Sure, here's one for you.
I am also curious as to whether or not you have ever taken an economics class. If you have (or at least if you had paid attention), you would know that the economy goes through cycles of expansion and recession. The economy was already on the downturn when Obama was nominated (in fact, quite a bit before) so the initial recession cannot be attributed to him.
Of course I have taken several economics classes, which is why I know why FDR's policies failed and why Obama's will too.
And about the recession- the start of the recession started about a month or so before the election. There is considerably controversy over whether the possibility of Obama being elected caused the economy to tank. Remember that the big drop in housing prices that caused the banks to not do so well (and which many attribute the large market drop to) happened
a couple of years before the markets dropped severely. One would have thought that if the housing bubble bursting was going to bring down the market, it would have done so well before very many people had heard of Barack Obama, not immediately before his election looked likely.
Next, we can talk about national debt. When Bush took office (or thereabouts, the closest date I could find was for 9/7/00) the government had a budget surplus and a national debt of approx. 5.6 trillion dollars. When he left, it was approx. 9.6 trillion dollars.
The reason why the government ran a surplus in the late 1990s was because of the tech boom and that the Republicans controlled Congress since Jan 1995 while Clinton sat in the White House. Not a whole lot of spending or change in governmental regulations occurred due to the gridlock, so the market did very well and tax receipts went up as a result.
As for the bailouts; in short they were necessary. I agree with you entirely that I don’t like my money going to the companies whose CEOs and board members made financially unsound decisions that compromised their businesses. However, looking at the bigger picture, were we to let them fail, imagine all of the employees who were employed by those companies, now without a job, bogging down the welfare system, increasing our taxes, and probably by a greater amount than the bailouts.
So in effect you're saying "let's reward people who did idiotic things simply because there may be a little collateral damage if we don't." The workers employed by these firms that are decent employees will find new jobs if the firm goes under. Look at the BLS statistics if you doubt me. Yes, some suppliers and such may be dinged a little in the process, but that's how business works. Also, if you keep rewarding the people who run these companies for making these bad choices, what are they going to do? They're going to keep making them! The only way the people who run these companies are going to not make bad choices is for us to let them feel the full consequences of their bad choices by
not bailing them out.
As far as the "too big to fail"/collateral damage theory- it is bunk. There are no "sure things" in business- you put money at risk investing in a company in hopes that it pays off nicely. But you also have to realize that it may not and you may be out the money you invested. The same is true for working for a company- they may be here and fine one quarter, but they may have made poor choices and you're out of a job the next. Bad things can and sometimes do happen- that is just life.
Also, a lot of people forget that the tech bubble burst in March of 2000 and the economy started to tank when Bill Clinton was in office. But yet the 2000 recession is always pinned on Bush, not on Clinton, while the recession that started a few months before Obama took office is always said to be "inherited" by Obama. So which is it- did Bush inherit Clinton's recession and Obama inherit Bush's, or did Bush and Obama each "cause" one? You have to pick one or the other, otherwise you're changing the rules as you go along to suit yourself.
I now have two words I would like to type: Patriot Act. This amendment was the Bush Administration’s answer to terrorism on the home front. Interesting, the powers the law have given the government hasn’t once been used to apprehend a terrorist; however there are many incidents where they have been used to catch illegal drug users/dealers. They also allow the government to monitor my library checkout list, as well as a fair amount of my internet usage. Under the Bush Administration, more regulations (laws) affecting us, the citizens of the United States, were enacted than most other “conservative” or “liberal” presidents (I use quotes around conservative because I do not believe that Bush is a true conservative for the above-mentioned reasons, and because of this, I place “liberal” in quotes as well).
First of all, nobody brought up the Patriot Act. You're just trying to change the topic from something that you are having trouble defending. Secondly, you wrongly assume that since I oppose Obama's policies that I am some sort of bible-thumping neo-conservative and would support the Patriot Act. I do not support the Patriot Act and never have. You are right about Bush not being a conservative; he was a Republican. Republicans today are not very conservative.
You stated that “He [Obama, or at least I assume] is completely rebuilding the US economy to be a subsidiary of the government, and we all know how well that works out. Look at any other command economy, such as the former Eastern Bloc states, North Korea, and Cuba and tell me how well that worked out.” Let’s first clear up some possible confusion regarding socialism vs. communism.
Communism, very simply put, is a society where one is equal with his peers, no matter how hard he works, he doesn’t receive any more than his neighbore, and I feel you believe that this is socialism. There has never been a nation in recorded history that has been a purely communistic society, but the closest thing we have to it was the Native American Indian tribes, but that’s another topic.
Communism is probably not able to actually be implemented as the implementation always ends up being fascism with a command economy. That is why I said "command economy" and never mentioned communism once. A command economy is where the government owns virtually all of the means of production and directs said production. This is true in several countries.
Socialism, on the other hand, also very simply put, is where the government owns all of the businesses (companies, stores, etc.). We need look no further than our North and our East to see these nations. Most European nations have been of the socialist nature since the end of WWII. They needed to do this in order to pull them out of the terrible depression they were in (wow, sounds a bit familiar, huh?). Granted, we are not in as terrible state as they were, but we are also not doing an entire governmental reform.
You have
your definitions wrong. Socialism as currently implemented is where the government owns some but not all of the means of production and doesn't direct production to a large degree, but puts lots of regulations on any private individual or group that produces anything. The government owning all of the means of production is typical of a command economy. It looks like
you were the one who was sleeping through economics class.
That's a huge load of bull and you know it. Bush and Cheney were not a dictatorship as they were elected officials and were succeeded by other people not from the same party after an election. They also had to mostly operate within the confines of the Constitution, or at least as much as anybody else has in the last 80 years or so. VERY few people who oppose Obama care about what he looks like, they care about the crap that he as well as the rest of the Democrats are trying to ram through into law- things like socialized health care and the carbon dioxide cap-and-tax. The race card is cleverly being played by Obama's crew in order to immediately be able to dismiss any legitimate criticism of his policies.
I don't like some of his policies, and some i agree with, but he inherited a shitty job(his choice), and in 9 months has shown the the Usa is as racist and ignorant as it's always been.
And ladies and gentlemen, we give you Example #1 of that with the previous sentence. You do realize that it is exactly as racist and ignorant to make derogatory statements against whites or anybody else as it is to do so against blacks, right?
People call his a socialist, and communist but blindly follow Rush Limbaugh(the true leader of the republicans). I voted for him because frankly, i didnt like the other option, and i thought he was better for the job, I will also vote for Mike Cox(Republican) for governor because he is the best man for the job. I don't have blind loyalty to any party or for that matter any country, people need to stop letting emotions, and prejudice interfere with their opinions. So much rage and anger would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetic.
Calling all of the U.S. racist and ignorant, calling Bush a dictator and Cheney the "anti-Christ" isn't emotional? Wow, that could have fooled me. Yes, a lot of us are angry as we have horrible politicians getting elected and pushing horrible legislation that WE DO NOT WANT down our throats. Why do you think so many people showed up at protests around the country to voice their displeasure at Congress's and Obama's policies? Maybe they'll listen for a second at what the people in this country actually want rather than trying to pander to their backers.
By the way, there were more than two people running for President in the election. If you don't like the Republican or Democrat candidates, vote for one of the other ones who you think will be better. The current crappy politicians aren't going to do anything differently if we just eep telling re-electing them.
.... Think of liberals like apple and steve jobs that try to control or make you more dependant on them. 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram