I forgot about the iraq war. Just add that to the list.

So you disagree with the economy piece, although:

A graph showing private sector job totals by month since obama took office:


and the same graph over two decades


and a chart showing economic growth by quarter


and the dow


and a chart showing weekly unemplyment claims



So you think dodd-frank is burdensome regulation. However it's shifting of banking costs to not be so wildly regressive and also lack of financial regulation is part of what got us in trouble in trouble in the first place.

I'm guessing you give him credit for OBL, dadt, stem cells, and no more torture.

And you're probably not a fan of Obamacare but which of the big pieces do you object to... I'm guessing
[ ] creating the exchange
[x] subsidies for low-income people participating in the exchange
[x] individual mandate
[ ] getting rid of lifetime caps
[ ] getting rid of preexisting conditions
[x] allowing kids to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26


how'd I do?

personally

[x] mandate to give money to private insurance companies
[x] increasing bureaucratization of health care in america

State Capitalism marches on.

I don't even know what that means.

I figured as much

Edit: I don't think you'd support Obama if you did. Maybe over the other sad sacks, sure. But not in general.

Edit 2: Meh, **** it.

State Capitalism = Corporatism = Crony Capitalism = Inverted Fascism.

Do you like having our countries laws written by corporations? Do you like being forced to give money to corporations?

There are far better ways to lower the cost of health care than going through for-profit, state endorsed corporations btw, but that would involve challenging corporations in realms like patent law - and Obama - the poster child for rampant corporatism - he just aint gonna do that.

Obama is for big money what Bush was for oil- and that's not a good thing.

I know, I'm totally dumb

Not knowing something doesn't make a person dumb, just ignorant on a particular subject. It's not such an awful thing, but in the age of google it does point to laziness.

Anyway I realized my reply was ****ty so there's another edit there. Have a good day.

So how about Obama's Top 3 Blunders?

I'd just use whatever Suzzers list for his greatest achievements are.

1. Bombing brown people
2. Bombing brown people
3. Bombing brown people

Just guessing

But I don't think he blunders at all tbh. There is either clear political gain and/or direct corporate profit in everything he does.

Pertaining to the goofball graphs, missing on the graph is summer 2011 "Jobs Bill Rejected Arrow". Also missing is the minimum wage in relation to the national debt ratio, to show how cutting minimum wage leads to job growth. Why not go full circle and just end minimum wage. Also, missing are all the firings in the public sector city/county/state jobs that were caused by not letting the governor restructure union pensions (not allowing them to use the last year a base and then tack on all the vacation and personal time), forcing these guys back into the private sector. When the stimulus was signed it took like 1 year for any of the stolen money to be allocated to crooks.

The reality is the GM bailout was nothing more than a tax cut. Why not allow all corporations to have the same tax cut by eliminating the corporate income tax, dividend tax, and capital gains tax on the working and saving poor. Romney offers that plan by cutting corporate tax and ending the dividend and capital gains tax for those making less than 200K a year.

Obama is a lawyer who got lucky, the only thing he knows how to do is take money via violence from the working poor and corporations and give it to government to spend on overpaid government workers. He takes credit while the Koch brothers do all the work. Forcing people to work longer hours for more years with less pay in a time where factories produce goods with less workers, energy, and costs.

Obama, Maher, Reich, Krugman are a bunch of elite rich government types that ruin the lives of the working poor by stealing their money to enrich themselves. Next time Obama if you are going to ghostwrite a book at least give it away for free,

Also missing is the Ryan Braun's successful appeal arrow.

It is an extra-scary euphemism for "mainstream economics".

Who knows? I wouldn't be completely shocked to learn that other presidents had successfully had more than one American citizen assassinated in the past 100 years.

Of course, particularly troubling in Obama's case is that assassination of American citizens is now a quasi-public national policy.

I'm sorry accuracy is scary to you

To be honest I'm not thrilled either.

We're no where near a state capitalism country. China, Russia, some Persian Gulf places are state capitalists, which basically means that their corporations are ran by the government. We're different. China has their own state ran auto industry, state ran search engines, state ran everything.

Basically, state capitalists are countries that keep their operations all internal, their goal is to limit imports by producing everything locally, which free market economies into difficult positions, when economies as big as China are not importing anything near what their economy would if it were like Europe or the US. At the same time, they can export a lot, which helps their economy, and sort of preys on free market economies.

It's an interesting system, and we're nothing like it. Health care affects 2 types of companies. Insurance companies, which are private companies, there is no government ran competition here. Drug companies, who are also private companies, and there is no government ran competition here either. Instead of using words you don't quite understand, or talking about things you heard repeated by some lunatic, take some time to research your position before you act as if it's true. It'll save me the work of figuring out if your right by researching the topic, which is a bit of work, as you should have before saying it.

What we are dealing with here is also known as inverted fascism - ie the economy has taken control of the State rather than vice versa.

To be fair we have to go to the second paragraph of the State Capitalism wiki page to get to my usage, but it is there, and not controversial.

Bolded by myself for emphasis.

Republicans don't believe any of this stuff is true though, other than bin Laden being dead, which they credit solely to Seal Team Six.

Nobody has posted the presidential propaganda yet??

OK fine

This **** is rich (but by the way, don't try and post a negative comment - they aren't allowed! Try and post one yourself, or just scroll through and see if you can find one

We have a market economy, or a social market, whichever term you prefer. Not a pure version of it, but that is what we have. Name a few industries that the state is intervening in to advance the interests of large scale businesses.

That definition you use is at best the beginning of state capitalism, and what I posted was a more complete version of it, as we see in China and Russia. All the countries the world considers to be state capitalists, fit my definition. If you want to say that some small part of our economy has state capitalism tendencies, that's fine, but that's about as far as it goes.

Agriculture, Banking, Weapons, Entertainment and Health spring immediately to mind.

Maybe you should try naming a few industries the government isn't involved in, that might be more challenging.

There's a difference between being involved in a industry, which is standard for government in every market economy, and intervening in an industry to advance the interests of certain business within that industry.

LOl what? Keep shifting goal posts. Do you want specific examples?

Monsanto runs Ag. There's a few corporations who run Big Pharm. The RIAA runs entertainment. Lock Heed Martin, Boeing, Xe, and a few others run weapons. Oil is also condensed to a few specific companies. There are only like 4 major news companies in America (a country of 300+ million people). On and on and on.

Seriously man, wake up.

I haven't moved a goal post, I quoted your bolded quote. Which is government intervention, not government involvement. There's a difference. I agree that it's disgusting the way the government is made up of former executives of all the biggest industries. It's terrible. I understand all of this stuff, but I also understand the difference between state capitalism and market economies. We are a market economy, we do have aspects of state capitalism, but we aren't state capitalists. That's all I'm saying.

A lot of the reason few industries are leading these groups is because that's how the market works. I'm not contending that these corporations don't lobby congress to change corporate tax code or create loop holes. I'm not contending that their leaders end up in high end positions in the government directly related to their "former" industries. I understand the connections between corporations and government. I think corporatism or crony capitalism is a lot closer to what our society is than fascism, state capitalism, inverted fascism or whatever. There are differences between all of those words, and I would say if we were to make a line graph of those words it would be something like...

<Market economy ->crony capitalism->corporatism->state capitalism->tons of other things>

We're between market economy and crony capitalism, and I'm fine if someone wants to argue that we're between crony capitalism and corporatism. But we're not at state capitalism, and that's my argument.

If you don't want to use the wiki def that's fine, but you just completely corroborated what it says.

State Capitalism is a very apt word. It is Capitalism + State intervention to an exceptional degree. It is very bad. You don't seem to disagree, and in fact just said many things I agree with, which go along with that. I no longer know what you are arguing unless you are trying to just get very technical, in which case I still think you are flat wrong, but even more so than usual since you obviously know better.

****ing hilarious as usual. The very real and in no way politicall convenient empathy for the 'brown people' just drips through from your post. I like to make grinning smileys about tragedy as well.