Obama wins re-election

[tcaudilllg]

Obama had to deliver tonight, and he did. I'm projecting Dem takeovers of the House and Senate, and a re-election of this president by a margin roughly similar to his victory over McCain.

[krieger]

it's pretty uncommon for presidents to get re-elected in economically dire times. i hate to be quoting Prechter on anything but this vid argues the point pretty well:



this being said, the stock market is *technically* rising... and if Buffett ends up scoring another one a turnup of the economy could still be in the cards.

[DirectorAbbie]

Obama had to deliver tonight, and he did. I'm projecting Dem takeovers of the House and Senate, and a re-election of this president by a margin roughly similar to his victory over McCain.

No! I'd rather have you than him!

[krieger]

careful what you wish for.

[sar]

Obama's done. He has about a 40% approval (hit 39% low) at the moment. Historically, if you're at or have less than about 42-3% approval right before elections, you're going to lose...We're about a year away from elections and he's already reached a very shocking low (he came in with around 70+% approval)...If the market continues as it has (and it more than likely will), you could run a 2$ stripper against Obama and it would be a pretty tight race...just sayin'

[Reuben]

Abbie what d'you think of obama?

[EyeSeeCold]

I'm projecting.

[munenori2]

Interesting proposal, but who knows if it will go anywhere. My prediction? Probably some BS will happen.

[stevENTj]

Obama "delivered" what? A good speech? How bout some actual results which is what most Americans are looking for, which Obama and the Dems have still failed to deliver. Unemployment still above 9%. The only good news for the left now is that Americans generally distrust the Republicans about as much as the Dems. So basically they hate both parties, so it's just a question of who they hate and distrust more at the moment.

[Reuben]

Unemployment is the government's fault? Go out and find a job, above 9% of lazybones.

[stevENTj]

Unemployment is the government's fault? Go out and find a job, above 9% of lazybones.

Whose fault do you think it is? And are you really in Singapore or are you just saying that for fun? (I never know if the stuff people put there is serious or not, sorry)

[FDG]

Well Reuben is right in a way, government are often rather powerless even though they're the only ones that can be held accountable. Unless govt tries to use defict spending to create new jobs, but that's not a popular measure anywhere. Although not everyone is cut to be an entrepreneur or a self-employed person, so you can't just tell them to start earning money by selling somethning they produce.

[Reuben]

@steveENTJ

haha yes I'm really from Singapore. But seriously, go out and just find a job. Everybody is a potential employer. Particularly those who already own businesses.

edit: not referring to you steve, but I mean, in general people should just go out and look for jobs and stop waiting for their government to pamper them with macro-initiatives that do nothing but foster a general attitude of economic infantilism.

@FDG

I know people who keep saying they can't find a job. I went out last night in hopes of working about 2 hours to earn 10 bucks to spend on my friends, and ended up finding a job as a marketing agent instead. The guy gave me 20 on the spot, not for working, but for wanting to work to benefit the people around me. And then he gave me a job as well, because I sincerely wanted to help him.

You can't find a job? Bull.

And no, it's not easy. I got rejected at least 10 times before I found him.

[stevENTj]

The Obama admin claimed they could fix unemployment if only we gave them trillions of US dollars to blow and that they'd keep things below 7% or whatever it was and that if we didn't it'd be pure catastrophy. Well today they've blown all that money and where is the unemployment rate? Still at 9+%. So yes, this government can certainly be blamed and held accountable on the jobs front. Lousy gov't policy is what got us into this mess, and yet more lousy gov't policy is why we're still not out of it yet.

[mu4]

There needs to be a major reason to have inflation and accompanying wage increase so all past debts and deficits remain a small fraction of new deficits, spending and growth.

This way the currency supply, GDP and other metrics will make debt once again a small % while income and wages keep up with cost of living. However the rich hate this, debt holders hate this, and the middle class are loathed to sacrifice what meager savings they might have as well. The last time the US did anything similar to this was post great-depression with WWII being the major impetus to do this.

Inflation is going to happen, the question is if catastrophic inflation can be prevented. If it occurs without a accompanying raise in wages there will be some serious social problems.

There's already been 2 rounds of quantitative easing and I think there is likely a 3rd round, and there will probably be more in the future.

As far as jobs, as population increase and resource supply dwindle or become unreliable, it's highly unlikely that jobs creation will actually occur. If it did occur it would require a decrease in the standard of living and wages for other people. Inflation without the accompanying wage hike is one of the way this occurs. America's been doing this for a while now, while creating a large wealth disparity.

If groups choose to maintain their standard of living and wages, and exclude new population from job opportunities then the unemployment rate will increase.

One solution is to increase the energy and resource supply(either thru innovation or efficiency enhancement) in order to provide jobs for new population while maintaining the standard of living if not increasing the standard of living for existing population.

The other solution of course is to reduce population which can be unpleasant(in the form of civil and global conflict) or can have other consequences.

[Reuben]

As far as jobs, I think a major part of the work that people is actually to merely sustain the existing population, and as population increase and with a dwindling resource supply, it's highly unlikely that jobs creation will actually occur without a decrease in the standard of living and wages.

False. You are assuming that all jobs created rely on physical, limited supply. Because they don't, which is why job creation is literally infinite, and the more people there is in the world, the more jobs there can be. Service provides value, and value is the real thing that deserves money. Service is a non-physical resource, although it may be closely linked to it in certain fields.

One solution is to increase the energy and resource supply(either thru innovation or efficiency enhancement) in order to provide jobs for new population while maintaining the standard of living if not increasing the standard of living for existing population.

The best way is to reinvent the idea of energy and resource consumption: to provide convert physical energy and resources to forms of energy that have greater net value: satisfaction, joy, harmony, peace, love.

All these can be done by doing service to others. The food you eat and the energy you need to keep the lights on and computers running is going into helping people find what they need, understanding people's problems (data retrieval), finding solutions that addresses these concerns honestly and most efficiently(problem shooting), and then finding the right people/person/resources that can achieve that at the lowest possible cost (sourcing/marketing). These are the things that help convertors of other resources (say manufacturers) require to keep them going at a rate where resources are NOT wasted on making things people don't need, or spent on things consumers themselves don't need. The savings can easily provide for the resources that these people require to be happy.

In fact, all we need to be content are each other and some food.

[mu4]

The Obama admin claimed they could fix unemployment if only we gave them trillions of US dollars to blow and that they'd keep things below 7% or whatever it was and that if we didn't it'd be pure catastrophy. Well today they've blown all that money and where is the unemployment rate? Still at 9+%. So yes, this government can certainly be blamed and held accountable on the jobs front. Lousy gov't policy is what got us into this mess, and yet more lousy gov't policy is why we're still not out of it yet.

Who has a solution? No one currently. All the government can do is ease the populace into a lower/same standard of living future until research, efficiency improvement and innovation gets us out of it.

Lousy policy is believing the fantasy that fiscal austerity will create jobs and promote growth. All it does is create wealth disparity and eventual social conflict.

[mu4]

As far as jobs, I think a major part of the work that people is actually to merely sustain the existing population, and as population increase and with a dwindling resource supply, it's highly unlikely that jobs creation will actually occur without a decrease in the standard of living and wages.

False. You are assuming that all jobs created rely on physical, limited supply. Because they don't, which is why job creation is literally infinite, and the more people there is in the world, the more jobs there can be. Service provides value, and value is the real thing that deserves money. Service is a non-physical resource, although it may be closely linked to it in certain fields.

Service requires energy, requires people live and are trained long enough to provide that service and also require people have the institutions to provide that service.

The best way is to reinvent the idea of energy and resource consumption: to provide convert physical energy and resources to forms of energy that have greater net value: satisfaction, joy, harmony, peace, love.

All these can be done by doing service to others. The food you eat and the energy you need to keep the lights on and computers running is going into helping people find what they need, understanding people's problems (data retrieval), finding solutions that addresses these concerns honestly and most efficiently(problem shooting), and then finding the right people/person/resources that can achieve that at the lowest possible cost (sourcing/marketing). These are the things that help convertors of other resources (say manufacturers) require to keep them going at a rate where resources are NOT wasted on making things people don't need, or spent on things consumers themselves don't need. The savings can easily provide for the resources that these people require to be happy.

In fact, all we need to be content are each other and some food.

Everything here you describe expenditure of energy, the world is sustained by it. The amount of energy to get food to your table/grocery store is already high. This is not counting the house you live in or the cloth you wear, or any of the modern amenities you enjoy.

The last line is so false it's frightening people can entertain it. The Khmer Rouge tried that and it failed so abysmally that it killed 20% of the country's population. People also want stuff too, and if they don't get what they want they are miserable.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_roslin...g_machine.html

Women would at least want this...

People would still need to bath to keep clean, and they would need all the things that we have to keep the natural world from consuming us with disease and environmental difficulties as well as human beings from consuming each other from avarice and malice.

Material and consumer goods bring tangible benefit to the world, and it's foolish to deny the time that is saved by our house hold appliances as well as the time saved traveling because of modern transportation mechanisms.

The modern world is a product of our ability to harness greater amount of energy, and your very existence posting here is a product of all the energy previous invested to create the societies which exist in the world today.

In the video it is show how the energy consuming parts of the world should reduce their energy consumption and I totally agree, but the energy starved parts of the world will need access and use more energy in order to enjoy even a fraction of the amenties that exist in first world countries.

You are young and your heart seem to be in the right place, but it's important to respect the material and natural world. Love is a wonderful thing, but it's just another luxury like a pair of Prada shoes or Coach bag.

[tcaudilllg]

Romney could have won, but he's being driven so far to the right by Perry as to be made unelectable. Perry will probably be the nominee because the Tea Party doesn't want Romney. Romney would take on a VP spot MAYBE. But Perry is unelectable because he calls Social Security a "Ponzi scheme". AARP will take care of him.

The stimulus plan was a success. It ended the recession even if it didn't completely recover the economy. Americans made a disastrous miscalculation last year when they determined that the Dems, if left in power, would socialize the country. The media participated in the hype. In reality the Dems have no desire to socialize the country because then they would have to work with the Republicans on the job. The chief advantage of the free market is that in theory you get to choose who you work with. In socialism everyone works at the same plant in the same city, so you end up having sharply polarized regions where everyone thinks the same way (think Tripoli and Benghazi) and a recipe for social deterioration and civil war. Dems want to make the market more ethical, not abolish it.

With John Bohner becoming deeply unpopular and Congress at 12% approval (lowest ever), the independents will go to the polls determined to vote everybody out. In the gerrymandered districts their votes won't have impact, but in the swing districts it'll be Dem in, Repub out. And then they'll do another round of stimulus and unemployment will drop by another 3%.

Obama is just not beatable. That's the situation. The collective subconscious wants him to be president, I guess. (Hell, Rick Perry said he was "called on by God" to run and ruin Romney's campaign)

[Reuben]

@hkkmr

Unlike the khmer rouge, i'm not intending to take that statement to it's 'logical conclusion', or rather, it's 'highly unrealistic conclusion'. You need to consider the overall picture for everything. When I said that, I'm just trying to say that when you approach service from the perspective of never actually having a life-threatening lack, you don't really need much energy inputs for a greater volume of energy outputs in a different form.

respect the material and natural world

this is something I completely agree with. We are on the same page, hk.

[DirectorAbbie]

Abbie what d'you think of obama?

He's an evil, underhanded wanna-be dictator who is shoving the country toward socialism against the will of almost everybody who voted for him.

And I bet he chews with his mouth open when nobody's looking.

[Gilly]

Abbie what d'you think of obama?

He's an evil, underhanded wanna-be dictator who is shoving the country toward socialism against the will of almost everybody who voted for him.

And I bet he chews with his mouth open when nobody's looking.

Holy jesus, he's just a politician. They're all assholes; don't make him sound so fucking special Wannabe dictator...are you from the south or something?

[Reuben]

He's not socialist Abbie. If anything, he's anti-colonialist, with the fervour of making America grow not just economically, but also in terms of health and values.

But do let me know what makes you think why you believe he is socialist. I am, in any case, not American

[DirectorAbbie]

He's not socialist Abbie. If anything, he's anti-colonialist, with the fervour of making America grow not just economically, but also in terms of health and values.

But do let me know what makes you think why you believe he is socialist. I am, in any case, not American

Oh, I get it. You're a foreigner who wants America to deteriorate from within so your country will have a better shot at being the next big-shot. So you try to convince us that Obama is actually doing something healthy for us by undermining everything our country was founded on. That way we keep him and you win.

[tcaudilllg]

I'll bet Perry and Jindal have a deal, and are making sure Obama wins re-election next year so Jindal will be in position to run on his own terms... with Perry as veep. Overall the GOP has done pretty well for itself: the super congress has destroyed the Tea Party's momentum, and with the Tea people back under the thumb of the party elites, order has been restored in the party of order.

Obama had Republican ears last night when he invoked Lincoln. I noticed Boehner shifted in his seat as he spoke. Obama means to lay a foundation for Jindal's run.

[Gilly]

He's not socialist Abbie. If anything, he's anti-colonialist, with the fervour of making America grow not just economically, but also in terms of health and values.

But do let me know what makes you think why you believe he is socialist. I am, in any case, not American

Oh, I get it. You're a foreigner who wants America to deteriorate from within so your country will have a better shot at being the next big-shot. So you try to convince us that Obama is actually doing something healthy for us by undermining everything our country was founded on. That way we keep him and you win.

Holy jesus you are paranoid God this is a riot.

[Sumer1an]

Oh, I get it. You're a foreigner who wants America to deteriorate from within so your country will have a better shot at being the next big-shot. So you try to convince us that Obama is actually doing something healthy for us by undermining everything our country was founded on. That way we keep him and you win.

Holy jesus you are paranoid God this is a riot.

Actually, I'm pretty sure she is kidding. If she isn't then you are right she is paranoid. Though Obama is more or less a radical democrat.

[rat1]

Well, regardless of whether he gets reelected his job act proposal had some good parts to it, despite his plans to increase taxes on the big corporations.. (how many times have we done that? How many corporations have moved their operations abroad over the past 3 years?)

[Korpsy Knievel]

Actually, I'm pretty sure she is kidding. If she isn't then you are right she is paranoid. Though Obama is more or less a radical democrat.

Abbie might be stretching for effect but since she's admittedly provincial in the extreme and preferentially so, not to mention that her sine qua non is a profoundly unadorned literal-mindedness, it's more than reasonable to infer that she carries the prevailing meta-narrative hallmarks of her milieu openly and without irony.

[Raver]

Oh, I get it. You're a foreigner who wants America to deteriorate from within so your country will have a better shot at being the next big-shot. So you try to convince us that Obama is actually doing something healthy for us by undermining everything our country was founded on. That way we keep him and you win.

Holy jesus you are paranoid God this is a riot.

Heh, presidents are just masks the elite wear to take the heat when they're busy causing trouble. It doesn't matter who the mask is because in the end, the elite we'll just do whatever is in their best self-interest. During the GWB Jr. era, the elite had a certain plan in mind and did it successfully, now they're going on with the next phase of their for the Obama era. I think I sound more paranoid than DA now.

[Sumer1an]

Holy jesus you are paranoid God this is a riot.

Heh, presidents are just masks the elite wear to take the heat when they're busy causing trouble. It doesn't matter who the mask is because in the end, the elite we'll just do whatever is in their best self-interest. During the GWB Jr. era, the elite had a certain plan in mind and did it successfully, now they're going on with the next phase of their for the Obama era. I think I sound more paranoid than DA now.

I know exactly what you are talking about. At least I'm pretty sure I do.

[Reuben]

We've already won abbie, Singapore's Temasek Holdings have already bought over Obama. He's one of us now.

Give it up. We're azns. We can do anything.

[tcaudilllg]

Abbie do you really believe that?

[Taknamay]

If I had to guess, I would assume it's sarcasm. But if I'm wrong, don't hurt me please

[stevENTj]

The stimulus plan was a success. It ended the recession even if it didn't completely recover the economy.

LOL. Over a trillion dollars spent including interest, and some economist are arguing that it may have even resulted in a net loss of jobs. Here's what the Obama admin claimed was going to happen vs reality.

http://www.economics21.org/blog/revi...nt-predictions

What does that tell you? I dunno about you, but it tells me the government has no clue what the fuck it's doing, but thinks it does, and is spending trillions of dollars that we don't have and we're no better off than we were before at best, or worse off for a TRILLION dollars. Success? BTW, periods of growth and contraction are a natural part of a free market economy. The economy would have recovered all by itself without government intervention.

Bad government policy extended the Great Depression by 7 years. Same shit, different day.

Americans made a disastrous miscalculation last year when they determined that the Dems, if left in power, would socialize the country. The media participated in the hype. In reality the Dems have no desire to socialize the country because then they would have to work with the Republicans on the job.

Dunno where you've been but the Democrats were plain as day open about the fact that they wanted to socialize our entire healthcare system, and they would have done just that if they had the votes. No it wasn't media hype, it was the honest to God truth that they wanted to do this.

The chief advantage of the free market is that in theory you get to choose who you work with. In socialism everyone works at the same plant in the same city, so you end up having sharply polarized regions where everyone thinks the same way (think Tripoli and Benghazi) and a recipe for social deterioration and civil war. Dems want to make the market more ethical, not abolish it.

But actually in the process of making things more "equal" and "fair" and "ethical" they end up abolishing the free market and socialize everything

With John Bohner becoming deeply unpopular and Congress at 12% approval (lowest ever), the independents will go to the polls determined to vote everybody out. In the gerrymandered districts their votes won't have impact, but in the swing districts it'll be Dem in, Repub out. And then they'll do another round of stimulus and unemployment will drop by another 3%.

Obama is just not beatable. That's the situation. The collective subconscious wants him to be president, I guess. (Hell, Rick Perry said he was "called on by God" to run and ruin Romney's campaign)

I'm not sure what planet you're living on here, but it's not the same one that I'm on. Every single poll out there shows the exact opposite of what you're claiming, that the independents are fleeing Obama and the Dems, and that any GOP contender with a pulse or perhaps even no pulse at all could defeat Obama right now. And the last trillion dollar do nothing stimulus package did such a a bang up job of reducing unemployment, so what makes you think another will be so great too? Last I checked unemployment actually went up after the last stimulus and not down. Unemployment is still at 9% when they claimed it would be in the 6% range right now. Slight disconnects with your theories.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Those meddlesome goddamn elites and their secret agendas. It's a global conspiracy, lemme tell ya what.

[stevENTj]

@steveENTJ

haha yes I'm really from Singapore. But seriously, go out and just find a job. Everybody is a potential employer. Particularly those who already own businesses.

edit: not referring to you steve, but I mean, in general people should just go out and look for jobs and stop waiting for their government to pamper them with macro-initiatives that do nothing but foster a general attitude of economic infantilism.

@FDG

I know people who keep saying they can't find a job. I went out last night in hopes of working about 2 hours to earn 10 bucks to spend on my friends, and ended up finding a job as a marketing agent instead. The guy gave me 20 on the spot, not for working, but for wanting to work to benefit the people around me. And then he gave me a job as well, because I sincerely wanted to help him.

You can't find a job? Bull.

And no, it's not easy. I got rejected at least 10 times before I found him.

I'm guessing you're a bit on the young side? A "job" here to most people in the U.S. seeking one typically means a full-time 40+ hour per week job preferably with health benefits. No they're not necessarily easy to find. President Bush actually had the best advice for everybody after the 2001 and 2003 recessions which amazingly we recovered from just fine without the government rushing to "help" everyone, by encouraging people to go get college educations and especially advanced degrees. I've been laid off twice including late last year, have advanced degrees which ironically I was in the middle of working on when GWB gave that advice, and I've never really had trouble finding a job. When I got laid off last November (check the INTp jobs thread) it did take me a bit longer to find one that usual because of the timing (nobody is hiring in Nov/Dec/Jan) but really didn't have a problem finding another one. I know people trying to milk the system and maxing their unemployment benefits applying for all of the extensions, but I don't believe in that shit. Some of these people also aren't doing all they could for themselves to help make themselves more marketable. Tough economy so any edge you can get will help. In my case, some solid networking (LinkedIn) and recommendations got me in the door. Love my new job. 5 minute commute!

Year ago here I had a lengthy discussion on the U.S. job market here with somebody else who was from Singapore, and the need for far more Americans to get degrees in engineering and sciences than are currently doing so. BTW I was asking if you were really from Singapore because a former owner of this forum was name Reuben who definitely wasn't from Singapore, but I read your posts and you definitely didn't sound like him at all. Been to Singapore 3 times, btw. Twice on business and once just for fun, all the way from the D.C. area in the U.S. Can't wait to go back again someday and checkout all the new stuff in the "city" area and Sentosa.

[mu4]

Bad government policy extended the Great Depression by 7 years. Same shit, different day.

Only the massive spending of WWII and global war pulled the world out of the Great Depression. America printed money, rationed everything and gave jobs to everyone to build tanks, planes and various war machines to fight this war.

Dunno where you've been but the Democrats were plain as day open about the fact that they wanted to socialize our entire healthcare system, and they would have done just that if they had the votes. No it wasn't media hype, it was the honest to God truth that they wanted to do this.

Places that have the best healthcare systems as well as cheaper healthcare are all socialized, including Singapore, Hong Kong. And these are some of the most economically free places in the world.

2001-2003 recession due to low unemployment and low inflation during the Clinton years and due to polices which create a surplus and more a business cycle recession. Bush's Great Recession was due to gutting the tax revenue while increasing spending in war and other areas such as the Medicare Rx plan. A housing bubble was created as well as the unregulated trading of credit derivatives. To compare the two circumstances is totally wrong. The 2008 Great Recession is the product of disasterous policies as well as reduced tax revenue and other factors which caused a much more serious economic problem.

I like the free market, but the American conservatives want a klepto-market, which is totally not free.

Obama's approval rating is sub 40% but Congress's rating is sub 20% which is much worse. I don't know if Obama is going to win but my bet is he will, because America is really skeptical about politicians at this time and even those that disapprove of Obama are still going to vote for him. As are many Democrats that I know, who are disappointed he didn't go no-compromise with the Republicans like they were doing to him. Also as far as American independent they want a tax hike for the wealthy which is going to only happen with Obama, and certainly not with Perry. It's due to expire right after election time, it's going to be a major election issue and I think it is going to swing some votes Obama's way.

[stevENTj]

Federal tax receipts actually went UP after Bush cut taxes, because it encouraged economic growth and resulted in more revenue, not less. Laffer curve. The Dems want to raise taxes back up, which discourages economic growth, and can actually result in less revenue, but they all think it will result in more. No. The three reasons you listed as the cause of Bush's 'Great Recession' actually had nothing to do with the economic collapse. Overly loose monetary policy for too long (Greenspan), and the Federal gov't policy (per Carter and Clinton) of giving out way too many home mortgages to people who couldn't even afford them or didn't even have jobs who would ultimately foreclose (via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) are the two biggest causes. Where is Bush in that? "Unregulated trading of credit derivatives" is a nice try, but hardly the source of the economic collapse. The gov't put all of that crap in the market, and that was Wall Street's way of dealing with it, but they weren't the ones that polluted the market with that garbage, our own gov't did. And guess who our government blames for everything. Yeah, "Wall Street".

The healthcare comparisons are apples to oranges also. A gov't run healthcare system can be run pretty well and efficiently in smaller nation-states like Singapore and Hong Kong, but the U.S. and 300 million people with our pathetically inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt government is a totally different ball game. Even in places like Taiwan and the U.K. and Canada plenty of people avoid the "free" system and pay out of pocket for premium care due to either sub-standard care in the "free" system, or way too long of a wait. Plenty of VIPs from all over the world still come to the U.S. for healthcare treatment for a reason. You can get the very best healthcare here, with the best doctors in the world, and without a long wait for treatment or care, so long as you can pay (cash), or have good health insurance coverage.

[mu4]

Federal tax receipts actually went UP after Bush cut taxes, because it encouraged economic growth and resulted in more revenue, not less. Laffer curve. The Dems want to raise taxes back up, which discourages economic growth, and can actually result in less revenue, but they all think it will result in more. No. The three reasons you listed as the cause of Bush's 'Great Recession' actually had nothing to do with the economic collapse. Overly loose monetary policy for too long (Greenspan), and the Federal gov't policy (per Carter and Clinton) of giving out way too many home mortgages to people who couldn't even afford them or didn't even have jobs who would ultimately foreclose (via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) are the two biggest causes. Where is Bush in that? "Unregulated trading of credit derivatives" is a nice try, but hardly the source of the economic collapse. The gov't put all of that crap in the market, and that was Wall Street's way of dealing with it, but they weren't the ones that polluted the market with that garbage, our own gov't did. And guess who our government blames for everything. Yeah, "Wall Street".

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...e-taxes-wrong/

Thoroughly debunked. The economic problems right now are debt, wealth disparity and inflation, the housing bubble is something that occurs periodically and would have been far more manageable given adequate economic policy elsewhere. The War in Iraq certainly didn't help much either.

Factcheck.org has called the assertion that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue “highly misleading.” In all, the Bush tax cuts will cause $3.4 trillion in deficits between 2009 and 2019. Debt-service costs alone amount to “$1.7 trillion over the 2009-2019 period” and more than $330 billion in the 2019 fiscal year.

The healthcare comparisons are apples to oranges also. A gov't run healthcare system can be run pretty well and efficiently in smaller nation-states like Singapore and Hong Kong, but the U.S. and 300 million people with our pathetically inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt government is a totally different ball game. Even in places like Taiwan and the U.K. and Canada plenty of people avoid the "free" system and pay out of pocket for premium care due to either sub-standard care in the "free" system, or way too long of a wait. Plenty of VIPs from all over the world still come to the U.S. for healthcare treatment for a reason. You can get the very best healthcare here, with the best doctors in the world, and without a long wait for treatment or care, so long as you can pay (cash), or have good health insurance coverage.

Yea, rich people can shell out money to get better healthcare? VIP's.. You're not a VIP, and neither am I. At least in Taiwan and UK and basically every other first world country, there is a choice to pay out of pocket or getting public health care, and a broken leg gets looked at just as fast there as here. Here without healthcare, a broken leg can be 80,000 and you either pay that or default on it and pass the buck to the rest of the system while ruining your credit. Some system that is. I guess the purpose of the system is to cater to the wealthiest few and screw the middle class and poor. It's so very funny to see American conservative middle class screw themselves out of benefits so that the wealthiest can profit because of the illusion that the fat will trickle down to them.

Most of the world isn't VIP's I'm afraid and the EU all have socialized health care and those countries combined have far higher population than the US.

You really hate American's government, but the truth is that it's pretty good, there are probably only a few better governments in the world, and they are mostly not like the government that is being imagined by American conservatives.