You do realize that what happened during bush's presidency came very close to causing a major depression, right? Do you have any idea how hard it is to come back from that?
So? Obama isn't doing anything to fix the problem. Bush spent a lot of money, Obama believes he can spend his way out of this debt. If we replaced Obama with Bush, and Bush spent his way out of debt, everyone would be mad at Bush because he hasn't changed a bit.
That's right, Barack Bush has been president and still is.
Obama is making a temporary fix to the economy, but in the future we will have to pay these debts off and Obama will be long gone by then. Remember, the government uses our money, and we are now slaves to Obama's crazy spending. Us and our children will have to work to pay off these debts. In the long run, Obama has caused more harm.
I will admit that obama has his flaws but hes better than some dumb*** republican
Entitlement programs suck, both Bush and Obama created them (as well as many other presidents). Democrats are a bigger threat to the economy than republicans while republicans are a bigger threat to personal freedoms. Well, there barely is a difference between the two anymore. So really, it's unfair to say one is better than the other.
Oops that was a mess up i accidentely pressed the wrong... ah whatever.
The time it takes congress to pass the laws is because the senate has a democratic majority and the house has a republican. Or vice versa, I dont know. This happened because George Bush ruined the economy and Barrack Obama has so far made it better, but not to much better because Bush messed it up SO much.
So the Republicans capatalized and blamed it all on Obama so they could get the majority and disagree on every bill that makes the rich people have to pay more.
So the Republicans capatalized and blamed it all on Obama so they could get the majority and disagree on every bill that makes the rich people have to pay more.
I don't understand why it's socially acceptable to take from anyone, including the rich.
Anyway, we shouldn't depend on the rich. We should let the rich have their money and we should pay our own way. Since we don't have as much money to pay with, companies will have to lower their prices just for us!
Bush hurt the economy, but Obama is making temporary fixes that will harm us even more in the future. Let's ignore the fact that Bush got us into an unnecessary war. When you compare Bush and Obama, they aren't very different at all when you compare their policies.
I don't understand why it's socially acceptable to take from anyone, including the rich.
The republicans aren't taking from the rich, and thats the problem. They are just taxing the poor and making the poorer and giving the rich people tax breaks and just making them richer.
When buying shoes, quickstrikes are the best. They announce their release a week before they come out, and then they are only out on the market for one year. Towards the end of the year, the price of the shoes may drop from $100, to $30. After another year however, if you have those quickstrikes in deadstock to very nearly deadstock condition, the price will almost immediately go up to $200 for those shoes.
Not such a good analogy, but what I am saying is is that before the recession gets better, it gets worse.
Now, Obama really has only passed two pieces of legislation. I don't think we can pin him to causing it, or making it worse. Obama will pass any law that is given to him. All he needs is that bill. For some reason, even though the Democrats held the majority, they still had trouble signing it. I don't think Obama would have any problem with it as long as they keep about half of what he wanted, and it did. He is moving towards the center, in terms of political stance, so he really is semi-everything.
Congress just needs to give him a bill to sign. So far, he has only had two. Healthcare and the economic stimulus plan.
It is hard to sign anything in the early parts of presidency, and Obama has done very well. Now that the republlicans are coming back, no one wins. Obama is doing all that he can and i think e is doing well.
The republicans aren't taking from the rich, and thats the problem. They are just taxing the poor and making the poorer and giving the rich people tax breaks and just making them richer.
You sounded socialist, just so you know. I disagree with taxing the heck out of the poor... they need their money. While it might seem like a good idea at the time, making the population look richer, it actually ends up worse. But I don't agree with taxing the rich more. At least, excessively more so the rich and poor end up with near the same amount of money. If you don't tax hard, then the poor should do well (if they actually work) and the rich should be rich. That's the fail of socialism. While it might look nice, you have hard working people earning near the same as people sitting around playing video games all day. So if the poor actually work hard to make more money and the rich also work hard to keep their pay, it works out. There's more competition and people who act like they fail will fail. It's a better society overall.
They are just taxing the poor and making the poorer and giving the rich people tax breaks and just making them richer.
Sorry, but you DO sound like a communist. Or a socialist, at any rate.
Who are the rich in America? Business owners. Its quite simple, really. When the rich are given tax cuts, they have more money. Which means, more money to invest in their business and hire more people.
Hireing more people means more getting payed. They have more money, and spend it. This causes the economy to get better. More people in jobs, is more people off the streets, and crime rates go down. When we tax the rich, they loose the incentive to make money. 'Whats the point? It'll just get taxed, and I'll loose it all.' Do this too often, and the rich might just up and leave.
You also seem to have a misunderstanding of how the tax system works in the US, and how the rich recieve tax benefits. Barstool Economics:
Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics University of Georgia
Obama is doing all that he can and i think e is doing well.
So if adding 2.7 TRILLION USD to our debt is good, I don't want to know what you think a 'great job' is.
I don't think he is doing a great job. It is not smart to add to a deficit. You have to wish the man luck and hopefully he will do something good before the next election.
Obama is making a temporary fix to the economy, but in the future we will have to pay these debts off and Obama will be long gone by then. Remember, the government uses our money, and we are now slaves to Obama's crazy spending. Us and our children will have to work to pay off these debts. In the long run, Obama has caused more harm.
What you don't understand is that we needed a short term(temporary) fix to keep the economy alive in some way. The problem shows up when congress acts stupid and no one does anything for the long term.
Well, you could make the case that income taxes are more close to "theft" than a sales tax, so your statement does not necessarily follow. I believe that taxation cannot be attacked in the "moral" sense, but rather it is better to attack it in the utilitarian sense.
Not such a good analogy, but what I am saying is is that before the recession gets better, it gets worse.
Look - a good analogy actually is analogous - yours seems to have no logical connection other than the price fluctuating.
I could just as easily say, on a bell curve there are two extremes on either side, where things are low, and in the middle, most of the stuff lies there. We know that bell curves have many applications. This can be applied to the economy as well - our economy will keep getting better and better until a certain point, and then it will get worse and worse until it reaches 0.
