Stop, Obama time.

[Leon]

Had a tough day at work. I admit defeat for now on some points, so I'll just reply to certain key points.

And instead of defending the things he's credibly attacked for, you simply point out the very few, rare instances of nutjobs calling him out on stupid things?

Rare instances? I don't know where you're from, but I see it a lot.

Some do, sure. So do some left-wing extremists. Some people will use their religion to claim it supports their political ideals. How do you think Christians who believe the Bible feel when liberals try to spout that homosexuals should be given rights specifically for their sexual preference

"Specifically"? Homosexuals were just people who wanted to serve in the military. They were denied once they were asked about their sexual orientation, so the Clinton Administration came up with DADT. Liberals didn't "spout" anything until the military denied homosexuals.

I can see how Christians would feel, though, since the Bible forbids homosexual behavior. But as long as gays do what they're told in the military -- this goes for every servicemember, actually --isn't it enough to make everyone happy? I'm a Christian, but there's men out there possibly in love with other men who are protecting us. Protecting you and me. Why would I be mad at someone who's risking his life everyday just so we could be safe? The Bible says a lot of things, like "Love thy neighbor". Why deny someone who wants to fight for us?

or that unborn children are not worthy of the right to life?

I discussed this in another website. I've heard that the fetus is not alive during the first half of pregnancy. If that's the case, it would be okay to have an abortion, especially if it was unwanted or if it came from rape.

Whether it's true or not, though, I don't think it should be up to the government to decide whether or not a woman should have her baby. I can't just tell some random girl in the street to have her baby, whether she wants to or not.

I agree that people should just keep their legs closed if they don't want babies, but their business is their business. And even if those against abortion get their way -- even if abortion becomes illegal -- if a woman still doesn't want a baby, they'll just try to get it out by any means necessary. They won't care about the law if they become miserable by their choices.

If you know nothing of any of the accomplishments, why spout them as "good" things?

They may not affect you, but that doesn't mean they don't affect everybody else. One of his accomplishments was to create jobs. Perhaps the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did not create, oh let's say, 10 million jobs, but it still created a lot of jobs, saving a lot of people from unemployment. I never said the list had big accomplishments, but it's something.

And I think it's silly to expect straight combat soldiers to tolerate the special "needs" of homosexuals.

I may not be a combat soldier, but even if I were I'd still tolerate homosexuals. But that's just me. I tolerate just about anybody....that doesn't pick on me.

Plus, not all homosexuals feel they have to proclaim their sexual orientation to everyone they meet. I don't think most of them would say anything unless they were asked.

Bush took office in early '01.

Yeah, in January of 2001, right? Which is why I said "almost seven years". The heavy recession started in December 2007. Or six years, eleven months after Bush took office. Which explains the "almost" part.

I don't know if you were trying to correct me, it's hard to tell by what you said on the quote above. But I rarely fail on my math, and it's correct right now.

You mean you're not still blaming the recession on Bush? You mean the media and nearly half of the rest of America isn't still blaming the recession on Bush?

Maybe you didn't read the sentence after the one where I said that Bush got blamed for only a year. I meant to say, Bush got blamed for only a year, and once Obama became President, people started pinning the blame on him. Which is why I believe lots of people have short-term memory. They don't listen to what the media says about Bush.

I don't blame Bush entirely for the recession. I just blame him for making things worse.

And due to the massive deficit he's already earned, the dramatic increase in debt, the ridiculous spending to accomplish nothing ...

He could accomplish "nothing" as you call it because Republicans in Congress have opposed just about every idea Obama had proposed. And now that they occupy the majority of the House, don't expect much done.

Not when "spending money over our health" will not improve our health and will instead simply force taxpayers to fund another horribly inefficient, inept government program.

Remind me why spending money for our health is a bad move. That's all I'll ask for from this particular point.

"Seems to" have a liberal bias? Really -- you didn't notice it shouting from the computer screen, it just "seems" like it?

You don't have to be a jerk (or sound like one at least), or people will just stop reading, ignore you, and move on. I appreciate you trying to be blunt, but there is a line between being blunt and just sounding like a jerk.

Yeah, it does have a liberal bias. But would you have read it if I just said "This article leans a lot in favor to the left-wing."? Sorry for my lack of honesty, btw.

[Alpha]

Short post -- on my iPod.

I just want to establish that a government deficit, in a time of general economic recession, is not objectively bad. Indeed, it is perfectly in line with Keynesian economic theory. A surplus in times of a growing economy (Clinton, then Bush), then a deficit in the declining times (Bush's deficit was caused by low taxes and high post 9-11 expenditure). I don't blame any president for the GLOBAL economic recession -- and if Obama held a budget surplus it would only mean that the government was not taking an expansionary role and circulating money -- which is how the work recovered from the Great Depression.

I am pleased with Obama's performance by and large, and scaremongering over the deficit is ideology -- not economic fact.

[Alpha]

Government expenditure, regardless of what anyone thinks of it, still circulates money. If the expenditure is on war, then weapons manufacturing companies will receive income, as will their employees. If it's roads, the same applies to road workers.

After this initial stimulus, these workers then go on to spend to other sector of the economy. They will not spend all of it -- but with low interest rates set by the central bank, they will spend most of it. The businesses and employees who receive this money will also go on to spend and partially save. So what's happening is a MULTIPLIER effect, caused by the initial government stimulus.

If there was a budget surplus during a recession, the government would be taxing more money than it was distributing. In a time of recession, that would be disastrous.

Yes it requires debt -- which should be paid off in times of economic boom and government surplus.

The only important question is how large the deficit should be -- not whether or not there should be one.

Is Obama's deficit too large? I believe the answer lies in a consideration of how well the American economy could be expected to grow post-recession. This also requires a consideration of the international economy -- most significantly inflation in China. Funny that no one brings those up and instead just bash whatever president they disagree with the most.

I read (in a book co-authored by Joseph Stiglitz) that there are influential arguments in support of the perspective that an individual government has minimal influence over he macro economy. Really, it all comes down to the behavior of individuals and their confidence in the macro economic situation.