While the origins might have started in 2007, the first protest happened in April 2009.  You could argue it was because of the bailout in February, but there were no protests after the first bailout by Bush.  Why no large protests then?  

Would love if she ran for president but I doubt it will happen.  Since I don't think she actually wants to be president.  The best people for the job rarely enter the race.

Are you talking about my Warren 2016 comment? If so, then yeah I doubt she'll run. Not that she could win, she's just too nice I think. Which is a damn shame.

Honestly this type of things take a while to gain momentum (just like elections.) It was quite obvious that the Tea Party was just as much a response to the moderate Republicans as it was to the Democrats. Especially if you frequented the rhetoric found within the group. The Republicans backlashed and now we have the schism in the Republican party which separates along the boundaries of conservatives, libertarians, and moderates (with overlap.) 

The IMF is a corupt and inefective organization that's priase should be looked at more like a form of condemnation. Australia's economy was naturally more protected from the GFC to begin with and wasting ten's of billions of dollars only left us with a huge deficit.

Low interest rates are a double edged sword given that they often lead to increased housing prices and decrease the returns people have on their savings. Low interest rates also effectively make borrowing cheaper that can often lead to high levels of malinvestment in the long run similar to the Great Depression.

The carbon tax met all the criteria of a tax and calling it an emissions trading scheme was dishonest to begin with. And lets not forget that Julia Gillard went into the election promising not to introduce such a tax.

Work choices benefit people currently working at the expense of the people who want to get into the labor market but cant because the lack of work choices make hiring them a more costly prospect.

Our education system is receiving way to much money currently for what it produces. Making education so cheap will only lead to increased levels of worthless degree's and people wasting their time in the process.

I was not suprised, the midterm elections are a very different animal in terms of voter turnout and the demographics of those who do turn out, and is usually a sort of critique on the administration.  Congress, which has a small fraction of the job approval of the current president, is seldom punnished in a midterm election.  Congressional districts are so gerymandered that the Republicans can win a house majority with less than 50% of the vote (when you exclude the small percentage of votes that go to the minor parties such as the Libertarians).  When they have a slight lead in public opinion prior to a midterm, they win big.

As a card carrying social democrat (in Canada that is the New Democratic Party) or socialist, I don't find either name derogatory, I can assure you from this end of the political spectrum Obama is anything but a socialist.  He is even on the American political spectrum a fairly centrist figure in terms of policy.  There are much more left wing factions of the American Democratic Party (I liked Kucinich more than Obama when he was running for nomination, in the grand political scheme not overly left but definately towards the progressive side of the party).

Left and right only define a few aspects of the political spectrum, a better model is the political compass http://www.politicalcompass.org/ which lets you see where you stand on both economic and social issues.  You can use the tool to see where you stand relative to candidates and parties.  For the record I am at a -9 in both axis (so very left and very socially libertarian.  Obama is somewhere around a 5,5 or fairly right leaning and fairly authoritarian.  It is not the only tool out there but a very useful one and much more useful than simple left right labels.  Political parties also change position over long periods of time, the GOP of today is very different from the GOP of Lincon on the scale.

When will Americans (en masse) move to the political center? Not in my lifetime.

You keep saying "deficit spending". Are you confusing federal spending with the deficit, perhaps?

Here's some data on the deficit per year: http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php - you'll notice that the deficit was over $1.4 trillion in FY2009, dropped to just under $1.3 trillion for FY2010 and FY2011, then down to $1.1 trillion for FY2012, then $680 billion for FY2013, and $492 billion for FY2014.

Regarding jobs, you keep moving the goalposts. First you claimed that the statistics were wrong because of how they were measured (that it was about the statistic not counting people who aren't actively looking for work). Now you're arguing that it's the percentage participation... except, percentage participation being lower can be a good thing - it can mean that fewer people *need* to work (thanks to not needing a job to retain health care, not having to have both parents in a family working, etc). Note that "labour force participation" counts the people looking for work (and is thus counted the same way as "unemployment rate"), so what you've basically done is shown that the statistic of 1.5 million more people being "long-term unemployed" is applicable - indeed, the drop has been somewhere in the 1-2% range, which is consistent with 1.5 million.

On healthcare, most people are dissatisfied with "Obamacare". But when asked about individual parts of the law, almost all of the parts are seen favourably. This is politics vs policy - the policy of the ACA is positively seen, but it's seen negative politically.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/31/five-things-polling-tells-us-about-obamacare/

You say the "dollar is worth less"... yes, that's called inflation, and is usually considered healthy if it's 2-3% per year. Or are you talking international exchange rates, which depend on how other countries are doing? In which case, which countries are you comparing against?

And you're right that there are problems - the increasing wealth of the uber-rich is certainly an issue. But that's an issue that the US has had for quite some time, and cannot be blamed on Obama (although not enough has been done to address it, it's worth noting that Obama tried to have the tax system fixed to better benefit the low-income earners and more heavily tax the high-income earners, for instance).

I find it particularly funny that you list "More americans are choosing not to work than ever before" as a negative. If they were having trouble finding work, I'd call that a negative... but you said their "choosing" not to work was a negative. Considering that not only does this take pressure off the jobs market, but also is indicative of a system that is more stable, I'm not sure how you can consider it a negative.

Power is being overly concentrated. And you can blame the Citizen's United decision, among others, for that. And good regulation isn't just beneficial, it's also necessary. Anybody who asserts that more regulation is necessarily a bad thing is an idiot. Lack of regulation is why Chernobyl happened, and why Fukushima happened. Regulation is what made it so that smog is infrequent at worst in places like New York, why Acid Rain is far less common than it used to be. Removal of regulation (Glass Steagall) was to thank for the Global Financial Crisis. Basically, regulation is to the corporate world what civil laws are to individuals - they're there to make things better, to make sure that selfish behaviour that harms others isn't rewarded.

Don't get me wrong at all - there are flaws when it comes to Obama. Like I said, he'd be considered right-wing by most in the world. "Obamacare" is far inferior to what most other developed nations have in terms of healthcare, and it shows... and Obamacare is more like a minor tweak of the current system than a serious attempt to learn from how other countries (like Japan, Australia, the UK, Switzerland, etc) run their health systems. Take Australia for example - we have a robust public healthcare system with bulk billing ("Single payer"), and then we have a robust private healthcare system on top of that. It's not perfect, but Australians rarely end up bankrupt due to contracting an illness or getting cancer. In 2009-2010, US spent 17.4% of GDP on healthcare. Australia spent 9.4%. The US government spends 8.3% of GDP, it's 6.4% for the Australian government (which means that, in the US, more than half of all healthcare costs are covered by individuals and private companies, whereas in Australia, more than two thirds is covered by the government... and still, the government pays less). Per capita, Australia spends $3800 (PPP), while the US spends $8500.

Obama has also failed to act properly on the issue of climate change. And he certainly hasn't done enough to deal with US inequity. I could list off quite a few failings... but politics isn't about the overall picture, it's about the case you make. The Democrats should have run a strong campaign on their successes, but instead chose to play on the field defined by the Republicans, which focused on the failures (but not the ones that Republicans would do even worse on, like inequality). As has been so frequently pointed out, the current congress has record-low approval ratings, with most people complaining about their "gridlock"... and so, they voted for the people who are causing it, in greater numbers. And it happened because the Democrats didn't sell the country on the idea that voting for them was voting to actually get the country moving again, for fixing (and not repealing) the ACA, for dealing with the greatest problems of the time, etc.

I dont have time to go through the whole post, i work a lot, but I will do as much as I can

For the deficit, federal spending is the deficit.  OUr deficit is what we come up short every year in our budget. our debt is cumulation of each years deficit. going from your link you can see that starting with obama the deficit increased greatly. Before him we never had a over 1,000 billion dollar defecit in 1 year. he had it for 4 years before it dropped back to 680 and 492 billion. It was a massive increase in over spending.  So that is increased spending, and the deficit is still at higher levels. I dont even want to know what our ttotal debt is at.

Dont know how I have moved the goal post. Less americans are working as a % of the popoulation. That is not a good thing. Its also not a good thing that people have given up looking for work. The average age of workers at my restaurant has jumped from 16-18 to 20-25. That is not good. That means these college kids cant find better jobs, and highscool kids can not find a job at all. People over here are not counted as unemployed unless they look for work. They dont look for work if they cant find it or if they aren't forced too by the unemployment board (to receive benifits youm ust show that you are looking for work) Benefits stop after 2 years. So what has happened is that people who have been unemloyed for 2 or more years are no longer counted because they tend to stop looking for work. So it is not a good thing. On top of that you have stagnant wages. People who get a job or have a job are not seeing wage increases.

On inflation I am mainly talking about the staples of life, food, and energy. Besides gas  everything is up for us. Dairy is at an all time high, beef an all time high, chicken, etc.

Its hard to get accurate inflation numbers here as the CPI by the government is no longer acceptaple and accurate. I will link some articles that talk about it and what real inflation is close to. I know that my gocery bill is higher, and my energy costs are higher, so is my waste and every bill I pay for entertainment. I think even redbox raised their rates.

http://business.time.com/2013/03/12/if-theres-no-inflation-why-are-prices-up-so-much/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42551209

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/24/U-S-Food-Inflation-Running-at-22

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/retailers-flat-wages_n_5983748.html

So we are coupled with lower wages, and higher costs, that is not an economic recovery. that is limping along.

I wont talk about health care too much. It was messed up before obama care, and obama care did not fix any of the underlying problems so costs will not go down. The underlying problems cant be fixed with obama care in place. the entire system need redoing and i doubt either party will ever do it. The problems with health care started when they started over regulating health insurance and placing resrictions on where you could buy it (before my time, i was not old enough back then). So i cant really blame obama care for it, but it sure isnt going to fix it either. If you are not sure what i mean by over regultion of the health insurance let me know and i will try to find info. I believe it starteed in the 80's not sure with out looking it up.

Democrats did not run with any sort of unified message or cohesion. Republicans basically said we're not Obama. Most of the votes that propelled the Democrats to victory just don't show up for mid-term elections without a presidential ballot to decide.

What irks me is that the Republicans did absolutely NOTHING the last few years but jam things up in the Senate and Congress including suing the president and their stupid gamble to de-fund Obamacare which led to a stupid government shutdown. Democrats should have absolutely blasted this point home ad nauseum but they put up zero fight.

It irks me that the Republicans were rewarded for causing the dysfunction all Americans claim to be fed up with in Washington. Congress's approval ratings were even more dire than Obama's yet the Republicans increased their gains in the House.

Well at least I escaped most of the political new bullcrap seeing as I am living overseas now.

The shutdown and "no" tactics was a long-term advantage to the Republicans, in my opinion. One needs to remember who they're *supposed* to appeal to: small government conservatives and some libertarians. In the eyes of these groups a dysfunctional government is better than an overeaching government, and if the Republicans can prevent Democrats from making an overeaching government even more possible, that is a bonus. I, personally, am a more extreme libertarian and my sentiment (along with other libertarians) when the government "shutdown" was "good, maybe people will realize how little difference there would be without government in the areas it shutdown. " We didn't get caught up in the media hysteria or hype. I'm sure the more right-winged of Republicans would've felt the same. It was only the moderate and established republicans that had a concern with it (Boehner vs. Tea Party, in example.) The only thing the Democrats could've done with this would be to rustle up their voter base to have higher turnout rates, but the people who turnout only during the presidential elections, honestly - don't care about politics in the grand scheme. Meanwhile the Republicans on the otherhand gained reputation with the far economic right with how it handled the perceiving overreaches by the centrists and leftists (economic.) The Republican party is becoming increasingly libertarian, and for that reason you are going to keep seeing a "no" answer to more power in centralized organizations.