Has the economy improved under Obama?
Please no slanderous comments, please keep in mind, the economy was bad before Obama it will stay bad after Obama because its just that messed up right now, Obama said himself that it will take more than one term to fix so don't be angry if he hasn't fixed it within his first unfinished term (2 1/2 years), the economic crisis was not all Bush's fault, so don't say its Bush's fault, The way the economy is right now its not the easiest thing to fix, not just any person could it so don't complain that Obama can't fix it within a term (in fact it may be one of the hardest jobs in the world), the economy was in free fall when Obama was elected, meaning he basically inherited all the troubles that people are blaming him for, its not just Republicans fault, Its not just Democrats fault, its been years of both sides making mistakes (I personally think we'd be way better of if they agreed to work together to fix the economy), I just want a simple answer. (I know my grammar sucked in this sentence/ paragraph...)
How do conservatives explain the economic success that took place while Barack Obama was in office?
I am not researching this. This answer is purely my speculation and opinion.How do conservatives explain the economic success that took place while Barack Obama was in office?Easy… he threw almost nine trillion dollars at it. In other words, he simply printed some money and dispersed it into the economy.Let’s say you did that in your business. You decided to use that limitless American Express card you have, and started buying your products. Suddenly it will look like your sales are going through the roof. You show your P&L to the bank, they like what they see and loan you even more money. Everyone outside your business (and even your employees who lack the intelligence to analyze what is really going on) think your company is doing well.The Profit and Loss looks fabulous! But peek at the balance sheet. And you see this.Would anyone who knew you are now nine trillion dollars more in debt than 8 years ago think the economy was a success.A final thought. There are about 28 million businesses in the US. Borrowing $9 trillion dollars and giving it to equally to the businesses would have increased sales for every company by $320K. But of course, Ma and Pa Flower Shop didn’t see an increase of $320K in sales… but GM got a $49.5 billion tax-free loan. Corporate welfare isn’t evenly distributed either.
What are liberal and conservative views about taxes?
Conservatives believe that tax cuts are the answer to every problem. Yes, every problem: pollution, education, the deficit, crumbling infrastructure, solvent social security and medicare, immigration, crime, climate change, inflation, deflation, poverty, and the odd school bus full of children driving off a cliff. Liberals believe that taxes are a means to an end, and pay for necessary investments in the future of America - A clean sustainable environment, a literate educated population, maintenance and improvements in infrastructure to remain competitive, a dignified retirement for senior citizens, assistance for the poor and those temporarily displaced by unemployment, especially children.
Since socialism is an "extreme" version of liberalism, is fascism an extreme version of conservatism?
You might want to take a look at the 'political compass' or Nolan Chart. Though far from perfect, it is a huge improvement over the old left-right anachronism left over from the French revolution. People do not always fit into neat stereotypes. There are gay Republicans who support the NRA, fundamentalist Christians who believe in environmentalism (aka responsible stewardship), and hawks who are both pro-military and pro-choice on abortion. The typical Nolan style chart breaks this into two independent axis - social and economic. Socialism is primarily an economic system, in which the government has widespread control over the economy (or at least matters such as production of goods, wages, and similar decisions). It should not be mistaken for communism, which is a combination of socialism and authoritarianism. Socialism is considered at the 'far left' of the economic system, with total 'Laissez-faire' at the other extreme. (markets exist with no governmental oversight at all ). Neither extreme is particularly healthy, so the debate is generally one of how much influence the government should have to regulate a fair playing field without squelching healthy competition too much. (there are trade offs) Fascism is a poorly defined term, though it's original description was for Mussolini in Italy. It falls on a completely different axis - authoritarian/libertarian. The balance between individual freedom and the power of the state. For social libertarians, the state must respect and defer to the rights of the individual as long as they do not trample someone else's rights. In authoritarianism, the state is all important, and people are subservient to the government. Fascism is generally considered a form of authoritarianism, typically having centrist to 'free market' political views (distinguishing it from communism and socialism - which fascists generally hate with a passion) a sense of hypernationalism, and a general sense that 'the ends justify the means' (at least if it is their desired ends)
Why Are Conservatives So Stubborn About Pollution & Global Warming?
Think about it... only about 25 percent of Americans think Bush is doing a good job... only about 25 percent of Americans say they don't believe in Global Warming... only about 25 percent of Americans don't believe in Evolution... only about 25 percent of Americans believe that a clump of bloody cells is a human... if you computed a bell shaped curve of the intelligence level of Americans (or any group) the lower 25 percent of the people at the bottom of that curve would really be stupid people... only about 25 percent of Americans believe the Iraqi war is a good thing... about 25 percent of Americans are so shallow and narrow minded that they hate anyone or anything that isn't like them. I'm not going to point any fingers, but my question would have to be: IS IT THE ALL THE SAME 25 PERCENT?
Why do American conservatives keep pushing the idea of a "free market" when a free market has never truly existed in America, i.e., subsidies, tariffs, and regulations?
If a truly free market currently existed, they wouldn’t need to push for it. In the past, the freest markets have been those that have flourished the most. Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore in parts of the 20th century and America in the 19th century had rapid economic growth and comparatively very free markets. Theoretically, free markets align with individual liberty and the maximum potential for wealth creation. I’m all for pushing for them. And I think they’re mistakenly associated with greed (which is vague and equally applies to politicans) and monopolies (which are actually rare and far more common in government services).I visualise free markets as a big strong man lifting weights. The government is some guy in a suit who puts a finger on the weights as they go up. He then takes the credit for all the lifting. He greases the weights claiming that’ll make them easier to lift and then blames the strong man when he drops them. The government also points out that there’s never been a strong man lifting weights without a government touching, implying that government intervention is absolutely necessary.