Obama's Legacy

For the past six years all we hear is how BO inherited economic problems from GWB. And things have just got worse. Come on, how much time does the guy need to turn things around? He is nothing but endless empty rhetoric. If he had four terms, he would just bury us deeper and to the point of no recovery.
And now, his handling of the Angela Merkel fiasko is nothing but a joke.
Germany should be kissing our ass instead of kicking it!

He also ran on fixing it. We're five years in. At precisely what date does he start becoming responsible?

And you can play this game all day: Bush inherited a milder recession and then 9/11 happened, and we were still growing by 4% just a couple of years later.

"Certified" by who? People who hated him already and decided to call him one? Silliness. That works fine for late-night punchlines, but anyone who thought it was literally true has lost perspective. And it's really telling that the evidence for this idiocy is always evidence for being (relative to the job) inarticulate, as if they were the same. Because we've been trained to think of them as the same.

And really, what evidence is there that our problems stem from a lack of intelligence, anyway? We throw money and experts at all our problems, and every single President has access to the best and brightest (who don't always agree, which should tell you a lot). How's that worked out? Maybe intelligence isn't the problem. Maybe humility it is: maybe we need a narrower view of what government can accomplish. And if humility really is the problem, then the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they are to possess it.

I know I am not American so I don't live the economy, but to say that Obama is worst than Bush is a total joke. I, personally, am more a fan of the European (or Quebec) way of seing economy which is with high taxes and big services to the population. For instance, here in Quebec, we can go to the hospital for free and I believe this is where the world should go. Bush lowered the taxes specially to the corporations which is completely idiotic taking in consideration how rich they are. In addition to that he made a war.

So, yes I am not an American and maybe it's the media that made me think all those bad things about Bush, but if what I hear is true than he's a ********* I won't even say it

__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages

It takes a rare chameleon to be humble and arrogant at the same time. That distinction belongs to BO. His biggest problem, however, is making all the wrong moves.

What corporate tax lowering are you referring to? That sounds like a piece of information that's been through a few filters and come out rather different on the other side.

I also find it odd that you seem to view tax policy completely through the lens of how much a given entity has, as if all tax policy is about redistributing what already exists rather than encouraging wealth creation. Are you not aware of the expansionary function of profits?

Well I might not be lol, I am 17 and I didn't have any economy classes yet, but I'll have one this winter ^^. However the way I see it is that when the taxes are high the government is able to create more services to the population and more help to the people in need. In the US it's almost impossible to go to a university if you're not rich or particularly good. It's really expensive to go to the hospital. For instance I went to California 4,5 years ago and I had a problem with my ears a 5 minute consultation and a bottle of like 10 pillz cost my mom something like 300$ I don't find it normal. I know that it's the popular believe that in the capitalist system you earn your money you have the right to keep it without giving it all to the government. I disagree with that because I am ready, if it can help someone more in need, to have less money in my pocket.

I'll bet anything they don't teach you about the function of profits. And if you want to learn basic economics, you can do so for free, right now, with a very clear, easy-to-understand book: Economics in One Lesson (chapter 21 is about how profits encourage expansion).

Completely true. It's also true that every dollar the government takes to provide those services it takes from the free economy. This is one of the inherent dangers of taxation: you see the things that result from it, but not the things that would have resulted if you hadn't commandeered the money. This asymmetry is one of the reasons governments almost invariably expand.

This actually isn't true, but it would be true if you added "or are willing to take on a lot of debt," so I'll pretend you said that and answer: you know why this is so? Would it surprise you to learn that this is sort of one of the "big services" you mentioned, and that government pumps billions of dollars in subsidies into it? Yet the price keeps going up. Hmmm. Interesting correlation, isn't it?

Well, it's not normal. But then, the United States doesn't (and hasn't) had a free market healthcare system. Also, it should be obvious that hiding costs within a tax code isn't really any better than making people look at them on a bill. In fact, it's probably worse, because it makes a cost-benefit analysis harder to do, and care overall will decline in quality. Which is precisely what we see in these universal systems.

That's kind of you. But it leads to a natural question: if you're willing to do that, why do you need the government to facilitate it?

Thanks for the recommendation I'll commend it on amazon!

I don't understand what you mean by free economy? If I understand what you have said (I might got I wrong there's some words I'm not sure lol) well I disagree. I think a good citizen can understand that for the good of his country the money the government takes from him is to benefit the population and not himself.

Why is that correlation existing? I might bt a little dumb, but I don't understand how it's possible that if the government is giving subsidies to those services they're still getting more and more expansive. It's suppose to be the opposite no?

I don't have the knowledge to say that the quality of the services in the countries in which there is free health care is less good. I think that being sick is already a difficult thing if, in addition to that, you had an economical issue. It just makes the life of these people which is already difficult harder. If someone feels some pain and is no sure it's serious might go to the hospital here and yeah it might be nothing, but it might be something serious as well. In a country where hospital is expensive he probably will not go and he might have cancer (I know I'm exaggerating, but it's a possibility). You're probably right on the economical side, but on the social side it's a big problem.

Yeah, when I think about it you're right. I can't force someone who has a capitalistic way to think (I earned my money I don't want to give it to other people) to give their money even though I think it's the right to do

(I tried to answer in the best English I can)

You can read it for free online! But I realize a lot of people prefer physical copies.

By free economy, I mean the things people will produce on their own. The majority of life-improving inventions and innovations come from free people, not from government. This doesn't mean taxes aren't necessary, but it means that they can't be evaluated only on what they result in. It's easy to say "look, for our taxes we get this, this, and this!" But what are we comparing that to? What would have been made by the people if they'd gotten to keep it? Many people who support larger government programs never consider this question, but every dollar that goes to a government program is being taken from something else.

Correct, it's supposed to be the opposite. But therein lies the first lesson of government intervention: what programs are SUPPOSED to do is not always what they actually do.

When government subsidizes something, a couple of things happen. For one, demand goes up, because the same thing now costs less to the consumer (the student). Which means the university can raise the price without changing amount the student actually has to pay; which they do. Also, because of the subsidies, the true cost is hidden from the student, which makes evaluating the cost relative to the benefit difficult. And being able to compare price to value is a fundamental market mechanism for keeping prices down.

There's also a lot of confusion surrounding higher education in general. People talk about how important it is, and to back that up they point to income disparities between those with degrees and those without. Even taking these numbers at face value (even though they're often very selective), they're often used to sell the idea that everyone should go to college. But wait, if the benefit of college is the relative benefit between those who go and those who don't...and more people go...then the argument is self-defeating. If more people have degrees, the relative value of a degree goes down. The more people listen to the advice, the less sense the advice makes. This sort of counterintuitive result is standard for a lot of things in which government intervenes. And because people don't see government as the cause, they use the higher prices to justify even more intervention! And it spirals out of control, as it has in healthcare.

Full disclosure: I didn't go to college.

Well, the main point here is that you're less likely to have an economic issue if the government isn't taking so much money in the first place. And, more importantly, we have to ask ourselves what actually helps sick, poor people more: establishing a meidocre baseline of care, or constantly improving
what "medicore" means? After all, mediocre care today would have been word-class care just a few decades ago, and downright miraculous 50-60 years ago. I think this distinction between relative care (how your care stacks up to wealthier folks) and objective care (how your care stacks up to what it would have been a decade or two ago) is crucial.

That said, I think what you say about the social side is important. A lot of people argue about the economics when, deep down, it's really just a social/moral problem. I think that has issues of its own, but that's a lot more internally consistent, I think, and it makes for a more useful discussion.


Yeah, what it comes down to is not "should I do this?" but "do I think the law should force everyone to do this?" Which is a much tougher question. I think the kind of charity you talk about is a wonderful thing, but it's a lot harder to make the case that it should be mandatory. Especially considering the fact that charity, by definition, must be freely given. By forcing people to contribute, you remove the possibility of that particular virtue.

Your English is good! I'd use the word "economic" rather than "economical" in this context, but I found it very clear.

There's something I'd like to add about charity, and this isn't directed at anyone here in particular.

The more government takes on these things, the less people feel they have to. People don't trust each other any more. They don't form communities the way they used to. They used to do this because they had to: it was how people got by. It mattered. But why do that when the government is your community? Why trust the people around you, why learn to help them rely on them in equal measure?

I'm not saying this means that hardship is good. I'm saying that when we try to cure a hardship through official channels, people stop relying on each other to alleviate it, and that has consequences. It changes our relationship. You can't have a giant community; that's a contradiction in terms. So when a large, centralized power takes it upon itself to handle these things, that community is lost. And that, in turn, leads to an angry, divided, paranoid political process that would never be possible if people were still forced to commune and commiserate and rely on one another.

This probably sounds quaint, but think about your day-to-day life. Tell me you don't think people are distant, nose-deep in their devices, and increasingly avoiding genuine human contact more and more. Think about how weird it would be if someone just struck up a conversation with you. You'd think there was something wrong with them, wouldn't you? You'd think they wanted something from you. Realize that this is a weird reaction. 50 years ago you'd have been the odd one for being so suspicious of them.

Things have actually changed. Our politics have cultural consequences, not just vice-versa. And right now, our politics are increasingly deciding to widen this divide in the name of some greater good that we seem to get further from the more we try to purchase it. But it can't be bought: it can only be earned.

Yeah you're absolutely right, but since we now live in this reality and that humans usually don't care that much for each other we have to rely on government to help those who are less fortunate. And I don't think that having an health care system or cheaper universities, cheaper nurseries, etc. will affect the laziness of humans it is just an act of justice to put them in place. And what will permit us to have these mesures is to have the government charging us money so that we can have them. I agree on the fact that if we put all the responsibility on the government it makes the people lazy, but if we don't nothing will be done and that's a fact. People have the reflex to complain about the government more than taking the matter in there own hands so what can the government do? Let the things get worst?

The thing about socialized medecine is that it makes the taxes go up so that individuals are automaticallly taxed more by their government whether they acualy use the service or not. Your " free " medical comes out of your taxes. That's why in your country you pay higher taxes. Personaly, I prefer to pay lower taxes and have more money to manage on my own to make the choices I need.

However, in all the Scandinavian countries for example, they have very high taxes, but the government actually uses them, for things like functioning health care and free quality education. They've had the system working for a long time, and the social services not only work but the people still have money to manage and make their own choices. It's not like socialized public services equates to poverty, these countries make the top of the lists every year for best place to live.

One reason health care is failing here is because firstly it is NOT socialized medicine, the hospitals in the Scandinavian countries are publicly owned, ACA would make all that government controlled (and we know how well that always works). Secondly, you don't start a program like that, illegally mandating a payment nonetheless, when the middle and lower class are practically the same, surviving more or less check by check.

We can't compare America to any other country. Because we're just, SO much better than everyone else. Systems that work for other countries will not work here. Unless of course. The corporations can get oh say, an entire country of poor people to pay for it with all the rest of what little money they have left.

This thread serves no point. You people that keep talking about Obama are completely wasting your time. Most of you are really starting to get a feel for how badly you've been screwed over by our government. And of course, as is the American way, you point the finger at the easiest target.

Well, good luck with that. It's every man for themselves in this great nation. And if you don't like it. You can get out.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

The point is that Scandinavian taxes are much higher and the individual is left with less money. The cost of health care and education are deducted from his checks ( although he doesn't see that ).

Don't worry I will, just gotta finish my $25,000 degree that will serve nothing other than the logo on it.
My point is that the systems have been in place and working for so long that the "less money" isn't a con because the citizens are still doing well for themselves AND have good social programs. It also helps that the ratio of inflation to wages wasn't completely skewed there.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year too!

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Nah, I rather stay but fight and change leadership!
It's kind of odd that Caucasians are slowly becoming the minority but still have no sense of group belonging. God forbid we try to band together. Someone might call us a hate group.
It won't take more than 50 years for us to get swallowed up and then guys like you ( if you are still alive ) will for sure become fair prey.
I would like to ask you then how you like this great nation.

I see your point but I don't know if you aware of the fact that many Swedes are leaving Sweden because of high taxes. Rich Brits are also leaving England.
Let's face it, this capitalistic system of ours is the only one that enables us to get rich and stay that way. That's why so many from " socialy secure " systems still flock to our shores.

Who's getting rich here? People flock here because all they hear is American Dream, well that ****'s long gone.