All these people prasing Obama-.-

[cardiac_lover]

Personally, im liberal. I dont like most republican for the fact that most of them support "the moral right." I just think right and wrong is a matter of opinion the concept of law is what is socially correct. Like for instance I find it perfectly fine for one man to marry another... a conservative wouldn't. I think it right the conservative thinks it to be wrong. Republicans have over run congress which is where I believe most of the power of government to stem from. Which is also why Obama probally hasnt gotten much done. How could he do anything when most things he suggests has to get approved by congress and since he is democrat and they are (majority wise) republican. I think democrats from larger states (the ones that have more electoral votes) need to step the hell up. Gerrymandering is whats getting us down. Its all a strategy..... the republicans know that why cant the democratic leader get their thumb out of their butt long enough to realize that. When Obama came to office I was seriously against him... but i'd take Obamma over Romney any day but due to my political stance im afraid my opinion might be a little biesit

[my_name_is_joe2]

Obama is a F***ing fool. I don't care if you are conservative, progressive, or between the two (I can't understand how you could possibly be in the middle). He's foreign policy is wacked out, he'd rather follow the UN's orders and provide air cover for rebels with a nation that has no strategic advantage for the US, but not get involved at all in Syria, which would make sense strategically for the US and our allies: Qaddhafi posed no threat, Al-Asad does. get it? There's one example of his stupid
incompetency on any policy. Another? Healthcare and Economy. Healthcare: the federal government is prohibited from forcing any American from purchasing something. Considering that healthcare is not an "interstate" purchase, the fed gov't can't regulate it, period! Economy? how many times do historians have to go back to the New Deal and say it utterly failed before the American people and the politicians understand that Keynsian economic theory is a puddle of shit. Taking water out of a pool, spilling some, and then putting what's left back in the pool doesn't increase what's in the pool. likewise, increasing taxes, and providing economic stimulus packages, wasting a lot of that money, and "reinvesting" that into American businesses doesn't do SHIT!!!! ROMNEY 2012, Santorum 2016

[Evlmstr]

\(I can't understand how you could possibly be in the middle). \

I can't imagine why...

Santorum 2016

...oh

[Mr_Quick]

Obama is a F***ing fool. I don't care if you are conservative, progressive, or between the two (I can't understand how you could possibly be in the middle). He's foreign policy is wacked out, he'd rather follow the UN's orders and provide air cover for rebels with a nation that has no strategic advantage for the US, but not get involved at all in Syria, which would make sense strategically for the US and our allies: Qaddhafi posed no threat, Al-Asad does. get it? There's one example of his stupid
incompetency on any policy. Another? Healthcare and Economy. Healthcare: the federal government is prohibited from forcing any American from purchasing something. Considering that healthcare is not an "interstate" purchase, the fed gov't can't regulate it, period! Economy? how many times do historians have to go back to the New Deal and say it utterly failed before the American people and the politicians understand that Keynsian economic theory is a puddle of shit. Taking water out of a pool, spilling some, and then putting what's left back in the pool doesn't increase what's in the pool. likewise, increasing taxes, and providing economic stimulus packages, wasting a lot of that money, and "reinvesting" that into American businesses doesn't do SHIT!!!! ROMNEY 2012, Santorum 2016

It's funny because Romney and Santorum are both quite in favor of taking your tax money and re-investing it into American businesses, a notion which is often referred to as "corporate welfare". The actual policy differences between the Democratic and Republican parties on this issue are threefold.

One, Democrats prefer to take a marginally higher proportion of this money from the top 10% of earners than Republicans do, and by extension a marginally lesser proportion of it from the bottom 90%. Both parties overwhelmingly support a progressive tax structure (where the rich pay proportionately more taxes than the poor), the difference is simply a matter of degree.

Two, Democrats prefer to allocate more of that tax money toward programs that help individuals and families (food stamps, TANF, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid), while Republicans prefer to allocate more tax money toward the military and tax cuts for individuals and businesses with the highest incomes. Again, neither party would defund the other's favored programs if they attained power; the difference is one of degree.

Three, Democrats would prefer to pay for their spending on social services via tax increases. Republicans would prefer to pay for their tax cuts and military spending by going into debt and banking on increases in economic efficiency to make up the difference later on (much like how people go into debt to pay for college on the expectation that it will increase their earning potential enough to make up for it).

That's it. They both want your money, and they both want a roughly similar amount of it; the differences are in who they want to take most of it from, what they're going to buy with it, and how they plan on filling any gaps in their budget.

[XsrdX22]

I don't see much of a difference between Romney and Obama.
Santorum is just a nightmare.

[Mr_Quick]

I don't see much of a difference between Romney and Obama.

It's kind of like Neverland or the entrance to Narnia; you can only see it if you really believe in it.

[lovelykatie]

haha managed to kill osama bin laden? you do realize that the operation that was setup to track and kill him was put in place by bush years ago right? They had known of his whereabouts for a while but obama kept getting cold feet about letting them pull the trigger. The day they finally killed him, the CO of the operation more or less sent them on ahead and called obama after the fact, who was by the ay standing on a golf course, and was pretty much forced to say yes or he would be branded as "the president who wanted bin laden to get away". I dont expect people to know every detail about every happening in the government, but that one is common knowledge at this point, they released the operation plans a few weeks after the confirmed kill.

No, no he wasn't. A CO doesn't have the authority to violate a nations airspace never mind technically invade another country without express permission from his superiors, who need authorisation from the C-in-C. To suggest a Navy Seals commander simply went ahead with the operation without the Presidents knowledge and express authorisation is just stupid.

As is the crazy lather that those toward the right seem to get themselves worked up over Obama. "He's a Communist!" (Most don't even have a clue what Communism or a Communist really is), "He's a Muslim!" (Despite him being more devoutly Christian than either Bush or Clinton, and what would it matter if he were?) and the best one of all, "He's not American!" (Because he has Hussein in his name).
The Obamacare stuff is just hilarious, damn that evil man for trying to provide healthcare to people. He's just plain evil for trying to do that! It'll never work! A modern, capitalist country can't have a socialised healthcare system!

Yours
An NHS employee

[n0vembergirl]

I was never a fan of Obama and still was so disappointed by him these last four years. He has done nothing but hurt this
country and if he is reelected to another four years who knows where America will end up. So many of his ideas are so
utterly unconstitutional, and its actually sad how far the United States Government has strayed from what the founding fathers originally wanted. The USA will not remain a superpower for long if we continue implementing Obama's socialist policies.

[DisparityByDesign]

Obama's socialist policies.

http://www.qando.net/wp-content/uplo...lism-chart.png

[Crosscountry123]

Obama sucks
The end

[lovelykatie]

What Obama ideas are unconstitutional?
What's wrong with some parts of a country's structure having a socialist element.
The constitution & the Gettysburg Address are socialist.

[xSplicex]

What Obama ideas are unconstitutional?
What's wrong with some parts of a country's structure having a socialist element.
The constitution & the Gettysburg Address are socialist.

I think it's because there's lots of negativity and ignorance spread with Socialist ideas. Socialist ideas aren't bad at all, but it is up to that particular government to make it run that way. Look at Sweden and Switzerland as an example of this. They're both Socialist, and they're economy is great. Not only that, but they have all their civil rights.

To conservative Americans, a Socialist government is taking care of lazy people. It's not about helping people with for them, but about trying to keep as much money in their pockets as possible. At this point, I'd rather have Obama so we can keep our civil rights, and legalizing same-sex marriage.

He's pretty much the only one who can do something for us, despite what people want you to believe. People are also still using stupid rumors against Obama, like that he's not a citizen, or that he's this "Muslim terrorist". His religion shouldn't be a problem, because the last time I checked, everyone in this country is allowed to believe what they want, not just Christianity. There's also no proof that he's not a citizen anymore than Bush, or any of us citizens. People can create things to destroy a person if they want to, because other people are stupid enough to believe it.

[xSplicex]

I was never a fan of Obama and still was so disappointed by him these last four years. He has done nothing but hurt this
country and if he is reelected to another four years who knows where America will end up. So many of his ideas are so
utterly unconstitutional, and its actually sad how far the United States Government has strayed from what the founding fathers originally wanted. The USA will not remain a superpower for long if we continue implementing Obama's socialist policies.

I don't know if I should laugh, face palm this, or cry because of how idiotic this sounds. It sounds like you've been listening to your uninformed parents or something. What is he doing worse than the Republicans will if they were in office? They want to make this country a Christian nation, despite what our founding father's wanted. There was a point when "God" wasn't on money for these billionaires greed. I don't have any sympathy for these billionaires who don't care about anyone else.

[Evlmstr]

The reason why countries like Sweden and Finland can institute socialist/progressive programs is because they are so small. When a nation is basically run like a country club, it is easy to administer great state-run health care, retirement benefits, etc. In a country as large and diverse as the US? Not so much.

[Mr_Quick]

The reason why countries like Sweden and Finland can institute socialist/progressive programs is because they are so small. When a nation is basically run like a country club, it is easy to administer great state-run health care, retirement benefits, etc. In a country as large and diverse as the US? Not so much.

All nations can and do institute socialist programs. Even the US has public education, public roads, and Social Security among other things.

Size isn't the issue per se, nor is population total or density. Canada is geographically huge and very diverse ethnically/culturally, yet they still manage to maintain a social welfare system substantially more robust than ours. One could argue that they don't match us in population density, but that's never stopped Western Europe or Japan from employing socialist policies successfully.

The primary consideration (and the most commonly overlooked one in poli sci circles) when determining the effectiveness of an exchange model versus a cooperative model for social relations is how well the members of a society trust each other, generally speaking. While size and diversity impact this, psychological and sociological considerations play a much greater role.

[Evlmstr]

All nations can and do institute socialist programs. Even the US has public education, public roads, and Social Security among other things.

Size isn't the issue per se, nor is population total or density. Canada is geographically huge and very diverse ethnically/culturally, yet they still manage to maintain a social welfare system substantially more robust than ours. One could argue that they don't match us in population density, but that's never stopped Western Europe or Japan from employing socialist policies successfully.

Guess I should have qualified the term a little more...yeah, Canada, Britain, and even the US have socialist programs, but nothing of the size and scope of some smaller European countries.

The primary consideration (and the most commonly overlooked one in poli sci circles) when determining the effectiveness of an exchange model versus a cooperative model for social relations is how well the members of a society trust each other, generally speaking. While size and diversity impact this, psychological and sociological considerations play a much greater role.

In Norway (pop 5 million), a majority of the country could claim to personally know somebody affected by that psycho Neo Nazi's attack on the youth camp. When there is that sense of community, or trust as you put it, it would clearly be a lot easier to build consensus and establish an efficient government bureaucracy. Small size is the main factor in their success, I think.

Of course there are a lot of other factors preventing broader social welfare programs here, such as America's longstanding mistrust of government.

[lovelykatie]

Spot on xSplicex and Mr Quick!

Nobody has ever suggested a complete ditching of capitalism but many Americans seem to think any kind of restriction placed on unfettered capitalism is total and utter Communism. They also seem to conflate the idea of changing the economic system in some way as restricting freedoms or democracy, as if somehow having elements of socialism means scrapping democracy and bringing in a dictatorship.
Yes the Scandinavian countries are small, but that doesn't mean a system can't work. The UK quite successfully runs an excellent socialist healthcare system which is one of (if not the) most efficient in the world. Of course it has issues, no system is perfect, but I'd suggest the UK NHS is a far, far better system than the current healthcare system that plagues the US. As for size and scope - well the NHS has responsibility for over 60million UK citizens plus anyone who visits the country, and is the largest single employer in Europe with over 1 million employees. We've had it for over 60 years in the UK, it doesn't seem to have led to a total economic collapse. What did was the unfettered, unrestricted capitalist system allowed within the banking and financial system.

In the end, the capitalist system is the best one that works. But it should always be tempered and regulated with socialist ideals. The same ideals that are seen throughout the US Constitution and other US documents.

"All men are created equal" does not mean "All rich men are created equal".

[Bronx3]

Actually, that post is largely correct, up until "honestly I doubt china will ever get paid". The poster doesn't have a clue about macroeconomics, but he does appear to be capable of correctly Googling figures regarding the proportion of our national debt held by various entities....though he doesn't seem to realize that the Social Security fund falls into the category of "US citizens and institutions". He's also correct to say that our debt to China is not a major cause of our economic woes, albeit for the wrong reasons.

Amen to you! One of the first Americans to realize that we owe most of our debt to OURSELVES. Clearly, the men in
our Treasury Department would have not borrowed BEYOND our purchasing power or GDP to a HOSTILE foreign entity such as China.

I support Obama, I cannot vote as I am below the age of majority. Mitt Romney or as I call him, Flip-Flop Romney claims Obamacare is ripping apart our country, yet as Governor of Massachusetts, he instituted Romneycare in the state. Romneycare and Obamacare are largely the same thing, under different name. Romney attacks Obamacare because he needs to win support of his GOP base especially in the conservative South, where they claim Obamacare is the "festering sore" in our economy. I understand, progress has been slow; yet a majority of these problems due to OUR OWN fault. Weren't we the ones who gave the Republicans a new majority in the House of Representatives? We wanted fast progress but Obama does not have reign over the global economy.

Most of our debt, which was gained from the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and our frail Social Security Code, was gained under the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. Bush was more of a moderate Republican, so does it make any sense to solve the Recession with ANOTHER Moderate Republicans coming from a large corporation [Bain]? Mitt Romney is not like a ordinary citizen, he's a rich man part of the 1%, who claims corporate welfare will cure our country. The only way to solve our problems is by deregulation, liberalization and spurring domestic demand. I love how people say China will surpass us, yet China itself will decline by 2020 due to a shrinking population since the 1980s as most of its workforce will grow old (One Child Policy) and China's welfare system will be forced to expand and tap into her large currency reserves.

I believe Nationalized Healthcare is possible in America, yet not full government-sponsored healthcare. The argument of smaller countries is completely false, as Brazil (194 million) and Russia (141 million) contain largely nationalized healthcare systems and both countries are booming (economically) as we speak.

Spending more with stimulus, while it may boost our debt, in reality is good for the economy. In economics, more money in the hands of the private sector equals more people hired due to the ability to pay them equals the ability of more people to buy goods equals creates more a demand which then equals more industrial workers and expansion of the manufacturing district. This in the end pays itself in time and is good for the economy, not to mention, lowers unemployment.

Killing Osama was not an achievement, it's more of endgame as Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda was the whole reason we are fighting these costly wars so far from home. Not to mention, the drone tactics under Obama have largely crippled Al Qaeda's Leadership and ability to fight, they are at a recorded weakest.

Do not blame Obama for the faults we ourselves casted upon ourselves just because we wanted a hurried response. Our economy will not bounce back in 4 years and not likely in the next 4 years either, it took America almost 14 years to bounce of our Great Depression and that was due to World War II and the need for military supplies. Instead of voting Obama, I suggest we vote out the Republicans that are stopping cooperation on Capitol Hill under the banner of the Tea Party; once they're gone, i'm sure Obama has learned his lesson on partisan politics and will head into work.

We cannot expect so much, if we ourselves, as Americans don't fulfill our God-given rights.

[Evlmstr]

I love how people say China will surpass us, yet China itself will decline by 2020 due to a shrinking population since the 1980s as most of its workforce will grow old (One Child Policy) and China's welfare system will be forced to expand and tap into her large currency reserves.

Not really. The 4-2-1 problem is overblown by people who don't understand China. Chinese workers have huge savings rates compared to their counterparts in the West, so money won't be an issue. Plus fewer workers might actually be somewhat of a good thing because that would lead to higher wages.

It's a problem, sure, but a minor one.

Spending more with stimulus, while it may boost our debt, in reality is good for the economy. In economics, more money in the hands of the private sector equals more people hired due to the ability to pay them equals the ability of more people to buy goods equals creates more a demand which then equals more industrial workers and expansion of the manufacturing district. This in the end pays itself in time and is good for the economy, not to mention, lowers unemployment.

Economics shows that the fiscal multiplier is effectively zero over the long run. And since we are paying for the stimulus with debt, we are going to owe a shitload of interest on top of everything. Stimulus only works if it goes toward worthy projects, something that the huge stimulus packages passed under the current Administration did not do.

[Mr_Quick]

Not really. The 4-2-1 problem is overblown by people who don't understand China. Chinese workers have huge savings rates compared to their counterparts in the West, so money won't be an issue. Plus fewer workers might actually be somewhat of a good thing because that would lead to higher wages.

It's a problem, sure, but a minor one.




Economics shows that the fiscal multiplier is effectively zero over the long run. And since we are paying for the stimulus with debt, we are going to owe a shitload of interest on top of everything. Stimulus only works if it goes toward worthy projects, something that the huge stimulus packages passed under the current Administration did not do.

Correction: Austrian fringe economics claims that the fiscal multiplier is effectively zero. While mainstream economists differ substantially on how effective stimulus spending is, the notion that it is completely ineffective is largely the province of ideologues who rely wholly on unsupported (and often highly questionable) assumptions rather than any kind of empirical research. It's the homeopathy of economics, basically.