Obama has ruined our economy...

[PLAYER57832]

You start with the assumption that keeping oil prices low is the president's job -- both something he should do and something he can do on his own. I say all those assumptions are wrong.

So why were there so many protests against Bush in the summer of 2008 with the insanely high gas prices then......the same amount that we're currently paying today?

Because people don't LIKE high gas prices and think the president should just magically fix them? Doesn't mean they are correct.

Besides, Bush was hand in foot in the oil industry. Obama is not immune -- no US president is, but Bush and his family got their wealth from oil, gained power in the oil state of Texas. Telling is how little he did on the front of real alternatives.

Maybe because it's not the government's job to look for alternatives?

It is as much the government's job as curing polio, smallpox and malaria was. It is as much the government's job as developing satellite technology, going to the moon, and developing laser and conductor technology which gave the foundations for much of what we see around us.

In other words... you keep pretending the government has no research purpose, but you also deny that the government does about anything good... a huge error on your part, but a bias you refuse to let go.

Or, more simply.. you are wrong, ONLY the government -- make that governmentS (because this takes world effort) CAN. Initial technology is almost never profitable. It only becomes profitable later... once the kinks are worked out.

And, the reason" because, ultimately nothing is more important to our security than our basic survival. Each of these things directly impact our survival.. except, possibly the flight to the moon. That, however, was perceived as a military threat at the time.

[Dukasaur]

Maybe because it's not the government's job to look for alternatives?

It is as much the government's job as curing polio, smallpox and malaria was.

Ummm.... the vaccine for smallpox was developed by a doctor in private practise with no government subsidy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/
Jenner was motivated mainly by simple scientific curiosity, not profit, although of course enhancing his reputation as a doctor certainly didn't hurt his career any. In later life Jenner was awarded a huge pension by the government, but he neither asked for it nor appeared to need it, so it didn't play a causative role in his work.

Salk's work on a polio vaccine was funded by the government, and civil servants trumpet that as an "achievement" for government. However, Pittburgh Medical was a privately-endowed school when Salk worked there. Like most researchers, Salk would have applied for many grants from both public and private funds, and it's pretty much a "luck of the draw" thing that a public grant came through before a private one. If the government grant hadn't come along, a private grant probably would have.

There is no cure for malaria. The main line of treatment usually includes Arteminisin or some variation thereof, which has been used by Chinese herbalists so far back that nobody knows when or how it was first discovered. It's true that Mao Tse-tung did much to promote its use and tried to get credit for it, but when you strip aside the propaganda you find that folk herbalists knew about this plant long before the chinese Army doctors came knocking on the door. Outside of China, further improvements to Arteminisin and other malaria treatments have been driven mainly by private pharmaceutical companies.

The main line of malaria prevention has nothing to do with drugs, but with the destruction of wetlands where malaria-carrying mosquitoes can breed. Sure enough, that one is almost purely government-driven. If any private company tried to drain thousands of square miles of ecologically sensitive wetlands just to keep their employees from being bitten by mosquitoes, they would face trillions of dollars of enviromental fines.

So, of your three disease examples, the biggest success story (smallpox) is an unequivocal case of private action, polio is a success story which goes to government but might just as readily have gone to a private endowment fund, and malaria... well, I'll let you decide how to score the many factors in the malaria story.

It is as much the government's job as developing satellite technology, going to the moon, and developing laser and conductor technology which gave the foundations for much of what we see around us.

The laser was developed by purely private money at the Hughes Research Lab (a part of Hughes Aircraft). Hughes was first past the post, but several other companies were working on the idea, including Eastman Kodak, and would have eventually succeeded if Hughes had failed.

Some of the earliest computers were driven by military contracts in WWII and are cited as government success stories, but every significant development in computers since then has been driven by private enterprise.

• Punch card tabulation -- IBM
• Transistor -- Bell Telephone Labs
• Integrated circuit -- Texas Instruments
• Fiber optics -- Corning Glass
• High-level computer languages -- IBM
• Dynamic random-access memory -- IBM
• Word processing -- microPro
• Spreadsheets -- VisiCalc

Or, more simply.. you are wrong, ONLY the government -- make that governmentS (because this takes world effort) CAN. Initial technology is almost never profitable. It only becomes profitable later... once the kinks are worked out. .

Some technology becomes profitable sooner, some becomes profitable later, and some never becomes profitable. Rarely is there any evidence that the government speeds up the process.

The steam engine, the Bessemer converter, the canal lift-lock, the turbine, the telephone, the microscope, the electric battery, the light bulb, the internal-combustion engine, on and on the list goes, all privately funded inventions that changed the world and owed nothing to government.

As for your space-age examples....

When NASA threw up its hands in despair and turned over the communication satellite program to Bell Labs, it wasn't turning over a system on the verge of becoming profitable. It was turning over a complete failure, and Bell pretty much had to start from scratch. I'm sure revisionist historians will write about the "pioneering" work that NASA did and Bell benefited from, but in fact the NASA satellites simply did nothing at all, and Bell just had to turn back the clock and start from square one.

I suspect that much the same will be true of the Moon. When we finally do colonise the Moon, the colonies will be built entirely by private enterprise, and while there will be propaganda about the "legacy" of Apollo yadda yadda yadda, in fact they will use entirely new technology not derived from anything that the Apollo program used.

[PLAYER57832]

Maybe because it's not the government's job to look for alternatives?

It is as much the government's job as curing polio, smallpox and malaria was.

Ummm.... the vaccine for smallpox was developed by a doctor in private practise with no government subsidy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/
Jenner was motivated mainly by simple scientific curiosity, not profit, although of course enhancing his reputation as a doctor certainly didn't hurt his career any. In later life Jenner was awarded a huge pension by the government, but he neither asked for it nor appeared to need it, so it didn't play a causative role in his work.

Salk's work on a polio vaccine was funded by the government, and civil servants trumpet that as an "achievement" for government. However, Pittburgh Medical was a privately-endowed school when Salk worked there. Like most researchers, Salk would have applied for many grants from both public and private funds, and it's pretty much a "luck of the draw" thing that a public grant came through before a private one. If the government grant hadn't come along, a private grant probably would have.

You are missing quite a few steps, specifically that you cannot just look at the final success as uni-efforts. There was a widespread effort to find these things. Each person built on and with the research of others. None of these individuals truly worked "alone", even if the final, celebrated, result is attributed to one person.

There is no cure for malaria. The main line of treatment usually includes Arteminisin or some variation thereof, which has been used by Chinese herbalists so far back that nobody knows when or how it was first discovered. It's true that Mao Tse-tung did much to promote its use and tried to get credit for it, but when you strip aside the propaganda you find that folk herbalists knew about this plant long before the chinese Army doctors came knocking on the door. Outside of China, further improvements to Arteminisin and other malaria treatments have been driven mainly by private pharmaceutical companies.

The main line of malaria prevention has nothing to do with drugs, but with the destruction of wetlands where malaria-carrying mosquitoes can breed. Sure enough, that one is almost purely government-driven. If any private company tried to drain thousands of square miles of ecologically sensitive wetlands just to keep their employees from being bitten by mosquitoes, they would face trillions of dollars of enviromental fines.

Proving what I say requires a good deal more internet research time than I have right now, but Ralph Nader gives a nice run-down in a link I posted some time earlier.

Suffice it to say that no one wanted anything to do with Malaria because it mostly impacted poor people in poor countries. Then the Vietnahm war hit, Walter Reed began doing research because more soldiers were getting sick from Malaria than bullets. The US government does not take credit for its own research, though. The data was given FREELY to pharmaceutical companies who were then allowed to produce the products for a profit -- in many cases with no additional research even needed.

So, of your three disease examples, the biggest success story (smallpox) is an unequivocal case of private action, polio is a success story which goes to government but might just as readily have gone to a private endowment fund, and malaria... well, I'll let you decide how to score the many factors in the malaria story.

Nope, your story is only correct on the barest surface. The real truth is that without hefty government backing and research, none of that "wholly private" enterprise would have happened.

It is as much the government's job as developing satellite technology, going to the moon, and developing laser and conductor technology which gave the foundations for much of what we see around us.

The laser was developed by purely private money at the Hughes Research Lab (a part of Hughes Aircraft). Hughes was first past the post, but several other companies were working on the idea, including Eastman Kodak, and would have eventually succeeded if Hughes had failed.

Some of the earliest computers were driven by military contracts in WWII and are cited as government success stories, but every significant development in computers since then has been driven by private enterprise.

• Punch card tabulation -- IBM
• Transistor -- Bell Telephone Labs
• Integrated circuit -- Texas Instruments
• Fiber optics -- Corning Glass
• High-level computer languages -- IBM
• Dynamic random-access memory -- IBM
• Word processing -- microPro
• Spreadsheets -- VisiCalc

LOL... try looking a bit deeper.

But, even if you don't want to do that, the bottom line is that without that initial input of government funded information, none of the rest would have happened.

I mean, a guy just recently patented toast... Did he really? and does he really and truly get credit for all that has come of browned bread? In the business and patent world, a lot of people like to make those claims.

The thing is you almost never see the name "US government" on the name of a patent.. or most research, even when it was the government that fully controlled, taxpayers that funded the research.

Or, more simply.. you are wrong, ONLY the government -- make that governmentS (because this takes world effort) CAN. Initial technology is almost never profitable. It only becomes profitable later... once the kinks are worked out. .

Some technology becomes profitable sooner, some becomes profitable later, and some never becomes profitable. Rarely is there any evidence that the government speeds up the process.

The process of profitability? No. Government is not in the for profit business, in fact the US government is generally constrained from competing in most ways, is constrained by design from taking a profit.. HOWEVER, if you want to look at the transfer of knowledge, the development of ideas... then you have a very different story. Just because someone put a sugar coating on a pill and sells it doesn't mean all the effort into making the pill to begin with or inventing the medicine that makes the pill itself are worthless.... or that putting on the sugar coating is the only thing that really matters. Without the other parts, the sugar coating would be nothing more than another type of candy.

The steam engine, the Bessemer converter, the canal lift-lock, the turbine, the telephone, the microscope, the electric battery, the light bulb, the internal-combustion engine, on and on the list goes, all privately funded inventions that changed the world and owed nothing to government.

Not really true. Also, each of those are pretty basic technology that required mostly individual effort, not the kind of effort needed today to move things we need moved.

As for your space-age examples....

When NASA threw up its hands in despair and turned over the communication satellite program to Bell Labs, it wasn't turning over a system on the verge of becoming profitable. It was turning over a complete failure, and Bell pretty much had to start from scratch. I'm sure revisionist historians will write about the "pioneering" work that NASA did and Bell benefited from, but in fact the NASA satellites simply did nothing at all, and Bell just had to turn back the clock and start from square one.

I see, so, according to you communication satellites were the purpose of the entire NASA program? Then sure, I can see why you consider it a failure.

I suspect that much the same will be true of the Moon. When we finally do colonise the Moon, the colonies will be built entirely by private enterprise, and while there will be propaganda about the "legacy" of Apollo yadda yadda yadda, in fact they will use entirely new technology not derived from anything that the Apollo program used.

For private enterprise to go to the moon would require a vision of profit. A LOT will have to change for that to happen.

And... whenever folks do live on the moon, they certainly will owe a debt to Apollo.... Just as the concord owes a debt to both the clipper ships that sailed the seas and the kites that kids and adults still fly in the air.

[Phatscotty]

Player, it's really this simple. Where there is profit and opportunity (private sector), you get far better results than where there is no profit, and it doesn't matter if you do a good job or not (public sector). Go ahead and point out a couple exceptions, I'm not saying there aren't any, but it's a general truth.

[Phatscotty]

Our infrastructure is crumbling, schools not able to keep up with the international market, and THAT is very much because of this new "ME ONLY" attitude. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You have already eaten the cake.. already benefitted from good roads, education, etc... now its time to pay back.

What are you talking about when you say our infrastructure is crumbling? Are you saying the trillion dollar stimulus plan, which was supposed to specifically address your concerns, did not even work? Can you give some examples of crumbling infrastructure? Because I think you are just repeating talking points.

The only one with a "me attitude" here is YOU! I'm not trying to take any money from anybody, and all you care about it taking money from other people so that you have more for yourself. You are the greedy one, I haven't eaten jack shit. You are very naive. We pay for our own roads, and the government spends that money on other things that are not roads, and then borrows the money from other places to pay for the roads, and you sit here and give the government credit for the roads? We double pay for the roads, and still have to pay back the money for the roads with interest!!! HAHA It's not time to pay back shit! it's time to demand efficiency and accountability and an end to waste and lavish overspending of money we do not have.


How is it schools are not able to keep up? Obama increased education spending 100% between 2009-2011. So speaking of not being able to have your cake and eat it too, it seems like that is what you are trying to do here. Why wasn't a 100% increase good enough to the point where you say "we can't even compete", or does it mean that no matter how much money we spend at education, it doesn't change anything? Would a 1000% increase allow us to compete? Why is it the last time America was #1 in the world in education was when we barely spent a federal nickel on education? The answer is pretty simple. The more you spend on education through the federal government, the worse education gets. We spend more on education every year, and children are less educated every year, and since that is a fact, it debunks your BS

[Night Strike]

According to Player, it's ALL about the collective in every area of society. We must get rid of the individual because only the collective is big enough to solve all of today's problems, both real and contrived.

[Phatscotty]

I hate you Obama...

When you took office, I had time to myself. Now however, Ive had one day off in the last three months. I'm getting calls for new work nearly every day. I am absolutely busier than I ever have been. Similarly, all my associates and co-contractors are busier than they ever have been so getting them is equally impossible. Everyone is super busy, everyone is working and can't get caught up.... the last time I remember an economy like this that Jackass Clinton was in office. I miss the Bush years, where I had to struggle to sell a job, could take some time off if I needed, and never had to worry about letting customers down, simply because I had too many of them.

Seriously man...you're killing me here....I need a damn day off.

Maybe you can trade with one of these people

Census on Obama’s 1st Term: Real Median Income Down $2,627; People in Poverty Up 6,667,000; Record 46,496,000 Now Poor

[Sackett58]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joPMuaFa1Ds

[AAFitz]

Its sad that after 6 pages, you supposed capitalists in support of the free market, not once said, "Hey thats great! Glad to hear its going well for you!"

I knew you wouldn't of course, and its awesome to see that youve proven yourselves to be the negative little bitches that I knew you were.

[thegreekdog]

From earlier in this thread:

The sequester has also ruined the economy.

[stahrgazer]

Our infrastructure is crumbling, schools not able to keep up with the international market, and THAT is very much because of this new "ME ONLY" attitude. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You have already eaten the cake.. already benefitted from good roads, education, etc... now its time to pay back.

What are you talking about when you say our infrastructure is crumbling? Are you saying the trillion dollar stimulus plan, which was supposed to specifically address your concerns, did not even work? Can you give some examples of crumbling infrastructure? Because I think you are just repeating talking points.

The only one with a "me attitude" here is YOU! I'm not trying to take any money from anybody, and all you care about it taking money from other people so that you have more for yourself. You are the greedy one, I haven't eaten jack shit. You are very naive. We pay for our own roads, and the government spends that money on other things that are not roads, and then borrows the money from other places to pay for the roads, and you sit here and give the government credit for the roads? We double pay for the roads, and still have to pay back the money for the roads with interest!!! HAHA It's not time to pay back shit! it's time to demand efficiency and accountability and an end to waste and lavish overspending of money we do not have.


How is it schools are not able to keep up? Obama increased education spending 100% between 2009-2011. So speaking of not being able to have your cake and eat it too, it seems like that is what you are trying to do here. Why wasn't a 100% increase good enough to the point where you say "we can't even compete", or does it mean that no matter how much money we spend at education, it doesn't change anything? Would a 1000% increase allow us to compete? Why is it the last time America was #1 in the world in education was when we barely spent a federal nickel on education? The answer is pretty simple. The more you spend on education through the federal government, the worse education gets. We spend more on education every year, and children are less educated every year, and since that is a fact, it debunks your BS

Scotty, your points are valid but twisted.

We have increased "spending" but it's quantitative, not qualitative. One of the things Obama increased was "no child left behind" which was a Bush plan that didn't work then and isn't working now, even with the increases.

You're right that leaving 'education' up to the Feds isn't working, but some of that fed money is going for all those zillions of buses that crowd the roads and add to the potholes (that infrastructure that's been mentioned.) Buses used to be for those out in the ozone to be able to get to a school. I remember when busing first started, children were still expected to WALK or PARENTS provide transportation if the school was within 3 miles, but now kid expect a ride half a block to the bus stop to be bused 3 more blocks and parents expect someone to pick them up from the bus stop. Maybe not "always" but frequently. Similarly, few parents READ with their kids or even as much as help them recite the alphabet, much less count, add, and subtract.

Kids aren't even really required to add/subtract much anymore, it's all "calculators" but to make things "fair" then if they cannot afford a calculator, one will be provided for them at federal (taxpayer) cost.

So, it's not all fed fault and it's definitely not all Obama fault that our education system sucks worse and worse because we cannot force parents to BE parents and even the best teacher cannot force-feed a child to learn if a child isn't encouraged to really practice at home.

As for crumbling infrastructure I'll name one. There's a dam on Lake Okeechobee in Florida that's early 1900s technology and can't hold back enough water anymore - water that had been re-routed to that area in the first place to help big sugar - so instead they release all this contaminated water into our river systems that flow into salt water estuaries and kill the Florida fishing (which is a big part of the economy here) because their is insufficient money to 1) fix that dam to better standards and 2) reroute the waters so some of it flows back to the big sugar (everglades) lands it was stupidly rerouted from.

So in the case of this particular infrastructure, it IS a case where the big businesses were allowed to control things to the detriment of the general population and now want to cry "poor" when they're asked to fix it back.

Speaking of Florida, it's a state where the (Republican) governor outright refused some of that infrastructure stimulus money even though what it was offered for is something business and citizens have wanted for a while - a human rail system connecting Miami through the east coast and up to central Florida (Orlando) area.

Other states similarly refused on general principle. Remember the NJ governor who was so criticized for "cozying up to" (accepting federal aid from and touring his state with) Obama after his state got hit by a trememdous wave of nature?

So, while money was "earmarked" much of that stimulus was never spent. Some of it went, instead, for disaster relief.

My point is, some of what you're blaming Obama for "starting" wasn't his to start with; and some of what you're blaming Obama for not fixing is because his ideas were rejected rather than tried.

"Obamacare" is another example of something that really isn't his. Yes, it's got his name on it but the key point that he - Obama - proposed was NOT in the Affordable Care Act - which was basically an expansion of medicaid into a single-payer option for the millions of uninsured folks. THAT was the key fix that never made it into the final and as a result, this thing with his name on it will fix nothing and makes more than half the population upset because what DID make it into the final bill fits "Republicans" to a T in one respect: it requires folks to engage in Insurance "capitalism" - instead of single-payer (federal insurance) folks have to deal with insurance conglomerates (private companies).

Anyway. What ruined our economy was bringing corporate tax rates "too low" to be supportive; engaging in "global" rather than "country" capitalism. It's destroyed "patriotism" and replaced that with "all for himself" economics.

Obama doesn't own that - Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 do.

[thegreekdog]

corporate tax rates "too low" to be supportive

At 35%, the United States has the highest nominal corporate tax in any of the world's developed economies.

I think you mean something other than corporate tax rates.

[stahrgazer]

I think you mean something other than corporate tax rates.

Only in part.

Corporate tax rates used to be alot higher.

but yes... as did tax rates for those making the high dollars (including taxes on capital gains that have been reduced to peanuts in comparison.)

See, when you compare the United States tax rates with tax rates in countries like India - well, much of India doesn't have our highway system. And even if you compare US tax rates with countries in Europe - much of Europe has high speed public transit that are used in place of roads.

A train track and an autobahn do not require as much tax input as 60 zillion highways and lesser roads for personal autos, you see.

So when you compare US to global tax rates, you're not really comparing apples to apples. But many businesses have grown so much they don't need "our" apples and so now they don't want to continue to pay to keep our apple tree healthy now that they've outgrown needing our apples.

[thegreekdog]

I think you mean something other than corporate tax rates.

Only in part.

Corporate tax rates used to be alot higher.

but yes... as did tax rates for those making the high dollars (including taxes on capital gains that have been reduced to peanuts in comparison.)

See, when you compare the United States tax rates with tax rates in countries like India - well, much of India doesn't have our highway system. And even if you compare US tax rates with countries in Europe - much of Europe has high speed public transit that are used in place of roads.

A train track and an autobahn do not require as much tax input as 60 zillion highways and lesser roads for personal autos, you see.

So when you compare US to global tax rates, you're not really comparing apples to apples. But many businesses have grown so much they don't need "our" apples and so now they don't want to continue to pay to keep our apple tree healthy now that they've outgrown needing our apples.

Okay, so you did mean that. Whoops. The United States has the highest statutory corporate tax rate. There is no real argument there, although you've spent some words trying to make one (or more): (1) tax rates used to be higher (okay, but we're talking about right now); (2) there is more stuff to pay for in the U.S. which is why it's higher (irrelevant to whether the U.S. has a higher corporate tax rate than anyone else); (3) businesses don't need our apples (I'm not even sure what this means really; you seem to be saying that U.S. companies don't want to pay anything because they don't get anything).

In any event, what you meant to say was that the U.S. NOMINAL corporate tax rate was lower (because of tax breaks - deductions and the like). And it is lower. So, try to stick with that.

[BigBallinStalin]

Its sad that after 6 pages, you supposed capitalists in support of the free market, not once said, "Hey thats great! Glad to hear its going well for you!"

I knew you wouldn't of course, and its awesome to see that youve proven yourselves to be the negative little bitches that I knew you were.

Do you really expect praise while you march around like a jackass? That's weird.

[AAFitz]

Its sad that after 6 pages, you supposed capitalists in support of the free market, not once said, "Hey thats great! Glad to hear its going well for you!"

I knew you wouldn't of course, and its awesome to see that youve proven yourselves to be the negative little bitches that I knew you were.

Do you really expect praise while you march around like a jackass? That's weird.

That is hardly praise I was suggesting...you weird jackass.

[Phatscotty]

Its sad that after 6 pages, you supposed capitalists in support of the free market, not once said, "Hey thats great! Glad to hear its going well for you!"

I knew you wouldn't of course, and its awesome to see that youve proven yourselves to be the negative little bitches that I knew you were.

Do you really expect praise while you march around like a jackass? That's weird.

That is hardly praise I was suggesting...you weird jackass.

I would feel sorry for you on this one Fitz, except you have been a realbaseless tragger-happy jackass to me in the past.

The economy is still so weak, the Fed can't even raise interest rates. They are stuck at virtual 0%. It's turning out to be true that all the money Obama borrowed and spent, and the resulting credit downgrades to our economy, have prolonged the economic weakness. The only other time in America's history where the economy was this crappy for this long was the Great Depression, something Obama voters have been long saying Obama saved us from. As most of us can see, all the things Obama said would save us are actually the cause for what we will need to be saved from.

Obama has been president for 5 years, and there are fewer people working today than there were in 2008. Whoever's fault you want to argue it is, the point remains we are still deep in the hole Obama promised us he would rescue us from, and the hole has been getting deeper, not smaller, and we have completely wasted trillions of dollars on stimulus plans and multiple jobs programs for nothing, and those trillions comes with interest. Be sure to tell the truth when your kids ask why the hell they are paying 50% in taxes for spending that happened before they were even born.

[AAFitz]

Its sad that after 6 pages, you supposed capitalists in support of the free market, not once said, "Hey thats great! Glad to hear its going well for you!"

I knew you wouldn't of course, and its awesome to see that youve proven yourselves to be the negative little bitches that I knew you were.

Do you really expect praise while you march around like a jackass? That's weird.

That is hardly praise I was suggesting...you weird jackass.

I would feel sorry for you on this one Fitz, except you have been a realbaseless tragger-happy jackass to me in the past.

The economy is still so weak, the Fed can't even raise interest rates. They are stuck at virtual 0%. It's turning out to be true that all the money Obama borrowed and spent, and the resulting credit downgrades to our economy, have prolonged the economic weakness. The only other time in America's history where the economy was this crappy for this long was the Great Depression, something Obama voters have been long saying Obama saved us from. As most of us can see, all the things Obama said would save us are actually the cause for what we will need to be saved from.

Obama has been president for 5 years, and there are fewer people working today than there were in 2008. Whoever's fault you want to argue it is, the point remains we are still deep in the hole Obama promised us he would rescue us from, and the hole has been getting deeper, not smaller, and we have completely wasted trillions of dollars on stimulus plans and multiple jobs programs for nothing, and those trillions comes with interest. Be sure to tell the truth when your kids ask why the hell they are paying 50% in taxes for spending that happened before they were even born.

How do you know about my future kids Mr. Who?

[Phatscotty]

Our infrastructure is crumbling, schools not able to keep up with the international market, and THAT is very much because of this new "ME ONLY" attitude. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You have already eaten the cake.. already benefitted from good roads, education, etc... now its time to pay back.

What are you talking about when you say our infrastructure is crumbling? Are you saying the trillion dollar stimulus plan, which was supposed to specifically address your concerns, did not even work? Can you give some examples of crumbling infrastructure? Because I think you are just repeating talking points.

The only one with a "me attitude" here is YOU! I'm not trying to take any money from anybody, and all you care about it taking money from other people so that you have more for yourself. You are the greedy one, I haven't eaten jack shit. You are very naive. We pay for our own roads, and the government spends that money on other things that are not roads, and then borrows the money from other places to pay for the roads, and you sit here and give the government credit for the roads? We double pay for the roads, and still have to pay back the money for the roads with interest!!! HAHA It's not time to pay back shit! it's time to demand efficiency and accountability and an end to waste and lavish overspending of money we do not have.


How is it schools are not able to keep up? Obama increased education spending 100% between 2009-2011. So speaking of not being able to have your cake and eat it too, it seems like that is what you are trying to do here. Why wasn't a 100% increase good enough to the point where you say "we can't even compete", or does it mean that no matter how much money we spend at education, it doesn't change anything? Would a 1000% increase allow us to compete? Why is it the last time America was #1 in the world in education was when we barely spent a federal nickel on education? The answer is pretty simple. The more you spend on education through the federal government, the worse education gets. We spend more on education every year, and children are less educated every year, and since that is a fact, it debunks your BS

Scotty, your points are valid but twisted.

We have increased "spending" but it's quantitative, not qualitative. One of the things Obama increased was "no child left behind" which was a Bush plan that didn't work then and isn't working now, even with the increases.

You're right that leaving 'education' up to the Feds isn't working, but some of that fed money is going for all those zillions of buses that crowd the roads and add to the potholes (that infrastructure that's been mentioned.) Buses used to be for those out in the ozone to be able to get to a school. I remember when busing first started, children were still expected to WALK or PARENTS provide transportation if the school was within 3 miles, but now kid expect a ride half a block to the bus stop to be bused 3 more blocks and parents expect someone to pick them up from the bus stop. Maybe not "always" but frequently. Similarly, few parents READ with their kids or even as much as help them recite the alphabet, much less count, add, and subtract.

Kids aren't even really required to add/subtract much anymore, it's all "calculators" but to make things "fair" then if they cannot afford a calculator, one will be provided for them at federal (taxpayer) cost.

So, it's not all fed fault and it's definitely not all Obama fault that our education system sucks worse and worse because we cannot force parents to BE parents and even the best teacher cannot force-feed a child to learn if a child isn't encouraged to really practice at home.

As for crumbling infrastructure I'll name one. There's a dam on Lake Okeechobee in Florida that's early 1900s technology and can't hold back enough water anymore - water that had been re-routed to that area in the first place to help big sugar - so instead they release all this contaminated water into our river systems that flow into salt water estuaries and kill the Florida fishing (which is a big part of the economy here) because their is insufficient money to 1) fix that dam to better standards and 2) reroute the waters so some of it flows back to the big sugar (everglades) lands it was stupidly rerouted from.

So in the case of this particular infrastructure, it IS a case where the big businesses were allowed to control things to the detriment of the general population and now want to cry "poor" when they're asked to fix it back.

Speaking of Florida, it's a state where the (Republican) governor outright refused some of that infrastructure stimulus money even though what it was offered for is something business and citizens have wanted for a while - a human rail system connecting Miami through the east coast and up to central Florida (Orlando) area.

Other states similarly refused on general principle. Remember the NJ governor who was so criticized for "cozying up to" (accepting federal aid from and touring his state with) Obama after his state got hit by a trememdous wave of nature?

So, while money was "earmarked" much of that stimulus was never spent. Some of it went, instead, for disaster relief.

My point is, some of what you're blaming Obama for "starting" wasn't his to start with; and some of what you're blaming Obama for not fixing is because his ideas were rejected rather than tried.

"Obamacare" is another example of something that really isn't his. Yes, it's got his name on it but the key point that he - Obama - proposed was NOT in the Affordable Care Act - which was basically an expansion of medicaid into a single-payer option for the millions of uninsured folks. THAT was the key fix that never made it into the final and as a result, this thing with his name on it will fix nothing and makes more than half the population upset because what DID make it into the final bill fits "Republicans" to a T in one respect: it requires folks to engage in Insurance "capitalism" - instead of single-payer (federal insurance) folks have to deal with insurance conglomerates (private companies).

Anyway. What ruined our economy was bringing corporate tax rates "too low" to be supportive; engaging in "global" rather than "country" capitalism. It's destroyed "patriotism" and replaced that with "all for himself" economics.

Obama doesn't own that - Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 do.

Thanks for your always thoughtful response. Technically I did not even talk about Obama in that post, but I understand a lot of people assume what I m trying to imply, even when I'm not implying anything. I just want to remind that I never said education failure is Obama's fault, but I will stick to the claim the fed takes a lot of the blame for it, but what my point was that the president/Congress (regardless of who) increased federal education spending 100% over 2 years, and results were unchanged to worse.

About the infrastructure, I'm aware that there are 100 year old dams and bridges that aren't adequate anymore. I was just summing that up to normal wear and tear. The other reason I want to dig deeper into this one is because of the absolutely false premise of the "crumbling infrastructure". While it is true at least 1 piece of infrastructure is crumbling somewhere and likely more than 1 piece, it's also true that infrastructure as a talking point in the modern sense is based on a lie.

It all started with the Minnesota 35 bridge that collapsed. As you would expect, immediately politicians blamed the collapse on lack of funding and neglect, and that has remained the premise ever since. But what many people do not know, is that oh so quietly the truth about why the bridge collapsed was because some dumbass parked multiple tons of material at a certain point on the bridge, far more than the bridge is built for, and that's why it collapsed. But the politicians on all sides got their billions. So that's the premise I think Player was using and I was addressing, as well as just a normal challenge for her to provide some examples.

And before I get into your opinion about the economy being in the crapper because corporate tax rates are too low, you have to tell me what the plan is to enslave companies to the USA to make sure they can't just leave (cuz then you're getting 0% taxes, which is much worse than low taxes). And what I think you are referring to as to who is the blame...Sure Bush isn't blameless, but who was the one that made the phrase famous....."globalism is the bridge to the 21st century!" Clinton was obsessed with building that bridge.

Overall, while the context of the thread is about Obama's faults or not, my post to Player and most of them have been more to the tune of "Obama hasn't done anything economically positive", and I've mostly been trying to stick to talking about economic indicators and how they are reflective of a better or worse economy. I do not nor would I ever blame any of this all on Obama, or any president, or the office of president for that matter. I do say however that whatever the situation is and whoever is to blame, Obama constantly makes whatever he touches worse.

[BigBallinStalin]

Its sad that after 6 pages, you supposed capitalists in support of the free market, not once said, "Hey thats great! Glad to hear its going well for you!"

I knew you wouldn't of course, and its awesome to see that youve proven yourselves to be the negative little bitches that I knew you were.

Do you really expect praise while you march around like a jackass? That's weird.

That is hardly praise I was suggesting...you weird jackass.

"Hey thats great! Glad to hear its going well for you!"

Looks like you desire an ego boost. Essentially, you were seeking praise. Would you care to cry on someone's shoulder?



So, to get back your flame/calling us hypocrites/whatever, it's not surprising that the supporters of the free market would not praise you for your nonsensical claims from the OP. If you're thanking the president for making the economy allegedly better, then it really seems to me that you enjoy rent-seeking, which is a main cause of crony capitalism.

Are you a crony capitalist, AAFitz?

[AAFitz]

Its sad that after 6 pages, you supposed capitalists in support of the free market, not once said, "Hey thats great! Glad to hear its going well for you!"

I knew you wouldn't of course, and its awesome to see that youve proven yourselves to be the negative little bitches that I knew you were.

Do you really expect praise while you march around like a jackass? That's weird.

That is hardly praise I was suggesting...you weird jackass.

"Hey thats great! Glad to hear its going well for you!"

Looks like you desire an ego boost. Essentially, you were seeking praise. Would you care to cry on someone's shoulder?



So, to get back your flame/calling us hypocrites/whatever, it's not surprising that the supporters of the free market would not praise you for your nonsensical claims from the OP. If you're thanking the president for making the economy allegedly better, then it really seems to me that you enjoy rent-seeking, which is a main cause of crony capitalism.

Are you a crony capitalist, AAFitz?

Again, your use of english is weird and jackassery...if not outright stupid. That phrase would mean nothing more than encouragement, and offers no praise and any ego boost from it, would be ridiculous.

And sorry if you perceived any flame. I know you detest such things. Yes. Im calling you a hypocrite again.

Besides, speaking of egos, its a little narcissistic of you to assume you were one of the people I was even addressing.