Well, what exactly do you believe he is doing wrong?

While, I do agree the man was/is very over-hyped, I think a lot of, unfortunately misinformed, folks seem to be blaming him for someone else's mess e.g. Bush. So in those regards, don't see why people should bad mouth him.

Now in regards to other things that have no connection to other peoples' actions, then I'm completely fine with people criticizing him and am all for it really.

He said he'd do quite a few things during his campaign, but he's proven time again that it was simply political rhetoric... as many politicians before him have done. Which is rather bull if you ask me. Nothing new though.

Although, I will say this: it's barely his first year. Lets see what he does a bit more in the future... I say give him 2 years before you really start to judge the guy.

I feel the fact that many of his plans are incresing the government's scope into people's lives which will end up bad. Also, he doesn't seem like he is going to et us out of the war or do anything about the Patriot act. It probably is a little early to judge him but I was just curious

Single payer would have worked, unfortunately it is something the public isn't ready for yet unfortunately I think. The current health care stuff is shit. War is going in the opposite direction I would have hoped for.

Obama? Moar liek FAILBAMA! HAHAhahaha

you guys started these wars you have to see them through, just because they are no longer popular does not disolve your responsibility.

Also the sooner you get a public health system the better off you will be, i really have no idea why you do not have one yet :S (probably to do with all the money your gov makes from taxing the hmo's)

Jeah, our health care system blows... unless you have a job at some high profile company... and even then it still blows.

People are saying that the politicians should focus on the economy... but health care is one of the reasons why people are suffering from debt. Unfortunately people are unable to see that.

Bunch of retards.

Jeah, Obama is loads of rhetoric... but what's new? Same ol' bull from every other politician. I'm just happy it's not Bush at the very least. Now lets see if the troops actually do leave Iraq as the say they will... wonder if it will actually happen in the time frame they gave. Agree though, just can't leave randomly.... although Obama should have never promised unrealistic promises, makes him look really bad. Although, he was just giving what people wanted to hear. People were just too gullible.

Stupid war is stupid.

Stupid people are stupid.

what is the big argument against public health at the moment ?? are they using the communist scare tactic again ?

It might be a small tax increase to fund it, but that is far outweighed by the peace of mind you get from knowing no matter what happens your going to get care. (even if it takes longer than in the private sector)

Pretty much this:

I wish I was lying, but I'm not ;[

We don't need a tax increase, we need to curb spending on dumb shit like unwinnable wars against non-violent members of our own citizenry.

WE NEED SLAVERY BACK!

We weren't in debt when that was still in place xD

Oh, I'm awful.

arnt illegal imigrants your answer to slavery. non citizens with minimum rights and wages ?

I don't consider immigrants to answer anything like that.

People are simply paid disproportionate amounts here. There is little reason anyone should be making hundreds of thousands of dollars while people are starving in the street. Free Market is largely to blame, along with general greed and bankers/super-rich/corporations not paying enough taxes.

That and yes, we need to stop this stupid war.

People are often paid what their services are worth. You can get to a point where this is no longer the case, but it's nobody's business outside the corporation's owners (usually shareholders) what the individual is paid. If they are getting raises while they are laying off people, that's a shitty company. What to do about such things is complex, however. Too complex for me to bring up unrequested.

The problem with the market is not that it's too free in some areas and not free enough in others. Corporations are the problem. Enforced monopolies are the problem. You hit the nail on the head with corporations not paying enough taxes, however. The tax system is so complex and screwed up it's laughable. While I don't necessarily agree with taxing them into the ground (they'd just leave the country, which is BAD for everyone except them), they often work the system to the point where they are taxed LESS than people in the lower brackets. Kinda gross. The main thing is we need to stop making the "corporation" such a disturbingly powerful legal entity.

Agreed, but "stop" can mean about a million things. We screw up a withdrawal and we will have left the country in a far worse state than before we arrived.

I'd like to add that I thoroughly believe in the ideas behind capitalism (the real ones, not the "OH LIKE EVERYONE SHOULD BE POOR EXCEPT THE PRECIOUS ELITE AND BLAH BLAH BLAH" bullshit that I hear in response far too often) and that a properly regulated free market leads to a healthy economy for everyone involved.

Yeah, but back in the day, slavery meant just a tiny roof over your head and some sort of meal, so that my investment on you won't go to waste... and while you worked the fields I got to fuck your wife whenever I felt like it. xD

Cheap labor and exploited immigrants can't beat that! ;D haha.

FUCK YEAH, AMERICA. LAND OF MORALS AND FAMILY VALUES.

HAhahah, a "properly regulated" free market! That's an oxymoron!

lolol in a way you are correct! Democracy is what the market wants, hence, it sells. I would prefer a totally free of regulations market, but that's not what people want, hence, in a way, the free market wins again. But what do you mean by "general greed"? If I were super rich, I'd hate to pay taxes, as much as poor people do. That doesn't have anything to do with greed. I would prefer to donate on my own terms, because I don't trust the government redistributing my wealth.

Not if you understand capitalism. A totally unregulated market leads to monopolies and plutocracy. Not free. In order to give take this into account, and to take into account important factors which are essential to long-term growth and goodness (environmental factors, wages, assuring proper rights for workers) but not immediate factors in a purchase; regulation is needed for a healthy and free market.

Bradkey is correct. A completely unregulated market is inherently problematic; economic anarchy isn't good. In a society of pure economic competition, there would eventually be victory, and with it, domination and oppression.

When I say "general greed" I just mean any greed that may exist in human nature, whatever that is. Yes, taxes can suck, but they are necessary. The taxed should not avoid them, especially those who are making the largest profits (though they are, rightfully, taxed more).

I for one would prefer a system which strives for cooperation and the welfare of all people as opposed to one concerned with promoting competition and highest possible profits at the expense of people.

I understand capitalism, I've studied economics. How exactly does a totally unregulated market lead to monopolies and plutocracy? How does regulation prevent monopolies and plutocracy from happening?

How do you know that this is exactly what's going to happen in a free unregulated market?

How are taxes necessary for me, and why should I not avoid them?

I like cooperation, but I don't care for the welfare of people who I'm not friends with, and I hate to be forced to do things against my will. Also, you imply that profit at the expense of people is a bad thing, and I wonder how you would justify that. Let me remind you that people choose to pay for goods, they're not forced to. So the profit goes both ways. When many companies compete, each would naturally want to gain people's trust and produce better or cheaper goods than their competitors, so I don't see how that's a bad thing for me.

If a business becomes big enough, it can eliminate competition. If there is no competition the business has significantly lessened incentives to improve their product or practices. This has happened.

It has happened before.

Having a healthy and prosperous nation benefits you, a citizen of that nation. The welfare of your fellow citizens is relevant unless you're wealthy or isolated enough to not care, I suppose.

When their business practices are unchecked, these are not the only ways in which they attempt to get ahead. Environmentally destructive practices, underpaying or mistreating employees, shady payoffs to vendors, forcing competitors out of business, and misleading advertising are but a few things totally unrestrained companies can do to get the consumer to buy their product. Many or all of those (most probably unknown) would not factor into the short term decision to purchase. The consumer then might make a choice against their best long-term welfare. When corporations' main goal is profit and people become disconnected from the moral decisions, they cannot be 100% trusted to their own devices.

Was going to reply, but Brad pretty much took care of it all.

Taxes, when proportionally charged and justly distributed, are very much a good thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_busting

But yeah tricky one... take Wal-mart for example... ultimately it is a negative towards the world in general, yet people choose to shop there to save a few extra pennies, because that benefits them (for the short-term). Thus a positive for both.... yet, ultimately if you allow a company such as Walmart to grow by buying from it, you are ultimately destroying other business that cannot compete with their super cheap prices. Thus destroying jobs/economies. You are also bringing down worker wages. Walmart hardly pays over minimum wage, yet they make loads of cash everyday. Heck, they get sued for millions of millions of dollars and they recover that loss in just a few days. It's like nothing to them. This has happened.

Another perspective: workers in 3rd world countries which Walmart exploits by lowering their prices as much as possible, thus companies paying them hardly anything. Yet, at the very least these poor people are getting paid something to live on. A positive, but to what cost? Ultimately in the long run, what good does it do? One is simply building a ant-worker state of mind/society, being only semi-content with tiny crumbs of food and pennies. Why would someone want that, when they could possibly grow/improve/per-sue something more on their own terms.

Unfortunately, the poorer you are, the likely you are uneducated and are too desperate to survive and willing to take what little crumbs one can give at any cost... just to survive.

Why do you think education in America cost so much? So most poor people would be discouraged to apply or if they do, they end up enslaving them in debt, thus keeping them under control. They want you dumb. The dumber you are the easier you are manipulated.

It's like a giant slap on face. It's like taking a shit in someone's mouth.

wtf.

Mono. Mono yes.

And if people were paid living wages like they could be, imagine how much better the world could be. Poverty takes a lot out of people, and it is a vicious cycle; poor parents, poor kids, poor kid's kids, etc etc.

A business cannot eliminate competition, because they will always be dependent on the public opinion, and people are not that retarded. If people believe that a company is evil and it hurts the economy, it's up to them to boycott that company, and not up to another giant monopoly (the Government) to regulate it. What's the politicians' incentive to improve their services? You pay taxes anyway; no matter what they do, they'll get paid. Here's an alternative: if you do think that the majority of people are retarded and wouldn't boycott evil businesses, then why put them in charge of an even bigger monopoly where they have the power to put you to death (democracy).

Also, I had another question that you didn't address:
"How does regulation prevent monopolies and plutocracy from happening?"

You're begging the question, when has it happened, under what circumstances, etc.

Begging the question again, how does it benefit me?

"environmentally destructive practices" - boycott them.
"underpaying or mistreating employees" - don't work for them.
"forcing competitors out of business" - they deserved it.
"misleading advertising" - trick me once- shame on you; trick me twice - shame on me.
I think it's up to the consumer to make the right decision for themselves, they're not retarded. And don't forget the internet. People can freely complain and criticize companies. There are still many scams around, and if I smell something fishy, I can always do a check up at ripoffreport.com. That's just one example of customers sticking up for each other. I think you might have a very pessimistic view on most people's intelligence, which might explain why you think they would so blindly go after short-term gains. You wouldn't be surprised that politicians make heroes of such retards, because the latter justify the former's monopoly on violence.

Well yeah, if we forget for a second that taxes are theft, they *are* a very good thing. If I decide that I don't want to pay taxes, I would be forced to pay them anyway, hence I'll be robbed of my money.

I agree. I don't shop at Warmart because their products are shit, and I would never work for them, because their wages are shit. But many people do, because they're stupid or poor. So if you guys believe in the rule of the majority, do we let these people unsatisfied just like that? There are better ways to prevent Walmart's evil schemes, like educating the masses about the former's negative effect on the economy, and making it popular to boycott Walmart. All it takes is a paying a few celebrities to say "Fuck Walmart" on TV.

Only the workers in 3d world countries could answer that question, dude. I can speak from personal experience: here, in Bulgaria wages are super low, and one is much better off working for an outsourced Western company. The latter pays off 5 bucks an hour, compared to local employers, who pay 3 bucks an hour.

Not necessarily. I'm poor, but educated, because of the internet. I also studied in a community college for free, back when I was in CA. But I thought the quality of education there sucked, so I decided to proceed studying on my own.

I agree. So why pay them taxes, when all they want is to dumb us down? Government-aided education sucks. There are better ways to learn nowadays. The free market could provide cheaper education, or even free education, sponsored by advertising. The possibilities are countless.

I beg to differ. I wouldn't say people are stupid, but I would say people are confused, to say the least. Kept in the dark. The more the government is represented by the people (instead of the richest and the most powerful), the less the government will resemble a monopoly.
Taxes don't just pay politicians, and no doubt politicians are paid too much as it is.
Aaaand I wish we had that kind of power as a democracy.... buuuut, we live in an only semi-democratic republic, where the richest people seem to have the largest say. And so many people will repeat the mantra "the freer the market, the freer the people". How ironic. It isn't about stupidity. It is about misinformation.

The benefits are often indirect and long term, and, unfortunately, taxes are often funneled off into the wrong hands or into causes you'd rather they didn't. But they also help pay the country's upkeep (repairing roads, for example), provide government services, community places, etc. If you don't make any use of any of these they may not seem to benefit you much it all. But a country really probably couldn't go on without taxes.

Boycotting is not always that simple. Many people in poverty have no other choice but to shop at places they can afford, which can become monopoly-like.
Again, given some communities and the state of the US workforce, many people, probably especially the poor, have no choice not to work for an underpaying employee. Again, monopoly-like-- Competition->Victory->Domination->Oppression.
"Forcing competitors out of business"-- In the ideal capitalism for the common person, yes, they deserved it. Again, not that simple. Once larger stores of lesser quality begin holding the sort-of "monopolies" mentioned above, businesses in the area simply can't stand a chance. Domination.
"Misleading advertising"... I agree with your maxim, but do you find it ethical to be lied to by marketeers?
Because of such "monopolies" I mentioned, consumers and smaller businesses get cornered, and it becomes much more than simply being "not retarded"--people's choices are stripped away, and, maybe at first, the non-small business owner profits from the cheaper prices, but when diversity of businesses breaks down and there are only Wal-Marts left everywhere, well, what the fuck?

Again, a country's welfare and upkeep would likely be abysmal without. And businesses driving up profits at the expense of others does not necessarily equal a more prosperous nation; if it does, I am willing to be that it is the exception rather than the rule. It just leads to polarization of the classes in a country; the poor get poorer, the rich get richer, and the middle class shrinks.

"But many people do, because they're stupid or poor." Or, if they don't have much of a choice; if they are trapped in by the system. Yes, the poor are more likely to be boxed in by such monopolies, and this is a symptom of a larger problem; of not-regulated-enough market and of disregard for the rights of the working people.

And would you consider 5 dollars an hour in your country a living wage? It sounds to be like your comparing two evils.

Not necessarily indeed! But for the majority, it tends to be the case. It is a vicious cycle through each generation. If there was more money among the people to go around (higher wages, a little welfare) and more funding for very important things like education (better proportioned and distributed taxes), this problem wold be greatly eased. A nation of largely educated people who don't have to worry about the basics like housing, food, having enough money for other expenses... well, that would be a much more just and prosperous nation as far as I can tell.

I'd rather not have my education sponsored by corporate interest and commodities. Again, taxes are greatly misdistributed here and overly avoided by the super-rich. It is unfortunate, but it is a part of a problem that needs to be solved. One reason so many government-aided things suck is because they are underfunded.
If the free market produced everything the people needed, well, that would be a dandy trade-off for all the labor that is exploited out of people every day. But I don't see that happening. And I'd rather not have it that way. If the government wants to keep people stupid, well, big business would want to keep us working.

Except that once the competition is eliminated, your choice is often the monopoly or nothing. Broadband in the US is a good example.

Forms of government are a different discussion. Indirectly related, but we were talking about a very specific form of government intervention (economic).

This question does not appear ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE THREAD, so it's a little hard for me to address it. Especially when you're attaching my responses like:

Which was in response to:

Which you SORT OF ADDRESS with:

Turn of the century. Oil, steel, manufacturing, newspapers, etc.

How does a prosperous country benefit you? Lower crime, better quality of public services, better living conditions, etc.

Not always immediately noticeable and the consumer may not always have much in the way of choices.

Not always too much in the way of options when you need to put food on the table.

For what? Being the competition? When the companies are forcing the competition out of business with payoffs or other underhanded business practices (price fixing, false information leaks, indimidation, expensive and frivolous litigation) the consumer barely factors into the equation. This becomes even more evident when discussing corporations who do not just deal directly in purchased goods. Shit, ALL of this regulation talk applies even more when discussing those corporations.

Unless you don't know you've been tricked until it's too late (or ever) or you're being so inundated with lies you don't know which way is up.

The consumer being misinformed or having a scarcity of choices does not make them "retarded". Furthermore, the misinformation (lots of PR firms deal almost exclusively in astroturfing) angle I discussed before applies doubly here.

I won't reply to your responses to Mono or Dahgrow because their words are theirs and I don't want to gang up on you, as it were.

Why do you think the Government is represented by the richest and most powerful? Because everything has a price. Every politician can be bought. Free Market wins again.

So you see my perspective. I prefer to have a choice on what services I want to pay for. A country is not a living thing. A country is made of individuals, and each individual has personal preferences and values different things. Saying that a country can't go on without taxes makes no sense. Each government service can be replaced by a private service, and this way taxes can be avoided.

I don't find it ethical at all, hence I won't buy the products they are marketing.

Blind assertions again. You either can't prove them, or don't feel like debating anymore, which I would be fine with.

Your conclusion does not follow from said premises.

I would, actually. Mortgage prices here are times lower than US's, so it takes very little money to live comfortably.

What you don't seem to understand is that the Government is just another big corporation. They advertise in schools constantly. They advertise democracy, they advertise patriotism, they advertise war. Things that you want to be well-funded are not well-funded because the rule of majority does not work, period. It's ultimately what you want, since I assume you support democracy. In a free market system, you would choose to donate more money to education, and none to war, I'm sure.

It's through the help of the state that such companies eliminate competition, thanks to lobbyists and the like. Lobbying is totally legit in the current system, and it would be stupid to not take advantage of it, if you want to prosper and make profit. This wouldn't happen in a free market system. If the state wasn't already a monopoly, it wouldn't have the power to protect such corporations from competition. I am a huge fan of prevention. Don't blame the players, blame the game.

My point was, that you can't fight monopolies with other monopolies. It doesn't make any sense to support a gigantic monopoly, if you are ultimately against monopolies. And there's no way to regulate a market without a government, so there.

Take it easy, I'm not trying to be a dick. Just doing a little brain exercise.

Okay, I agree in the case of having no alternatives. But compared to a free market system, it benefits me a lot less.

I say, let it happen then. Let pollution happen. Surely people will be worried about that then, and the market would work hard to come up with a solution for the problem. I hate that environmentalists use scare tactics to convince people, instead of hard evidence. Look what happened with Climate Change. Most of it turned out to be a lobbying scam.

Thanks :)

I, myself, don't prefer this. As far as I can tell, it is a contributing factor to a disparity between the haves and have-nots which becomes inheritable.

So here is, probably, a fundamental difference between us; I believe that things are better off publicly owned and run. Naturally individuals should have choice to pay for what services and whatnot they want to pay for. What would be better, though, I think, is a true democratic nation where tax money and profit are distributed according to the consensus of the majority.

Ok, for one thing, there have been plenty of labor struggles in the past. People don't always get paid enough, or, especially, as much as they could by their employers. It seems to be the case that more profits does not always equal more payoff for the workers. Ideally, it would. This is why workers should take a stand. Truth be told I am getting tired of trying to argue, as good as it is for me.

In an unregulated market where there is a vast disparity between the rich and poor, the poorer people are likely to become trapped in by the system. It makes sense to me...

Again, a fundamental difference between us I think; I believe true democratic rule should extend to government as well as matters of generating and distributing wealth. You're absolutely right in saying I would fund education over war, no doubt about it.
I agree with you that the government is very similar to a corporation. The reason why government funded programs are underfunded is not because majority rule does not work, but because money is fundamentally misdistributed according to the want of the minority, and because the majority doesn't really rule here. They should, they should be pissed off and getting out there and doing something about the country's problems, not just voting and thinking they are participating in a democratic nation.

You're avoiding the point.
A: Lobbying is helpful, but not the only way of eliminating competition.
B: I don't the whole lobbyist system. I think it should be more tightly regulated or altered to the point where it only vaguely resembles what it is today. Corporations have too many rights.
C: Less regulation is going to lead to less outright manipulations?

Don't strawman me, Mr. "Begging the question". Private corporations are not the government. They perform different functions. I see where you are going and once again, the two issues can be tied together but I don't want to get into the larger discussion of government systems.

Fella, you said:

and I answered. I don't know what you expected.

You said that you didn't care what happened to people with whom you weren't friends. I said that their welfare concerned you, because being in a prosperous country is of benefit to you. You ask how being in a prosperous country helps you. I answered, and you agree that it's beneficial and yet...? My point was that the welfare of those who are not your friends affects you. You apparently concede. I don't know where else you can go with this specific point.

Even people who boycott that company can be negatively affected.
An example: Company A builds a land-poisoning factory on the west coast, sells to people on the east coast. Company can make enough money without the patronage of west coast citizens, who slowly find their land forever ruined.

Furthermore: The damage might be irreparable by the time it is noticed. You can't easily undo a lot of environmental damage. Ecosystems can be extremely fragile, and it's difficult to say what the long-term effects might be.

In what universe? Please cite your sources on that.

If all companies are publicly owned, there is basically no incentive to improve the quality of product or service. It's the left hand fighting the right hand; at the end of the day, both are still attached to your body. I can find some reference material if you need, but this was a problem for tourists (and citizens) of late-stage soviet Russia. Individuals have the right to spend their money in the manner of their choosing, but not the right to strike out on their own and make money in the manner of their choosing?

If the every whim of the majority is listened to, we end up with mob rule and any minority opinion is basically irrelevant. We (most democratic republics, constitutional monarchies, etc.) set up some core rules and systems to avoid this.