| thranx said: Dont know what numbers you are reading for deficit spending. can you share them? The ones i have seen only show an increase under Obama. Of course there more jobs, we are a growing country through birth and immigration, as a % though less americans are working now. Health care is a hard one to judge. But most people seem disatified with it. What I see is a dollar that is worth less now. Jobs that are down in wages. Americnas are making less money as individuals than before. More americans are choosing not to work than ever before. We have a business climate that is seeing less compition in bussines since there a fewer businesses. We have more power and more money concentrated into fewer people than before (the opposite of what should be happening and of what Obama preached) More regultion. And Obama shining spot, the fact that the rest of the world loved and believed in is gone, he has been horrible for world peace and stabilaziton. |
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.
