But he did sign a lot of spending into place. Neutral sources like Politifact back that up.
Politifact is far from neutral.
But he did sign a lot of spending into place. Neutral sources like Politifact back that up.
Politifact is far from neutral.
Facts do usually have a liberal bias...
How much of my 100% am I entitled to? Not 32%. 5%? 1%? 0%?
Rocketman
Sounds like a no true Scotsman fallacy.
Which is why government healthcare offers better value for money.
I have (see my location) and it delivers perfectly good results in my experience. It also clearly delivers decent results overall as life expectancy is higher in the UK than in the US.
I actually have private healthcare as a work perk, and I pay about $8/month for it with the employer paying another $40/month. If it was more expensive though, I probably wouldn't bother.
Such as what? Healthcare before World War 2? That delivered worse results than today.
Because the 2009 budget was made under President Bush before Obama was elected. So the vast majority of it has nothing to do with Obama.
In part, yes, but their economy is also still pretty heavily planned by the state.
Why do you think that?
Even the Greeks work hard. And actually the Chinese are usually criticised for over-investing and not spending enough (source 1, source 2, source 3).
----------
How is it Obama's deficit when the vast majority of the 2009 budget was decided before he became President? That sounds like the same kind of partisan ******** you are allegedly claiming to be against.
Source?
Because you aren't partisan? Come on.
If you weren't partisan you'd accept that the 2009 budget was mostly decided before Obama became president.
"Government" and "value" should never be used in the same sentence. Government has zero incentive to provide good value,
Value and quality is rewarded in a free market, whereas waste, fraud, and abuse is rewarded in the government.
You are completely ignoring many costs for your $48/m healthcare plan, most importantly, the VAT.
You also ignore the ramifications of government in healthcare, including the discouraging of individuals to become doctors, and the shortage of certain types of drs vs the surplus as other types of doctors.
The healthcare system prior to world war 2, even though you claim yielded poor results, was what put america towards the top in life expectancy.
I was also trying to understand who really is responsible for the 460b deficit in 2008 to the 1.4T in 2009...was that ALL bush?
Other than winning elections
Private companies are perfectly capable of being abusive, see the banking industry as an example.
The $8/month I pay is the tax.
There's not a shortage of people wanting to become doctors here...
You'd expect America to have been #1 in life expectancy as the richest country that hadn't been ravaged by war.
Well you can blame Clinton for deregulating the banks, but given Bush was handed a surplus much of the blame lies with him. And obviously the Democratic congress share some of the blame, and Obama should be "blamed" for ~$200 billion of the stimulus plan.
Politicians win elections by promising free stuff. That's it.
Doesn't much of the funding for universal healthcare in the UK come from the VAT? Unless you don't buy anything, you're paying dearly.
Are you insinuating that America was not #1 in health prior to WW2 because of the lack of the government's involvement in healthcare? How about other factors...? Lifestyle, culture, etc...why ignore the sharp decline in life expectancy (relative to other countries) after the injection of the government in the healthcare system?
In truth, too MUCH government involvement is what caused the financial collapse.
As for who's responsible for the 480B deficient in 08 and the 1.4B deficit in 09, it was either democrats or republicans, so the answer is to vote for neither.
Right, and how do they pay for that free stuff? Magic beans?
If they borrow the money they have to pay interest and you can't do that indefinitely (additionally the opposition complains loudly), if they raise taxes people aren't happy. So if they could make efficiency savings to provide the free stuff wouldn't that be the best choice all round?
The US spends far more than we do on healthcare.
US: 17.9% of GDP
UK: 9.3% of GDP
(source)
Why ignore the fact that a) there is government involvement in healthcare in every country, and b) that the US economy has shrunk massively compared to the rest of the world since World War 2.
Source?
Given the US effectively only has two choices how exactly do you manage that?
The deficit declined substantially when sequestration was installed, a R initiative Obama opposed vehemently.The deficit has been cut in half during Obama's presidency
Concerns about government use of user data collecting ramped up in June, when a U.S. government program named PRISM was revealed to be giving the U.S. National Security Agency direct access to user data on corporate servers across a wide spectrum of Internet companies including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple.
This just in, the NSA Spying program has been found to be unconstitutional. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25410064