How can you still support Obama?

I don't even understand the logic of Bush caused everything

Deficit -


Bush second term (in billions)
455+162+248+319= 1,184
Obama First Year (in billions)
$1,417

source : http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-9-09mbr.pdf

Employment -

Employment rate is still dropping nearly 4 years under 65.5%

source : http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Gas Prices -

2009 Jan $1.74
2012 October $3.87

3.87/1.74= 2.22413793

2.2 Times the price for Oil
You know not only is the price you pay to get to work costing you big bucks but you know higher oil cost = higher shipping goods cost = you are paying more money.

Full History of Gas Prices
Source: http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/xls/pswrgvwall.xls

What exactly has improved?

National Debt -

Obama adds in 1 Term more then Bush in 2 terms

6 Trillion (2000)
10 Trillion (2008)
16 Trillion (2012)

Source 2012 : http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Source 2008 : http://www.usdebtclock.org/2008.html
Source 2000 : http://www.usdebtclock.org/2000.html


Food Stamps
2009: 32.2 million people enrolled
Now: 46.2 million people enrolled
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-to-record-46-7-million-in-june-u-s-says.html

Median Household Income
2009: $54,983
Now: $50,964
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/09/02/obamas-accelerating-downward-spiral-for-america/

Promised to Repeal DOMA
Promised to half deficit (tripled it)
Promised to fix economy in 1 term (Crippled it worse)
Promised to Close Guantamo (increases budget)
Promised to pull out of Afghanistan (We are still sending troops over right now)
Promised to Repeal bush tax cuts (They weren't an issue he blamed them for Economy though)
Promised not to raise taxes for under 250,000
Resigned patriot act and Signed the NDAA.

Obama - “Im not gonna make any excuses”
Then he blames Bush for everything.


I want results not excuses.

 

Because you don't support him, mostly <3

 

You do realize unemployment has everything to do with the decisions made by the businesses in corporate America, and almost nothing to do with the president itself?

The president can only do so much to facilitate jobs for Americans, he isn't some magical fairy.

 

1) It does with everything killing the US dollar like the stimulus, war spending, ObamaCare all these are ruining us companies. Increasing taxes on corporations sends them overseas. The president has alot of pull he is not the only thing he is a big thing.

Obama extending Afghanistan & sending in drones to attack civilians in Yamen cost money the more debt we have the less the dollar is worth. The less the dollar is worth the less we can trade to other countries.

2) The best thing a president can do is step away. Government subsidies and socialism are the reason for the collapse the president is very responsible for issues with providing safety nets and picking winners & losers with corporations. When we provide safety nets banks will take risks. When we take away those safety nets they will not gamble.

 

Well first I'd like to point the clear contradiction of your signature out. It makes no sense to support a political party and claim any sort of anarchistic connection. The two are polar opposites, at least claim minarchism so it would make sense. By propagating the state you are no closer to eliminating it and establishing a complete laissez faire capitalism which is the ultimate goal of an anarcho-capitalist

Then point you to this thread where this has already been highly discussed and all of your points addressed numerous times:
www.sythe.org/something-all/1471102-obama-romney.html

 

Wrong, companies go over seas for cheaper labor.

Unfortunately that seems to backfire somewhat since cheaper labor also means less skilled (in general).

 

Yes, and decisions by businesses in corporate America are largely determined by the actions of the government (policies and whatnot), which is where the president comes in.

Also, you are only focusing on the demand side of unemployment (from businesses), and neglecting the supply side (the labour). Funnily enough, the government also affects this side! By creating incentives for labour NOT to work, such as welfare, some people will choose not to work, no matter what businesses decisions may be, which are already affected by minimum wage laws, and so on.

The labour market is so regulated, and to say that the president can't fix it is ridiculous. I don't know why governments still think that policies that make it more difficult to employ people, or less attractive to seek work will somehow boost employment. Hopefully you can grasp how serious government intervention is in perpetuating the problem of unemployment, if you can't, then imagine minimum wage being $10,000 per hour, or welfare being $5000 per week (the same can be said for what it is now, although on a lesser scale). You would get no employment, and you would also get a diversion of business investing away from labour intensive sources of production, towards capital intensive sources of production.

 

I support free market with little/no government interference anarcho-capitalism is just saying I am an anarchist I hate government it is just what I believe for my economy.

I am pretty much a Libertarian Conservative like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul. Being a Tea Party Conservative is about small governments and deregulation it is very similar to libertarianism.

 

I know this seems stupid, but then why was he voted in?

Seems like your taking the typical "anti-Obama" approach.

 

He was voted in because the people spoke, obviously both parties are comming to decisions for the better of the people. Maybe if people gave a bit more and some worked a bit harder and we actually cared about each other the economy would be a bot better.

 

1) Voter fraud
2) 50% increase to food stamps & 50% increase on disability claims (due to being jobless)
3) Racism
4) Media Malpractice

1. Millions of votes are from illegal immigrants or fictious people republicans caught on to this and tried to pass voter ID laws (require ID to vote) but liberals said it was a racist attempt at voter suppression so white guilt didn't let them pass those laws.

2. People on welfare always vote liberal this is not opinion it is shown in demographics.

3. White guilt & racism make people vote Obama just due to the fact he was black.

4. 80% of the media has a strong liberal bias and makes many lies and choses what to cover.

Herman Cain & Ron Paul never get coverage Herman was going to be the president but liberals saw him as a threat and bribed an ex whore to make up false allegations against him and ruin his political career.

 

Obama won because the other guy was pro-Rich, which is ridiculous. This quote was what got me "No one aspires to be poor, we all want to be rich, so why should we be penilized for that?" (something along those lines more or less).
After hearing that he was done for me. Thats just arogant and stupid to say as majority of americans are NOT rich. I found a statistic from 2011 saying 9% of americans are millionairs.

 

Can you post examples then?

Could you post how many Americans are actually exploiting welfare in an attempt to avoid work? Is it really that significant?

What part of regulation affects business and jobs to such a degree in recent years?

 

The president does not control gas prices, employment rates, or median household income. Have things gotten worse during Obama's time in office? Yes. But you're overlooking key events with origins during the Bush era. Housing bubble caused by reckless attitudes of banks and lenders led to a pop during Obama's time. Did he cause that? No. I'm not saying bush did either, but the point you're trying to make about Obama causing unemployment and lowering household income is like saying Bush caused 9/11 simply because it happened while he was in office. Point to some decisions that Obama did that actually directly caused these events to happen

 

1) You don't even need examples just think logically incentives to stay vs tax increases. When government increases taxes it loses jobs oversea's. But here.

Example the most capitalistic country in the world is Switzerland they have very low taxes, free market and everything is amazing they get so much money from foreign investments due to low taxation

2) The fact it increases 50% in 4 years kinda proves its abuse.

3) Regulations allow government to pick winners and losers and create monopolies

 

No it doesn't.

This just proves you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. The only time this ever occurs is for stuff like power and water distributions.
And that's not even on a federal level, that's STATE level.

 

Every single law which affects businesses. Here's a small list, and hope you understand how they factor in to business decision since they affect cost factors.

1. Minimum wage
2. Taxation
3. Obamacare (increases costs to employers)
4. Compulsory Super (increases costs to employers)
5. Numerous regulations (increasing costs to businesses)

Actually, I'll just drill the minimum wage one very simply. It's a price floor. There is disequilibrium. You will ALWAYS have unemployment with a price floor because the market will ALWAYS be in disequilibrium. Why you may ask? Because the wage rate of labour is too high for businesses forcing them to divert their spending away from labour methods of production thereby resulting in unemployment, towards capital methods of production. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, technology does that itself, but it's origin is artificial, it does not help the productive capacity of the economy, it is merely a cost motivated decision.

This is simple economics here.

Let's look at taxation. Taxation forces companies to keep records in situations they may otherwise not. This wastes a companies time, which results in a decrease in profit. Furthermore, since book keeping itself is largely unproductive, it does not add to the productive capacity of an economy anymore than a homeless person would, resulting in a waste of labour. In addition, taxation itself affects companies cost factors, and since private enterprise is the wealth generator of all economies (government simply does not generate wealth), it reduces the potential for a greater capacity of wealth to be generated.

Need I go on? Other miscellaneous regulations means companies must abide by these codes, and will hire people to ensure they are followed. This in itself is largely unproductive. How does this contribute to unemployment? Companies have less capital for which to expand and hire labour, it's that simple. Furthermore, there is a large opportunity cost here that no one talks about. By regulating something, you are preventing the possibility of people spontaneously creating businesses which generate employment. For example. If let's say everyone NEEDED to register at Government XYZ in order to sell goods or services otherwise risk a fine, guess what, there would be less goods and services sold - self-employment also reduces unemployment, and businesses of any size will typically employ someone. In addition, the byproduct of this regulation means only a few businesses will emerge, and they will largely be big corporations. This results moves the soverignty of the market away from the consumer and towards the corporation (an excellent spot for corruption in our modern economy might I add). A perfect example of this is in Australia, where the recent deregulation of our financial markets resulted in the emergence of more lending institutions to provide competition to the 'Big 4', and this has resulted in an overall better financial market.

I could say more about your Federal Reserve and how inflation affects unemployment by promoting malinvestment, but I won't. Type in Austrian theory of the business cycle if you want.

Don't know, don't care. Your looking at economics the wrong way, statistics only describe something, I'm trying to explain it. By subsidizing something, you promote it's production. In this case, you are subsidizing unemployment, and thus there will be more unemployed people than if there were not.

It really doesn't matter.

Do you agree that unemployment benefits is an incentive not to work (at the very least, a disincentive to pursue work with rigor)? Yes or no. If your answer is yes, then hey presto, there's unemployment for you.

See my post above.

You do realize that rules affect choice right? That's all that is going on here. Think of school. Teacher makes rules, do not do this, do not do that. That in turn affects a child's choice, namely, to not do this or that. The exact same thing is happening to businesses.

 

Apparently a few million people just became "disabled"?

I don't think you understand the difference between quota's and regulations. While yes many limits are on the state level (but not all) that is not what I am talking about. Government gives subsidies and even passes to certain corporations they will create regulations that can specifically hurt one business even if they are not hurting or favoring a certain business but a group of business lets look at ObamaCare for a second.

Forcing everyone to get health insurance while people are forced these insurance companies will be able to charge anything for them as people are forced to buy from them where everyone is able to buy their own insurance they can look around or even decline to buy insurance because of this insurance companies will need to provide you with a reason to buy from them making them much cheaper. Now lets talk about other things.


PBS gets money from the government it is picking PBS to succeed even if PBS was not earning a profit it would still get money from taxes this is picking a clear winner.


I can provide examples all day.


"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -
Ronald Reagan

 

Ok, you've got something against regulation. If we were to deregulate the economy to a point, what point would that be? It's obvious a handsoff approach doesn't work very well, as seen in America's shot at it; so it's pretty clear regulation DOES need to exist to some point.

Whether or not it is an actual issue big enough to really affect things is important. If you can't go beyond a possibility then your argument is shit.

Maybe, can you prove otherwise?

 

It should be slowly deregulated until there is no more regulation. Don't get my wrong, I'm not saying we should throw out the rule book, we need rules, but we do not need them to be enforced at gunpoint (laws), we need them to be voluntary. The lex mercatoria is a perfect example of how an unhampered market economy can attempt to regulate itself.

America's shot at it? Regulation can either come about spontaneously or artificially, spontaneously being no government intervention and arising out of mutual agreement, and artificial being a government enforcing their opinion over a geographical location. The problem with the latter is that it will be relatively more unproductive. Why? Because not everyone will agree with the regulation. You don't have harmony, and actors will not function most productively if they are being forced to do so. It's that simple. Force a kid to take piano lessons, and he will never be as good as the kid who wants to take piano lessons (all else equal).

It's actually a pretty big issue. There are millions of people worldwide that purposefully do not work due to welfare. The money spent on these welfare recipients is an unproductive waste of money, and the opportunity cost for this is capital expansion which would otherwise increase productivity. In addition, since these people would have otherwise looked for employment if there was no welfare, they are reducing the productivity capacity of the global economy (GDP gap). Overall this affects economic growth and productivity, which affects our standard of living. It's a pretty big problem if you ask me,but you're right, it's not that big, considering we have huge unemployment, never-ending inflation, poverty, financial crisis across the world, international tensions, global warming, a reduction in the middle class, my God, what has the government done to our world?