1. Barack Obama has cut the cost of prescription drugs for seniors by 50%. I cannot attest to the validity of this claim, so it is acceptable to regard. My question for you, though, is about the way President Obama went about accomplishing this.
I presume Barack Obama alleviated the costs to seniors by sending money their way. In my post from before, I talked about how social security would change under Romney with a voucher system that empowered the individual. Prescription drugs may well have been cut in price for seniors, but the cost remains unchanged because the market didn't change. There is not any governmental success here, if my presumptions are correct, because the spending will have to continue at the expense of taxpayers rather than the markets having improved themselves with Romney's method.
2. IDEA (passed in 1990) has experienced some criticism since its enacting for schools being unable to comply with the costs involved in it. If Barack Obama has pressed for additional funding to the program, this would obviously be effective in solving the immediate issue. Since educational administration is loosely tied to the federal government, he could do little more than this if he wanted to keep the program running.
Also, the disabled would have families more able to afford their schooling if taxes were lower on all Americans. Mind us, corporations are
3. If he has appointed more openly gay officials than any other President in U.S. history, then he does not have a perceivable bias against them. Being "openly gay" doesn't qualify or disqualify you for being capable of completing your assigned tasks properly.
4. This statistic is deceitful. In it, the months of job losses under President Obama aren't accounted for (only gains) while all of President Bush's months of employment statistics are (gains and losses).
5. By making it easier for women to pursue higher wages in court, for an apparent inequality of pay, then it is only more incentive for those who are actually discriminating to not hire women in the first place. Primarily, those who must comply with affirmative action and hire women potentially against their will would be facing the legitimate claims to gender inequality in the workplace. I say, most people can't afford to sue their employers for gender inequality about incomes because they have too many taxes.
6. The Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights Act of 2009 limited Credit Card companies with more strict rules to interest rates and finance charges, among other things. This is favorable to the consumer and absolutely unfavorable to credit card companies, obviously. President Obama also supported a form of the Health Care bill with a provision to tax 100% of the remaining wealth on prepaid debit cards after their expiry date - which was dropped after the card companies lobbied against it. A big reason why only see a portion of credit card companies involved in prepaid cards is because of an apparent "web" of regulations the companies must hire lawyers for to succeed (this latter bit is hearsay I've gathered from company members some time ago). All-in-all for the point though, it is an agreeable accomplishment.
7. The health care reform bill is negative simply because it cuts benefits for those who are already insured to care for a new influx of patients. You cannot care for more people and cut costs at the same time without expanding the market. The health care reform bill does not expand the market because it doesn't remove anyone's taxes (which would allow for more competition in the market to earn the individuals' wealth). The pre-existing condition inclusion is satisfactory for a small number of people, but the whole bill is an abomination to all. I also question the worth of insurance for someone with a pre-existing condition, no less all individuals, if everyone else is also "insured" just the same.
If you'd like to reply me on this, I invite you to address the points made in my previous post for Romney too.
Bush was criticized for being on the golf course too frequently during his tenure, but President Obama has played more golf than he ever has at over 100 rounds. Woodrow Wilson (a liberal Democrat) performed around 1,200 rounds himself. Both sides lie, of course, but I see it more on the left! ...Your and my arguments are insular and not substantive of the apparent issue.
2: Clinton was President from '93 to '01. '93 to '95 was controlled by the Democrats, and the Republicans controlled the House and Senate from then to 2001. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_l..._States_Senate , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaders...epresentatives)
Also, on "surplus" : http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
3: The "rich" don't have enough money to do much to the economy if we took it from them and spent it. See 2:45 onward in this :
I stress that corporations are people. When you tax a company on their profits, you are effectively taxing their employees' wages and removing the possibility of further employees to be hired! To say corporations are withholding funds from expenditure is an improper way of looking at things too, because their investments in the economy (savings) create jobs outside of their own business without having directly bought those services, and then interest is generated if the money was invested well enough and it goes toward either more investments or direct hiring. Companies don't just hide their money under their pillows; they invest it to protect against inflation, just the same as people. When money is put in a bank, too, it is invested by the bank into the economy; it isn't stashed away in some corner and forgotten.
4: Economy operates off of individual decisions. These decisions bear differing results. The decisions are made with the intention of profit inborn the mind of the investor. Socioeconomic rift is natural for an economy, given the differences in outcome for all decisions. For Capitalists, the individual will spend their own money with better determination upon the value of expenditures than anyone else, and this pool of buyers will constantly lower the prices of all things to increase productivity and quality of life for all.
In the face of poverty, we may seek an equality with egalitarian fashion that grants equal education and equalized quality of life. The issue arises for the economy, however, and for all people, when that equality is what means there is no way to create a structure about these things. The root cause of American income disparity is the lack of sufficient employment caused by collectivist policies which remove wealth from the economy that would be spent intelligently, thus destroying potential productivity and ensuing stagnation.
Let me share with you a story I once heard: F.A. Hayek was once at the Panama Canal as it was being built, and he saw all of the workers around him using shovels. He asked a manager, "Why don't you use heavy machinery to get this work done?" to which the man said, "We are using shovels to create more jobs!" Hayek only found the reply worthy for a chuckle though, "Then you should dig with spoons!"
Also, on "giving" our President a Congress that he can work with, he had that for his first two years in office. This definitely could have been insufficient, but why?
5: I agree that most state Republican politicians have supported laws that impose social beliefs against others' liberties. House and Senate Republicans, I believe, are less so but can be still to a perceptible measure. Republicans have pressed many tax cuts, which are effectually what grow and multiply our economy because the economy is comprised of people with money.
It must be known that I don't support Bush. I don't support Obama. Romney isn't close to my idea of the ideal candidate. When put against Obama, I support Romney for the reasons I mentioned in the post I made previously. If you address the points made here, I would appreciate it that you also address the points I made in that other post too.