Obamadrama

Obama hit his all time low is approval ratings this week as he unfolded the Jobs Act and the economy continued to worsen.

His Job act included a plan to create a business friendly environment that wold give tax breaks to hiring companies, employ construction workers by federal funded infrastructural improvements, and lowering taxes on middle class families.

This meant that the government would once again be spending money and losing it which of coarse, the G.O.P hated.

Every time Obama wants to pass something, the GOP accuses Obama of spending too much money and not cutting down enough. It points a mean finger at Obama saying "look, look, he's using up too tax payer's dollars, raising taxes, and increasing our deficit," and people buy into it.

Meanwhile it is strange to me that the GOP is willing to spend billions on war. But that's just me.

Americans don't want to hear about tax increases. They don't, and the sound of it will make them cover their ears, sing la la la, and open them again the second anyone comes around to offer tax cuts.

Tax cuts or tax increases is not the issue here.

The government is in deficit and debt. An annual imbalance of money made versus money spent and, an increasing amount that we have to pay back to countries like China. We spend more than we make and continue to have a low savings rate which means we don't save enough!

In order to solve this America needs to make more than we spend. Meaning- borrow less, tax more (often problematic), and produce more, and be less reliant on the people we borrow from (dont tell anyone but China won't like that).

Now, the fuss around taxes.

I used to think we should tax more corporations and decrease taxes on the lower class. I'm wrong. If you tax corporations, they'll fire people. A boss even told me so.

If you decrease taxes, we will not be able to afford the things we need running like schools.

I think Obama's plan for employing American's is a great idea. They need to make money. If our workers are making money then that means America is making money.

It requires government spending but its better than just putting government to a halt on spending, and then what? Shut down our school because we don't have funding?

We need taxes, corporations just don't want to pay them. That does not mean we do not need them.

We need to put America back to work. It worked in one great depression and then laissez faire politicians abolished the idea of government running business because the government shouldn't be big and employ people and federal programs that are only there to help people are socialist and evil.

I'm sorry, i know my sarcasm is snarky and obnoxious but i can't stand greediness. When the government is accused of being too big and too invasive, whenever that happens, i usually think its because whoever is accusing, is doing something they should not be doing.

videos 1

The federal reserve released information and called it "the dump". This was when the federal reserve was being reviewed and had to gather information. So, they did and called it 'the dump'. There is a concern about releasing too much information from fear of what might happen to stocks and the market since it so heavily relies on consumer/investor faith.

When certain people decided we should not vote based on popular vote, they assumed most people were to dumb to understand what is going on. I don't believe people are dumb at all. However, i do think they are often mislead and this reminds me of it.



Part of Romney's speech. He says "the citizen should be the sovereign and the state should be the servant". He says this is how this country was founded but that idea gets a bit fuzzy based on how we elect presidents. He also gets points for motivation and summarizing what is america.



"taxation is a symptom of what the people's appetite is for government". This is a video of Ron Paul talking about people changing what they should want from their government. What they should not want is a big government. But is is strange to think that people want big government and made a point to make it that way... did they? I am following the theme of how president's get elected by voter's choice (or lack of it?).

First impressions

I remember being home that spring friday when the government announced it would not shut-down.

Politicians were locked in a room and made to draft a bill preventing the furlough of workers and haulting of federal programs as we reached the dept cap thus exhausting the governments power to spend money.

News stations were broadcasting their arguements, "are you really going to shut-down the government over planned perenthood?!" one woman yelled in irritiation.

And I aggreed with her. I too thought the arguements were bogus, ridiculous, like a cat fight, unresolved, and just stupid. Niether side would ever understand one another.

The two differed in ideology, religion, and understanding of economics. How would a couple day session ever resolve surfance issues rooted in such deep matters? It wouldn't.

This is how I feel when I listen to debates. I see a clash, arrows going towards the other and missing because the two aren't fighting on the same grounds of reality.

Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Hunstman, and Bachman seem to be the biggest competitors in the G.O.P Primaries.

Since they are in the same parties, they are closer in views but yet again, as I was watching the debate I was wondering whether they all had the same facts

Perry, Romney, and Hunstman all claimed they were the best at job creation and that their states had the most job creation during their time in power.

What sources are they using?! I even heard something different. NPR claims that Oaklahoma had the fastest growing economy and offered the safest bussiness environment.

Sometimes I wonder whether more information, or our access to it is good. With so much media, there is this illusion of transperency when really so little of it is objective. Do all of us even learn the same things in school about how govnments, politics, and economies work?

Secondly, I am on the B.S/Jargon watch. The government thus far does very little to 'create' jobs. What they do is create bussiness incentives for companies to hire workers.

They give tax breaks, for example, to bussinesses if they hire a certain amout of workers. Then they count all of these jobs and call it job 'creation'

This is not job 'creation'. What Obama Spoke about in his Jobs Act speech is similar to this. However, he actually included job creation in which the government employs construction workers to enhance infastructure.

This is job creation.

This is what the G.O.P candidates are opposed to. What they want to do is give more tax breaks to coporations hoping that they will then hire workers so they can then call it job creation.

Reagan's Trickle down theory? I don't know if it works.

Obama's Job Creation Act is similar to that of Theodore Roosevelt's New Deal to get the country out of recession. He created programs like AAA that were meant to "Recover, Reform, and Releif".

Despite all the candidates saying how they had a plan and how they were the ones who were going to do it the best, I never really did get a clear understanding of what each candidate wanted to do.

My hope is that i can more clearly understand the differences between the parties and their so called solutions.

I want to understand on what basis they argue. What point of views they have that make each differ in the sort of solutions. This country is not united and its not just surface issues. It is so deeply rooted in our views of the world. I just don't know what they are and how every view came to be so different