has no assets so none of the taxation is generated by its own means.
It doesn't matter if a business generates income by itself, it matters if it generates it by exchange with others.
There is no transfer because government prohibits these types of jobs to the private sector by law.
Does not change the fact that they are not transferred jobs, but created ones.
Again, you only presume government is the only entity that can provide certain services. The private sector is may be unable to provide a service because of the laws prohibiting competition such as NASA or USPS.
Only the wealthiest oil corporations could hope to touch our military budget, and yet they fall short by about half. That is to say nothing of medical research, aerospace research and engineering, and physics research like the LHC which are all in addition to the military budget.
All of the employees who work at NASA or Defense, whose money is it that they are using. Are these organizations self funded through their own personal money?, No because the employees whom work at these places are funded by taxation, who is paid by private citizens. Government employees taxes are just recycled into the system because their source of money can from the private sector. It is government taking from private citizens.
They use their own money, which comes from providing a service to the public (taxes), through trade of goods (technology to the private sector and other governments).
There is no such as as surplus wealth. If government accounts for 40% of the 100% of the economy, that means that 60% of the economy must provide for 100% of the people because 40% is being transferred from private to public.
It really isn't that simple, because a portion of that 40% is often made accessible to the people in the form of student aid, welfare, unemployment, social security, schools, medicine, etc. The other 60% as utilised by the private sector is never distributed in a manner approaching equality and that is why you have one percent of the people holding fourty percent of it (which would mean as per your numbers that 1% of the people hold 16% of the nation's economy in their hands).
To answer your actual question however, what I mean by surplus wealth is that wealth which is beyond the living means of the owner.
For instance, lets say I am a private citizen and you are government. I produce 100 dollars of the entire economy in our world for 100% of the population, so you impose a tax of 5%, so now I only have 95 dollars. Next, you say that you will create more jobs. Where are you going to get it? Well, me because you don't possess any assets. So, you impose a tax of 10%, now, I only have 90 dollars. Now, you want more government jobs, impose 25%, now, I only have 75 dollars. So, now, I have to support our economy on only 75 dollars where it was 100 because 25 are being diverted to the public sector.
It's the same exact issue with private companies. If you have 100 dollars, and this is the total GDP, and a business charges you 5$ for medicine, you now have 95$ and the business has 5$. The business did not increase the GDP to 105$. Conservation of wealth, like conservation of energy.
Milton
Milton
I never cared for Milton Friedman's opinion. He's a bit of a nutter.
This only shows your lack of knowledge of Keynesian economics. It is not about fixing social problems.
Keynesian economics is merely the idea that government can intervene to stimulate the market where it is acting with reduced efficiency.
Because private entrepreneurs use their own money by saving and invest or if they borrow money, then they pay it back, government doesn't use its own money because it doesn't have any of its own, so any money it borrows, neither are they paying it back with your own money, that burden is put onto the shoulders of taxpayers.
You just explained how a government uses tax, and the behaviours surrounding government borrowing. What I'm interested in is the fundamental changing of hands which both sales and taxes employ.
And that money is who money does it belong to.
It would be the government's money, since they provided a service and you are paying for it.
It's how corporatism works in democracy.
Same thing.
Healthcare coverage is so poor because it is rationed care not driven by market forces, but you want government run health care where even more ration care will emerge.
The healthcare act is not socialised medicine. It is private medicine, which means that the "rationed care" you speak of is a capitalist phenomenon.
Well, they cured Polio. BUT
Your going to cry over the few for the many. REMEMBER YOU ARE A BIG ADVOCATE FOR GREATER GOOD.
Polio was a life threatening disease, and it is gone.
It is a matter of the "welfare of the few, for the many" because right now those bad ethics are wildly illegal. If they were not, it wouldn't be the few any longer but a large number of annual deaths and deformities caused by standard medical research practice.
There is nowhere where government has done better than private industry if so, because government has no competition, NASA, USPS (First class mail), and Education
Most of them you hardly notice: roads, research, technological development, military, police, courts. Also: government put a man on the moon and a probe on mars. What has big business done for you?
Why do you keep assuming I applaud Bush? Those laws hurt non profit search as well as your government research.
I don't.
Despite your sentiments for the little guy, you are because no matter how much of a complete failure management was, you think that they should be bailed out. Those workers would just find different jobs.
Just wait until you get fired or laid off from your career at age fifty, and are desperate to find work for almost a year but no one hires you because you're old and they want new, young professionals. You really have no empathy for these people because you're too self-absorbed.
One other detail: since many thousands of them would be laid off, this means that the market would be suddenly flooded with people who have the same credentials, which means they would probably receive lower salaries on top of losing their retirement.
I am certain that one man, Branson, will be able to provide space travel for any paying customer instead of the select few the government picks. Maybe, space travel may become as inexpensive that anyone will be able to fly and experience it.
I'm not as hopeful, look at airline security and how often a plane crashes. I can just imagine the skies being littered with thousands of bodies due to cost-cutting and terrorists.
He deserves credit. He saved the economy, is stopping wars, and is doing great things for our country.
Your against him 100%, but you don't care anything about anything he has done. You against him and you are against the war, and you are in a complete mindset not to accept anything he does.
And the past 8 years? Well first of all, you mention the war as if its a bad thing. Do you also remember; Economy, Debt, foreign affairs etc.? Bush was ruining a lot of things in America. Obama is fixing them, and helping more better things happen.
As for Change, are aware of what he has done? He has changed our situations across the world, has had our number 1 enemy (Osama) killed, helped keep the economy from crashing, and made great leaps and bounds for peace across the world. If you believe these changes aren't 'good' then think it over for a bit.
And finally, you believe there are several other people who would do better as him, but would they really? Do they have enough experience expertise, intelligence, etc. to keep our country alive?
Seriously, think about these points.
You have a strong opinion, but make sure you aren't ignoring fact.
Here Here! every president with outstanding performance, pleasing personality, and with high-educated standard is qualified and deserving in its position like Obama.
No! No more politics as usual! I want someone in office who will push for less government, more freedom for the people, less taxation, humbly take up the office of President, someone who is invested in this country personally (i.e. John Boehner, he was crying because of his elevation to speaker, he has a heart for this country and it shows). President Obama will always hold my respect but I do not want him in the white house again.
being a good speech maker and being a good president are two different things, our 'leader' has seamed to have jumbled them up a bit. I could ramble on about wanting to change things in our country but the fact of the matter is that he has yet to change anything except raising our taxes more. No, no, absolutely not.
Can Obongo show proof of his birth? What has he accomplished besides bringing Hollywood into the White House? Would you continue to like the USA to look weak and frail in a world of mighty wolves? Would you like Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, Kim Jong II and Hugo Chavez to have more nuclear weapons than you? Would you like your First Lady to come to your home to tell your children what you can and can't feed them? Would you like your First Lady to have a penis? Did Bill Clinton deserve a second term? Burning question: Would you vote for Steve Urkel if he ran for President?
Can Obongo show proof of his birth? What has he accomplished besides bringing Hollywood into the White House? Would you continue to like the USA to look weak and frail in a world of mighty wolves? Would you like Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, Kim Jong II and Hugo Chavez to have more nuclear weapons than you? Would you like your First Lady to come to your home to tell your children what you can and can't feed them? Would you like your First Lady to have a penis? Did Bill Clinton deserve a second term? Do you want to continue the White Genocide? Burning question: Would you vote for Steve Urkel if he ran for President?
I have wonderful news for you. YES! It can be shown, and it has! Oh my gosh, I am so happy for you because now you can stop doubting and start believing. Right? Or... or are you going to keep doubting even when it has been shown multiple times in the media and on fact checking websites? Are you going to keep doubting even when the newspaper article announcing his birth was shown? Oh. Oh ok, I just maybe thought you genuinely were curious as to whether he was born here or not. I did not realize you simply believed he wasn't born here just because it's convenient for your position. Ok, makes sense now.
Obama's birth certificate has been virtually ignored by a decent amount of people. It calls to mind a study that concerns people becoming more impassioned regarding a subject that they believe they are right in when presented with contradictory evidence. There's more context to the experiment but that is besides the point. It reflects an emotional state of politicking in America, rather than one based on logic.
what you need to realize is that this president is flawed by his actions, by his political stance, and his lack of control on our country. trying to prove a point by saying something comepletely unrelated to the preformance of him as a president makes you look like a political moron. Congradulations for making this horrible attempt at an argument and giving the impression to people who see differently think we all are moronic ibaciles who cannot form an actual, prominent, legitament, and reletive argument.
Yes, Joe. A blogger claims that he faked Obama's birth certificate, and we all know how reliable bloggers are, yes? I also have some seafloor I would like to sell you. The video then goes on to claim that the birth certificate must be false because it doesn't have a crease, and yet clearly I have already posted a link to the certification which does in fact contain a crease, here it is again if you missed it:
I would also like to point out that McCain was born on a military base in the Panama, but congress waved that and said, sure you can still run, and there hasn't been a peep about that.
The proof is that the person who made the forgery admitted that it was a forgery, along with numerous factual errors on the forgery which confirm this. Such as an age error for his father. It states the city of birth as Mombasa, which was not part of Kenya at that time.
Have you seen Andrew Jackson's Birth Certificate? How do we be certain Andrew Jackson was born in the U.S.? What reason do you have to question Obama's citizenship besides the fact that you don't want him to be president? You're in denial Joe.
No absolutley no because he is communist marxist who has tried to destroy america from the inside on seperate occasions and if re elected be sure to live like slaves to a communist goverment
No, he should be one term and done president. What has he done, but increase the national debt? He ran on the platform that he was going to create more jobs to stimulate the economy. Well? No, he has been in the office for over 2 years now and I really don't see how he has helped the american people. He didn't get my vote in 2008 and he won't get in in 2012 either.
No his plan has failed miserably no reason to let a failure stay in office. But let me point out that yes he may be trying his best but he still failed. America has never had a president that was out to destroy the nation, he sincerely believes in what he is doing but it does not work. Therefore new president.
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.
I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to follow-up your lengthy argument with a lengthy redress.
While it is true that we do not know who will face-off against Pres. Obama, we can have a pretty good idea. Any of the republican candidates mentioned so far, Palin, Pawlenty, Huckabee, are more right than Bush or Obama, but they have managed to build small contingents of vehement supporters. Some of the possible candidates still question Pres. Obama's citizenship. That is simply ignorance. I would hate to see the country fall back into the lap of an embarrassingly inept executive.
Now I cannot argue that Pres. Obama is much different than the last president. Mr. Bush should not be defended for he was a reckless spender (Medicaid, Bail out), drove us into two extended wars, led us into massive debt, was utterly divisive, and spoke much more like Ford than Lincoln or Clinton for that matter. Has Obama (stimulus package, health care, war in Libya) done much to differentiate himself from his predecessor? I can't say that he has. However, we would at least have the possibility of change with a democrat in office. Republicans are called conservatives for a reason.
What our government needs to do is tackle the core issues that no one is willing to address: the poverty gap and incarceration rates. I'll briefly address part of the poverty gap issue by looking at the top money earners in our country.
The extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, enacted by a Democratic-controlled Congress in December with the approval of the Obama administration, pumps $700 billion over the next ten years into the pockets of the rich. Reclaiming two years of that tax windfall would eliminate all of the state budget deficits combined.
Total compensation at Wall Street banks and securities firms last year hit a record $135 billion, according to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal, on all-time-high revenue of $417 billion. The recipients of the Wall Street bailout could bail out the states out of their own pockets.
The 400 richest individuals in the United States dispose of a staggering $1.37 trillion in assets, an average of nearly $3.5 billion apiece. A levy of 10 percent on the resources of these billionaires would also erase the deficits of all 50 states.
US corporations are currently sitting on $2 trillion in cash, refusing to hire workers despite collecting tax cuts that are supposed to be incentives to do so. A levy of 10 percent on that idle cash would provide enough money to eliminate not only the deficits of the states, but the deficits of all cities and local governments too, as well as preserving the jobs of hundreds of thousands of public employees.
Hedge funds assets rose to $1.92 trillion in 2010, the highest ever, up from $1.18 trillion at the beginning of the year. Given a standard earnings formula of 2 percent of total assets plus 20 percent of the increase, hedge fund bosses stood to collect roughly $186 billion in personal income. An 80 percent tax on that income—less than the percentage rate on multimillionaires levied under the Eisenhower administration—would produce more than enough revenue to put all 50 states in the black. (It should be pointed out that the top hedge fund manager, John Paulson, had a personal net profit of more than $5 billion in 2010, while more than a dozen hedge fund bosses had personal incomes above $2 billion and many more took in over $1 billion).
This is a small portion of the discrepancies. I haven't mentioned the top paid CEOs of the big six health insurance providers. For that information I suggest looking at the Sick for Profit website.
That's why I think we should stick with Obama no matter who opposes him, unless it's someone like Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders. Then I'd go with Sanders.
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....
Why bring abortion into this debate... there are plenty of abortion debates on this site where I am sure your opinion would be more appreciated than here on a debate regarding the current president of the US.
Obama, in my opinion, should have never been elected. He was only voted in because of the hype that the media and people created around him. He hasn't done anything for our country and if he says that next term he will, it's just another lie. I don't believe any of it.
