Personally, I was rather unhappy about Obama winning the election. Despite his lackluster and rather anticlimatical results from his last term, he is an exceptional speaker. This seems to have made him win...
Before we start, I would like to say that the political system of the United States is broken; instead of the best person being elected, the only way to win and disseminate information is to spend money... a lot of it.
@ SSTG You often cite Romney as spending a lot of money and having "rich buddies", but you fail to consider that while Romney may have more financial industry friends and has raised more money than Obama, Obama clearly has spent a lot more money than Romney has. The figure that Obama has spent is quite a bit more than the "richer" Romney. Care to shed some light on your views?
See this NY times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/politics/obama-spends-the-most-in-june-but-romney-raises-more.html
While I do agree with Obama on some views, gay rights, hopefully job creation, and some other issues, there is full disagreement on the Universal Health Care issue. Here is a couple tidbits on how he thinks this will work out.
http://www.barackobama.com/health-care
We americans sometimes are wary about the government and this belief is justified over history. After all, the government can do some crazy things...
Obama makes universal health care sounds like a great thing. In a way it is, people who couldn't afford health care before can and nobody will go with inept care. Isn't that what every nation wants? Let think about this economically. Economics is, all in all, the allocation of scarce resources.
It takes several things for granted, especially in a Laissez-faire economy.
1. People want the best for themselves.
2. In doing so they inadvertently impose costs on others.
This system gives individuals incentives to do well; if you start a successful business, you will do well. Unfortunately, universal health care IS going to pass down costs onto doctors causing a subsequent lowering in wages. Folling our assumptions, now that doctors will be paid less to do their procedures what will happen? Inevitably, they will lower their standards. A possible way is to spend less time? Another is to "save costs" by giving less quality care for the patient. If you are wondering, this isn't hypothetical.
See link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/09/26/doctor-and-ama-split-over-contentious-issue-of-obamacare/
-Doctors will have to increase load.
-Costs will be passed onto patients.
Something tells me that this isn't going to work? Also, this money will be coming from YOUR pocket, taxpayer money. Where else can we get money from?
Second, the raising taxes on the 1% possibly isn't such a good idea. At first, this may sound like a nice idea to get easy money. What they fail to take into account is that this 1% has much more financial mobility than others of lower socioeconomic status and also have ways to evade thse taxes. Unlike the average american, they generally have a better financial literacy. By making the terrain more hostile for these people aren't we encouraging them to move? Also, this 1% usually isn't part of that 1% for no reason at all. Simply, they drive our economy. They aren't just some lazy people who randomly get money, they develop business models to run our economy...this is how our economy is the embodiement of capitalism. Yes, they may have recently trashed it, but that problem once again was caused by the government. (a story for another time)
The last thing that we americans are lacking is education.
Personally, I was rather unhappy about Obama winning the election. Despite his lackluster and rather anticlimatical results from his last term, he is an exceptional speaker. This seems to have made him win...
Before we start, I would like to say that the political system of the United States is broken; instead of the best person being elected, the only way to win and disseminate information is to spend money... a lot of it.
@ SSTG You often cite Romney as spending a lot of money and having "rich buddies", but you fail to consider that while Romney may have more financial industry friends and has raised more money than Obama, Obama clearly has spent a lot more money than Romney has. The figure that Obama has spent is quite a bit more than the "richer" Romney. Care to shed some light on your views?
See this NY times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/politics/obama-spends-the-most-in-june-but-romney-raises-more.html
While I do agree with Obama on some views, gay rights, hopefully job creation, and some other issues, there is full disagreement on the Universal Health Care issue. Here is a couple tidbits on how he thinks this will work out.
http://www.barackobama.com/health-care
We americans sometimes are wary about the government and this belief is justified over history. After all, the government can do some crazy things...
Obama makes universal health care sounds like a great thing. In a way it is, people who couldn't afford health care before can and nobody will go with inept care. Isn't that what every nation wants? Let think about this economically. Economics is, all in all, the allocation of scarce resources.
It takes several things for granted, especially in a Laissez-faire economy.
1. People want the best for themselves.
2. In doing so they inadvertently impose costs on others.
This system gives individuals incentives to do well; if you start a successful business, you will do well. Unfortunately, universal health care IS going to pass down costs onto doctors causing a subsequent lowering in wages. Folling our assumptions, now that doctors will be paid less to do their procedures what will happen? Inevitably, they will lower their standards. A possible way is to spend less time? Another is to "save costs" by giving less quality care for the patient. If you are wondering, this isn't hypothetical.
See link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/09/26/doctor-and-ama-split-over-contentious-issue-of-obamacare/
-Doctors will have to increase load.
-Costs will be passed onto patients.
Something tells me that this isn't going to work? Also, this money will be coming from YOUR pocket, taxpayer money. Where else can we get money from?
Second, the raising taxes on the 1% possibly isn't such a good idea. At first, this may sound like a nice idea to get easy money. What they fail to take into account is that this 1% has much more financial mobility than others of lower socioeconomic status and also have ways to evade thse taxes. Unlike the average american, they generally have a better financial literacy. By making the terrain more hostile for these people aren't we encouraging them to move? Also, this 1% usually isn't part of that 1% for no reason at all. Simply, they drive our economy.
The last point that we need to cover is education. Not only is the education of students degrading greatly, the teacher education isn't that great either.
A friend of mine, a couple years back, had a teacher that said "Bird migrate because they are cold-blooded." Seriously? Not only this, but also "Venus flytraps live in Africa and will develop normal leaves if grown in regular soil."
Well, these live in North Carolina...and they die if put in normal soil. Honestly, if the teacher is comfortable making assumptions, such as these, while teaching, what else do they make up? These days education is too expensive and teachers are overworked.
Another depressing article about american financial literacy:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-dont-understand-investing-basics-2012-09-04?link=MW_story_popular
Last, for all of those who believe in less pay for top executives and using unions to better labor conditions/wages, consider this. By paying the workers more, your little supply curve will shift inward. Fewer goods will be produced at every possible price. When the supply curve shifts inward, quanity decreases and price increases. This makes our product uncompetitive and this cost is passed back to the consumers (workers spending their wages). So basically, our products become less competitive and the cost of paying adds out to have zero benefit.
Honestly, the current state of the government is in a terrible shape and none of the candidates have a reliable way to fix it. Honestly, Romney seems to be the lesser of two evils.
Note: My grammar may not be so great. Currently it is quite late where I live.
-fiss
