At the cost of greater government control and loss of choice. Not a good trade-off, if you ask me.
Government interference hasn't bankrupted any insurers or hospitals or doctors or pharmaceuticals. It isn't preventing millions from getting care; in fact, it's helping people who were redlined out of the system get care. The quality of care in the US has not deteriorated.
Seems like a decent trade-off to me. It'd be better if we went single-payer, but
c'est la guerre.
The government has no business picking winners and losers...etc
Fun fact! Deregulation is what produces systems that are "too big to fail." Government intervention didn't make GM and Chrysler big (in fact, it helped them shrink), and didn't force Ford to use the same suppliers as Chrysler and GM. Deregulation directly resulted in banks so big and interconnected, that the failure of one major investment bank threw the global financial system into turmoil.
Meanwhile, government actions occasionally break up companies that are too big (AT&T) or prevent companies from getting too big (Comcast-TW).
So, which do you want? Regulation, that often prevents industries from being too big to fail? Or deregulation, which encourages it?
And yes, sometimes governments
should intervene, when a critical industry is at stake, or a monopoly gets abusive, or companies fail to provide safe products.
If you were being honest, this should be credited to the Republicans. Without their opposition to the numerous spending schemes Obama and the Democrats have wanted and dragging Obama, kicking and screaming, to cutting spending, our deficit would have skyrocketed.
lol... No, I don't think so.
The Republicans did not draft the budget single-handedly, and did not want (for example) the sequestration cuts. They screamed that those cuts were "Obama's fault," remember? Meanwhile, Obama had talked about cutting the deficit from day 1 in office.
Also, it seems to me those two wars are still going on...as well as a bunch of others Obama has started.
Then you're seeming wrong. We are basically out of Iraq and almost out of Afghanistan. We are certainly not spending anywhere near the kind of money and manpower as we were at the height of those conflicts.
And what wars did Obama "start?" Did he start the civil strife in Libya? Nope, the Libyans did that. Did he encourage Syrians to revolt against the Assad regime? Nope.
While letting those illegal aliens (let's call a spade a spade, shall we?) keep on coming and not making much of an effort to stem the tide.
And yet, the rate of illegal immigration flatlined during his term, and has not increased. Spending on ICE has in fact increased, and he ordered a more strict form of deportations.... Go figure.
Illegal aliens don't need a path to citizenship...beyond the path provided by our existing laws...they need a path out of our country.
Sorry dude, but they are not going anywhere.
At this point, kicking out all the undocumented immigrants is the equivalent of kicking out the entire population of Kansas. It's not going to happen.
3.5% is not "anemic," it's actually pretty good. Even JeB! is only promising 4%. [Note: Any president has very limited ability to impact GDP.]
Wages have been largely stagnant since the 1970s. In fact, they are now ticking up a bit; plus, Obama has pushed visibly for increases in minimum wages. [Of course, wages are another factor over which any President doesn't have much control.]
That's actually a good thing.
prices that keep inflating...
Where, in Fantasyland?
Inflation has been
very low during Obama's term in office, including a touch of deflation.
people's lives aren't "improving", they are "hanging on".
Uh huh
- Consumer confidence is hitting 11-year highs
- Crime is down
- We're basically back at full employment
- Labor force participation rate, which started declining in
2001, has been flat for about 18 months
- Wages are finally coming up a little bit
- Stock markets are doing very well
- Real estate is recovering and even getting frothy in some markets, despite significantly stricter lending requirements
- The number of uninsured is near or at its lowest point since we started keeping track
- All this is happening while the EU and China are having economic issues
Is everything peachy keen? Definitely not. Would it be peachy if Obama got his way with every policy. No. But things are getting better for millions of Americans, and some of that is due to Obama's policies, which were passed in spite of a highly polarized Congress.