hmmm... He sent the combat team that killed Osama. He told congress to spend a lot of money on temporary jobs. He still hasn't repealed the PATRIOT act. We're not out of the Mid East yet. My guess is that in the future, he won't be known for much other than being the first African American President.
Obama has a good time at the start of his President time. But now it is going slowly downhill! Bush topped early. But Obama can maybe be a better President (of the USA, lol) than Bush!
Obama has a good time at the start of his President time. But now it is going slowly downhill! Bush topped early. But Obama can maybe be a better President (of the USA, lol) than Bush!
All the early euphoria right?
But it's pretty unfair to judge him, since the situation he inherited from Bush was really bad.
Obama single handily killed Osama with his own fists.
In all seriousness, I haven't seen much happen except the Republicans trying to stop anything from happening. Complain about him all you want but he doesn't have absolute rule to do what he wants.
I used to think Bush was a horrible president... that is until Obama came into office. He really hasn't done much of anything for America except screw us over even more. What politicians don't get is that when you're so far in debt (appx. 68.5% now), you CAN'T spend more money. I especially hate his socialist agenda/ Robin Hood Idealism. He taxes the rich people (who worked hard and tried to get where they are today) and gives to the poor (don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the poor in general, most of them are very nice. However, this class includes all the illegal immigrants, slackers who never paid attention in school, abusers of unemployment benefits, and so on)
I used to think Bush was a horrible president... that is until Obama came into office. He really hasn't done much of anything for America except screw us over even more. What politicians don't get is that when you're so far in debt (appx. 68.5% now), you CAN'T spend more money
It's called Keynesian theory. It means that the government increases it's expenditure (G) to make up for loss in consumption by the people (C). Why is this the case?
Because Aggregate Demand (AD), i.e the total amount of spending in an economy is made up of C + I (Investment) + G - (X-M) (Exports - imports.) If the people don't consume enough, then it's up to G to spend more in order to shift the AD curve back to its original position. In theory this will work, but it doesn't due to many reasons, like time lag, or imperfect information (which means he can't ascertain everything, it's an econs term).
You can't blame him. The support for government intervention has waxed and waned over the years; We've just came out of a period where it was deemed unfashionable, especially due to the influence of people like Friedman. We're moving back to the Keynesian realm now.
@Joe96 I'm not a fan of Obama for the same reason. That, and the fact that he simply tries to shift the blame to anyone who disagrees with him, but what president hasn't done that? Although he can't directly change taxes and stuff like that, he can rewrite (or have someone else rewrite) the bill to make both sides happy. Bush's main economic problem was that he promised not to raise taxes and kept that promise even though it added a lot to the debt. A lot of people blame him for the War on Terror, but joining the military is voluntary and bringing the fight to them was very popular (80% I think) at the time because everyone was hotheaded from 9/11.
Communism works perfectly fine. None of the so called Communist states have ever put in much effort in achieving it. Also, what's the use of comparing these completely different theories to slam Keynes? It's like comparing an apple with a durian.
