Yup! He definitely is. He is gonna protect us from the evil gubmint any time now....I can't wait until you guys get together and start protecting those FREEDOMS!
Well, plenty of people have wanted to protect themselves from the "evil gubmint" in the past. But, hey, it was Democrats then just like it is Democrats now who think that the ability of the government to enslave people trumps all other rights.
In both cases Obama's subsequent 4 year terms beat the targets that McCain and Romney ran on.
McCain was utterly incompetent (and a psychopath to boot), so who knows why he said what he said.
But Obama has a serious problem in terms of claiming credit for the unemployment rate. See, the actual unemployment rate was even worse than what Obama predicted would have happened without his stimulus plan (you can find the same data on many other sites if you don't believe someone with an "R" in front of his name). That is, his stimulus plan had the opposite effect of what he predicted (which isn't surprising to many economists).
And that red line is only the official unemployment rate; the actual level of unemployment was even higher than that, because a lot of people just gave up and dropped out of the labor force. You can easily add several percent on top of that red line.
Obama's stimulus plan was a miserable failure based on his own models.
It's a conspiracy within Google that would require many people in the company to be complicit. We are talking about a specific, fundamental change to Google's flagship product.
Google is a firm believer in unconscious bias, the idea that women and minorities are underrepresented at Google and elsewhere, not because of some grand conspiracy, but because even the well-meaning, progressive employees at Google just can help themselves be unconsciously biased against women and minorities.
There is clearly massive, widespread bias at Google against Trump and conservatives. It's not just that the company clearly discriminates against people who don't believe its party line, it's that people who don't agree with the nutty leftist beliefs prevalent among its employees would even look for a job there.
So you see, it doesn't take a "conspiracy" for that bias to influence every decision about news ranking, rating, banning, hiring, investments, etc., it just takes widespread unconscious bias. Google itself tells you so.
Most of what Dirty Donald does is completely appalling.
You're entitled to your opinion. While I don't like Trump's personality, so far, he hasn't done much that I find objectionable.
Besides which, Dirty Donald has a long history of lashing out with accusations and conspiracy theories whenever he's pushed into a corner. As happened last week for example,
Yeah, so? Seems to work for him politically. And the left has its own set of delusions and conspiracy theories about the economy.
Does he really have any credibility left? Apart from his diehard fan-base that is?
He didn't have much credibility when he ran for president, which is why I didn't vote for him. But so far, I have no significant problems with his policies.
Reference please. I really don't believe that there is any evidence of this and without that you're just making shit up.
I'm not sure what exactly you are asking. Are you asking for evidence of "he's one in a long line of people who use the poor and the desperate to lift themselves into political office with no ability or intention to actually help them"? For one, look at where the poorest and most miserable conditions are in the country: in inner cities, almost universally governed for decades by Democrats.
So what? The massive economic decline that precipitated all of this wasn't his fault.
We're not debating whose fault it was, we're simply debating whether the statement that Obama created a lot of jobs is a reasonable assessment of his presidency, and it is not.
We were spending twice or more than every single other nation with socialized medicine before Obama Care and now after Obama care. It's our stupid system that isn't sustainable and you're clearly exemplifying ideology before truth here.
Not at all: I fully agree that our system wasn't sustainable before Obama and it is just as unsustainable after Obama.
Yes, capitalism generally gets us more bang for our buck but there is so much obvious data out there that socialized medicine outperforms our current system per dollar spent it's ridiculous anyone would support our current system.
We already have a massive system of socialized medicine, called Medicare/Medicaid. It already spends more per American (again not per patient but per American) than many European systems of socialized medicine. So the problem is not that we lack sufficient funding for socialized medicine, the problem is that the system of socialized medicine we have is horrendously inefficient and overpriced. And Obama did nothing, zero, zip to fix that.
clearly there is a problem with the more expensive option
There clearly is. And there are three ways in which Obama could have addressed that problem: he could have fully privatized our system, he could have imposed a mixed system with strict cost controls, or he could have implemented a nationalized public system like the UK and France. All three of these can be made to work cost-effectively, given the right regulations. Obama did none of those.
What did he do instead? Obama did nothing to rein in costs in the inefficient public system and instead just forced private payers to divert even more money to corporate cronies.
Apparently you don't. Try here [politifact.com] and here [washingtonpost.com]
Gosh, even the WaPo lists only about 1/4 of Obama's promises kept.
Everyone involved knew ACA was a compromise.
Compromise? Republicans universally rejected it. The ACA was a Democratic construct.
You do realize, if god hates us, you'll be one of those old people sooner than you think?
So you are saying that I should just shut up and vote for robbing young health people because it's in my narrow economic interest?
Who do you think pays for free clinics, because they're certainly not free?
Actually, they are nonprofits and mostly financed by donations; they receive little government funding and no insurance reimbursements. In any case, my point is that they are a lot more cost effective than the ACA and if government dollars are going towards providing free preventive care and vaccinations, a system like the free clinics is a lot more efficient than the ACA.
I've also seen what happens when you have to hit the ER for a relatively minor emergency that turns into a $50K bill. Oh, but they'll settle it for $5K. If you have insurance. Cash? $20K. That's what's fundamentally wrong with the US health insurance industry right there.
Yes, and Obama not only failed to fix that, he arguably made it worse.
And I did check out those ACA plans, after Trump took office. Amazing how they went up 30% and offered less. But I'm sure that's Obama's fault too.
My car maintenance didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. My restaurant bills or grocery bills didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. My gas bill didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. So why did your and my healthcare become so much more expensive after Trump took office? Because the rates and conditions are set by government regulators, not the free market.
So, yes, the fact that a change in government can cause health insurance rates to go up is very much the fault of politicians who perpetuate a system under which insurance rates are set by government and not by the market.
1) If you are asking me to seriously consider the weight of the 72% of people that see news as fake
I'm not asking you to consider anything. I responded to the claim "They aren't analyzing the credibility of web sites, they're analyzing the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites." I pointed out that if they "analyzed the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites", they wouldn't be selecting those web sites.
Obviously, Google either selects those web sites because they believe that they are credible despite what the public believes, or they simply are trying to create controversy to maximize revenue.
I made no such claim.
Then don't butt in other people's discussions, in particular if you can't be bothered to read the context.
The 2007 recession and financial crisis was not a normal recession, and there was never going to be a normal recovery.
So you agree then that Obama's recovery was lousy, you are just trying to make excuses for it.
In 2010 the CBO estimated that the 10-year cost of ACA reforms would be $940B, and that taxes and cost reductions would yield revenue of $1044T. Since then overall costs have come under projections, and have been below pre-ACA estimations. In other words, the ACA has saved the federal government money vs. doing nothing.
Yes, but costs to the federal government are not the primary costs of the ACA, the impact on the insured is the primary cost. For example, my deductible under ACA now is more than my entire annual insurance premium (with no deductible) used to be. I now pay about as much as I used to for essentially worthless insurance and even higher prices.
What it really amounts to is that you were mistaken. So we'll start with that.
I voted for Obama in 2008. I know what he promised and I know what he delivered. As far as I'm concerned, he lied. With Hillary, her lies were even more transparent and obvious.
You are mistaken again: Obama didn't author the ACA, and wasn't even responsible for most of what was in it.
If Obama had disapproved of the ACA, he could have vetoed it, or not defended it in court. Of course, Obama fully approved of the ACA and took credit for it. And it's nothing more than a massive handout to corporations that does nothing to address the unsustainable cost spiral of health care.
TBH, I'm not a fan of ACA, but I agree with at least 1 of its principles: get everyone covered. Why? Because today you're helped if you need it. And if you can't pay, someone has to pick up the bill, and that invariably falls on those of us that do carry insurance and do pay taxes. I hold that everyone has de facto emergency coverage, so everyone should be covered.
Yes, and that "de facto emergency coverage" was a better way of covering the uninsured than to force healthy, young people to subsidize unhealthy old people, which is what the ACA does.
I also believe that everyone should have basic coverage for basic things, like preventative care visits once a year, vaccinations, and perhaps 3 or 4 office visits per year per individual.
Preventive care visit once a year costs less than a tank of gas; ditto for vaccinations. They are also provided for free at free clinics, something the US government could have expanded.
In fact, it looks like the ACA has reduced preventive care and office visits, because it has forced many people to go onto high deductible plans.
The crisis which became widely public in late summer/early fall of 2008, while he was still in the process of actually getting elected? He didn't actually take office until 2009...
It was Obama's choice to bail out Wall St (Bush left it up to him). It was Obama's choice to deal with the recession through massive government spending and fiscal policy. It was Obama's choice to saddle the country with a hugely expensive health care reform package that did nothing to control costs and amounted to little more than a massive handout to corporate interests.
This has been a standard part of the republican playbook since the 80's...
Who the f*ck cares? I'm not defending the Republicans. I didn't vote for McCain in 2008, I voted for Obama. I think that entitles me to assessing Obama's performance eight years later, and I consider it piss-poor. It was so poor that (along with the nomination of Hillary and the increasing vitriolic partisanship coming out of the Democratic party) to make me leave the Democratic party and become an independent.
I'm not a conservative. I actually voted for Obama. I left the Democratic party in 2016 and became an independent over Obama's lousy performance and Hillary's nomination.
always bring up him being a community organizer on a list of negatives? Community organizing is just getting people active in our democratic process.
Because he didn't just "organize" people, he indoctrinated them according to a particular ideological playbook. And as such, he's one in a long line of people who use the poor and the desperate to lift themselves into political office with no ability or intention to actually help them.
This was done in the context in one of the worst depressions this country has had (one which he inherited).
Yes, and his response was massive handouts to Wall St and corporations and massive government spending. And the depression itself was caused by government policies that progressives (in both parties) were largely responsible for.
"caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs" Job growth happened throughout Obama's presidency.
Yes, but not even enough to keep up with population growth. And the labor force participate rate fell dramatically under Obama and never recovered, even if you factor out demographic changes.
I'm not a huge Obama Care fan as it fails to address any of the under-riding problems our healthcare system has (it's still twice as expensive per person as those evil socialist's medical systems) but with an extra 20 million people with health insurance out of the blue it is certainly "working" in that context.
Transferring vast amounts of money from poor, young, healthy people to well-off, older, sick people is not a way of fixing US healthcare and it's not sustainable. Health care reform ought to have addressed the out of control costs, one way or another, either by full privatization or by full nationalization. What Obama chose to do instead was the worst possible combination of policies: massive handouts to corporate lobbyists and no costs controls at all.
And Democrats are not seriously proposing nationalization either; all they keep talking about is an ever increasing crony capitalist "single payer" scheme that has no parallel anywhere in the world.
nd you choose to blame Obama for not just the impact of technology, but also blame him for baby boomers reaching retirement age? That seems a little unfair...
At least bother to read what I wrote: And that's not just due to demographic changes, you also see in in the 25-54 male [bls.gov] demographic. Obama's job losses cannot be explained by retiring baby boomers.
but seem to be ignoring the times that Trump contradicts himself on an almost daily basis, sometimes in the same run-on sentence!
What does Trump have to do with anything? I didn't vote for Trump. I did vote for Obama, which, I believe entitles me to point out the numerous ways in which he failed to deliver on what he promised and in which he disappointed me.
The present president is certainly "a narcissistic blowhard who said whatever it took to get elected". What sets him apart from others is that he is unpredictable, instead of doing "whatever his corporate and political masters told him to do".
I'm not blaming Obama for the financial crises (other progressives are responsible for that). What Obama did was to turn what should have been a normal recovery into a long and drawn out stagnant economy that kept millions who lost their jobs from regaining their jobs.
As for ACA, it's easy to cover more people in the short term if you borrow to pay for it; that's not sustainable. It's the lack of sustainability and financial responsibility that makes the ACA so crappy.
It is quite funny seeing people complain about Obama not achieving all the things that he couldn't get passed through Congress despite actually staying true to his promise.
Obama had both houses for the first two years. Furthermore, it's his job to promise only what he can deliver; "Congress thwarted me" is not a valid excuse.
Hint: The abomination that finally appeased congress was nothing at all what was architected or proposed. Hell the GOP made no secret at all in their attempt to turn it to garbage if they couldn't kill it.
The GOP unanimously voted against that crap. And if Obama thought it was an "abomination", then he should have vetoed it.
As for the healthcare reforms, I find it cute that you don't realise *why* it's own architects say it's unworkable.
I realize that full well: its architects thought that it was the "stupidity of the American people" that wouldn't let them impose their health care plan on Americans. That's why they had to lie and adopt a strategy that relied on Hillary as the next president.
Of course, the plan they actually wanted (some form of single payer) was as crappy and unworkable as the plan they actually passed, they were simply too stupid to realize that.
He was a senator, he was working towards getting out of 2 major wars he inherited etc.
So, what all of that amounts to is that Obama lied in order to be elected.
Actually, it is workable, if you take it to its conclusion: single payer.
That's not what Obama said ACA would bring. So, again, he lied, and the people who advocated for ACA lied. And, of course, "single payer" without nationalization of the health care system isn't workable either, it's just an even bigger crony capitalist handout to corporations. If you want a public single payer solution, you must nationalize health care providers as well.
Are you describing Trump?
I'm describing all presidents. I'm pointing out that Obama fits right in with Trump and Bush.
[Free market capitalism] ISN'T FREE To have that you need LITERALLY ZERO government interference in the economic process (eg no tariffs) which is pretty much NEVER going to happen.
So, first let's be clear here: you agree then that the problems the Finnish researchers identify are, in fact, not problems with capitalism but problems with government interference.
Now, can we have pure free market capitalism? That's an academic debate about purity. What we can easily have is a government whose interference in the economy is only a few percent of GDP instead of accounting for half or more of all economic activity. How do we know? Because that's what we had for much of American history, and that would address many of the problems the Finnish authors falsely attribute to "capitalism".
As such, forgive me for not taking people's opinions on what they think as fake or false news as incontrovertible fact.
Well, you justified Google's choice by saying that "they're analyzing the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites". Given that so many people do not trust these web sites, that statement is wrong.
Well, 66% of millenials think the Earth is not round. [forbes.com]
That has nothing to do with what we were discussing, but it's an interesting factoid on its own, since it puts into perspective the support of millennials for Democrats, progressivism, social justice, and environmentalism, doesn't it?
His term was indistinguishable from someone who tried to do the right thing but was easily swayed by propaganda (or maybe partly by classified info that we don't have). I don't know how much was malice or incompetence or just naivete.
Well, it certainly doesn't make him a conservative as the GP claimed.
Donald Trump is clearly NOT trying to do the right thing. That's the difference.
I have no idea what Donald Trump is "trying" to do. But unlike Obama, Trump so far has reduced regulations, appointed/nominated better justices, and lowered taxes. On the other hand, he has done nothing to hurt me (I'm a gay immigrant) and started no new wars. Drone strikes are also way down under Trump. So, whatever Trump is (and he is certainly no conservative or libertarian either), I have no cause to complain.
I'm not thrilled about all of the particulars of the CARB, but one cannot reasonably argue that it has not been effective in dramatically improving California's air quality
I assume California is perfectly free to accomplish those objectives via other, local regulations. For example, cities like LA could limit the city center to low emissions vehicles or sell special city access stickers. But setting state-wide limits on what cars can be sold in California because LA has bad air quality is irrational.
Be that as it may, the current California vehicle emission standards are not driven by concern about LA air quality, but by California's objectives on carbon emissions.
It was a right granted by a legal action
No, it was an exemption carved out by Congress for California "to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions". Carbon emissions are not an "extraordinary condition", they apply to the entire country, and hence California doesn't get to set its own standards on carbon emissions.
Slashdot Mirror
They are global harmful effects, so it's the job of the federal government to make decisions about them. That's the law.
The "extraordinary" in the law refers to "extraordinary among the states", not "extraordinary in history".
Well, plenty of people have wanted to protect themselves from the "evil gubmint" in the past. But, hey, it was Democrats then just like it is Democrats now who think that the ability of the government to enslave people trumps all other rights.
How does my right to own a gun or engage in free speech infringe on any of your constitutionally guaranteed rights?
McCain was utterly incompetent (and a psychopath to boot), so who knows why he said what he said.
But Obama has a serious problem in terms of claiming credit for the unemployment rate. See, the actual unemployment rate was even worse than what Obama predicted would have happened without his stimulus plan (you can find the same data on many other sites if you don't believe someone with an "R" in front of his name). That is, his stimulus plan had the opposite effect of what he predicted (which isn't surprising to many economists).
And that red line is only the official unemployment rate; the actual level of unemployment was even higher than that, because a lot of people just gave up and dropped out of the labor force. You can easily add several percent on top of that red line.
Obama's stimulus plan was a miserable failure based on his own models.
Google is a firm believer in unconscious bias, the idea that women and minorities are underrepresented at Google and elsewhere, not because of some grand conspiracy, but because even the well-meaning, progressive employees at Google just can help themselves be unconsciously biased against women and minorities.
There is clearly massive, widespread bias at Google against Trump and conservatives. It's not just that the company clearly discriminates against people who don't believe its party line, it's that people who don't agree with the nutty leftist beliefs prevalent among its employees would even look for a job there.
So you see, it doesn't take a "conspiracy" for that bias to influence every decision about news ranking, rating, banning, hiring, investments, etc., it just takes widespread unconscious bias. Google itself tells you so.
You're entitled to your opinion. While I don't like Trump's personality, so far, he hasn't done much that I find objectionable.
Yeah, so? Seems to work for him politically. And the left has its own set of delusions and conspiracy theories about the economy.
He didn't have much credibility when he ran for president, which is why I didn't vote for him. But so far, I have no significant problems with his policies.
So? No Republican voted for the bill. Ultimately, the bill was 100% the responsibility of Democrats.
I'm not sure what exactly you are asking. Are you asking for evidence of "he's one in a long line of people who use the poor and the desperate to lift themselves into political office with no ability or intention to actually help them"? For one, look at where the poorest and most miserable conditions are in the country: in inner cities, almost universally governed for decades by Democrats.
We're not debating whose fault it was, we're simply debating whether the statement that Obama created a lot of jobs is a reasonable assessment of his presidency, and it is not.
Not at all: I fully agree that our system wasn't sustainable before Obama and it is just as unsustainable after Obama.
We already have a massive system of socialized medicine, called Medicare/Medicaid. It already spends more per American (again not per patient but per American) than many European systems of socialized medicine. So the problem is not that we lack sufficient funding for socialized medicine, the problem is that the system of socialized medicine we have is horrendously inefficient and overpriced. And Obama did nothing, zero, zip to fix that.
There clearly is. And there are three ways in which Obama could have addressed that problem: he could have fully privatized our system, he could have imposed a mixed system with strict cost controls, or he could have implemented a nationalized public system like the UK and France. All three of these can be made to work cost-effectively, given the right regulations. Obama did none of those.
What did he do instead? Obama did nothing to rein in costs in the inefficient public system and instead just forced private payers to divert even more money to corporate cronies.
Gosh, even the WaPo lists only about 1/4 of Obama's promises kept.
Compromise? Republicans universally rejected it. The ACA was a Democratic construct.
So you are saying that I should just shut up and vote for robbing young health people because it's in my narrow economic interest?
Actually, they are nonprofits and mostly financed by donations; they receive little government funding and no insurance reimbursements. In any case, my point is that they are a lot more cost effective than the ACA and if government dollars are going towards providing free preventive care and vaccinations, a system like the free clinics is a lot more efficient than the ACA.
Yes, and Obama not only failed to fix that, he arguably made it worse.
My car maintenance didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. My restaurant bills or grocery bills didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. My gas bill didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. So why did your and my healthcare become so much more expensive after Trump took office? Because the rates and conditions are set by government regulators, not the free market.
So, yes, the fact that a change in government can cause health insurance rates to go up is very much the fault of politicians who perpetuate a system under which insurance rates are set by government and not by the market.
I'm not asking you to consider anything. I responded to the claim "They aren't analyzing the credibility of web sites, they're analyzing the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites." I pointed out that if they "analyzed the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites", they wouldn't be selecting those web sites.
Obviously, Google either selects those web sites because they believe that they are credible despite what the public believes, or they simply are trying to create controversy to maximize revenue.
Then don't butt in other people's discussions, in particular if you can't be bothered to read the context.
The usual: increases in regulations, failure to lower taxes, increases in government spending, fiscal policy.
Really? How was it not what I originally said?
So you agree then that Obama's recovery was lousy, you are just trying to make excuses for it.
Yes, but costs to the federal government are not the primary costs of the ACA, the impact on the insured is the primary cost. For example, my deductible under ACA now is more than my entire annual insurance premium (with no deductible) used to be. I now pay about as much as I used to for essentially worthless insurance and even higher prices.
I voted for Obama in 2008. I know what he promised and I know what he delivered. As far as I'm concerned, he lied. With Hillary, her lies were even more transparent and obvious.
If Obama had disapproved of the ACA, he could have vetoed it, or not defended it in court. Of course, Obama fully approved of the ACA and took credit for it. And it's nothing more than a massive handout to corporations that does nothing to address the unsustainable cost spiral of health care.
Yes, and that "de facto emergency coverage" was a better way of covering the uninsured than to force healthy, young people to subsidize unhealthy old people, which is what the ACA does.
Preventive care visit once a year costs less than a tank of gas; ditto for vaccinations. They are also provided for free at free clinics, something the US government could have expanded.
In fact, it looks like the ACA has reduced preventive care and office visits, because it has forced many people to go onto high deductible plans.
It was Obama's choice to bail out Wall St (Bush left it up to him). It was Obama's choice to deal with the recession through massive government spending and fiscal policy. It was Obama's choice to saddle the country with a hugely expensive health care reform package that did nothing to control costs and amounted to little more than a massive handout to corporate interests.
Who the f*ck cares? I'm not defending the Republicans. I didn't vote for McCain in 2008, I voted for Obama. I think that entitles me to assessing Obama's performance eight years later, and I consider it piss-poor. It was so poor that (along with the nomination of Hillary and the increasing vitriolic partisanship coming out of the Democratic party) to make me leave the Democratic party and become an independent.
I'm not a conservative. I actually voted for Obama. I left the Democratic party in 2016 and became an independent over Obama's lousy performance and Hillary's nomination.
Because he didn't just "organize" people, he indoctrinated them according to a particular ideological playbook. And as such, he's one in a long line of people who use the poor and the desperate to lift themselves into political office with no ability or intention to actually help them.
Yes, and his response was massive handouts to Wall St and corporations and massive government spending. And the depression itself was caused by government policies that progressives (in both parties) were largely responsible for.
Yes, but not even enough to keep up with population growth. And the labor force participate rate fell dramatically under Obama and never recovered, even if you factor out demographic changes.
Transferring vast amounts of money from poor, young, healthy people to well-off, older, sick people is not a way of fixing US healthcare and it's not sustainable. Health care reform ought to have addressed the out of control costs, one way or another, either by full privatization or by full nationalization. What Obama chose to do instead was the worst possible combination of policies: massive handouts to corporate lobbyists and no costs controls at all.
And Democrats are not seriously proposing nationalization either; all they keep talking about is an ever increasing crony capitalist "single payer" scheme that has no parallel anywhere in the world.
At least bother to read what I wrote: And that's not just due to demographic changes, you also see in in the 25-54 male [bls.gov] demographic. Obama's job losses cannot be explained by retiring baby boomers.
What does Trump have to do with anything? I didn't vote for Trump. I did vote for Obama, which, I believe entitles me to point out the numerous ways in which he failed to deliver on what he promised and in which he disappointed me.
True.
The present president is certainly "a narcissistic blowhard who said whatever it took to get elected". What sets him apart from others is that he is unpredictable, instead of doing "whatever his corporate and political masters told him to do".
I'm not blaming Obama for the financial crises (other progressives are responsible for that). What Obama did was to turn what should have been a normal recovery into a long and drawn out stagnant economy that kept millions who lost their jobs from regaining their jobs.
As for ACA, it's easy to cover more people in the short term if you borrow to pay for it; that's not sustainable. It's the lack of sustainability and financial responsibility that makes the ACA so crappy.
Obama had both houses for the first two years. Furthermore, it's his job to promise only what he can deliver; "Congress thwarted me" is not a valid excuse.
The GOP unanimously voted against that crap. And if Obama thought it was an "abomination", then he should have vetoed it.
I realize that full well: its architects thought that it was the "stupidity of the American people" that wouldn't let them impose their health care plan on Americans. That's why they had to lie and adopt a strategy that relied on Hillary as the next president.
Of course, the plan they actually wanted (some form of single payer) was as crappy and unworkable as the plan they actually passed, they were simply too stupid to realize that.
Well, in this case, Obama's policies are responsible for the job losses and the anemic recovery.
So, what all of that amounts to is that Obama lied in order to be elected.
That's not what Obama said ACA would bring. So, again, he lied, and the people who advocated for ACA lied. And, of course, "single payer" without nationalization of the health care system isn't workable either, it's just an even bigger crony capitalist handout to corporations. If you want a public single payer solution, you must nationalize health care providers as well.
I'm describing all presidents. I'm pointing out that Obama fits right in with Trump and Bush.
So, first let's be clear here: you agree then that the problems the Finnish researchers identify are, in fact, not problems with capitalism but problems with government interference.
Now, can we have pure free market capitalism? That's an academic debate about purity. What we can easily have is a government whose interference in the economy is only a few percent of GDP instead of accounting for half or more of all economic activity. How do we know? Because that's what we had for much of American history, and that would address many of the problems the Finnish authors falsely attribute to "capitalism".
Well, you justified Google's choice by saying that "they're analyzing the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites". Given that so many people do not trust these web sites, that statement is wrong.
That has nothing to do with what we were discussing, but it's an interesting factoid on its own, since it puts into perspective the support of millennials for Democrats, progressivism, social justice, and environmentalism, doesn't it?
Well, it certainly doesn't make him a conservative as the GP claimed.
I have no idea what Donald Trump is "trying" to do. But unlike Obama, Trump so far has reduced regulations, appointed/nominated better justices, and lowered taxes. On the other hand, he has done nothing to hurt me (I'm a gay immigrant) and started no new wars. Drone strikes are also way down under Trump. So, whatever Trump is (and he is certainly no conservative or libertarian either), I have no cause to complain.
I assume California is perfectly free to accomplish those objectives via other, local regulations. For example, cities like LA could limit the city center to low emissions vehicles or sell special city access stickers. But setting state-wide limits on what cars can be sold in California because LA has bad air quality is irrational.
Be that as it may, the current California vehicle emission standards are not driven by concern about LA air quality, but by California's objectives on carbon emissions.
No, it was an exemption carved out by Congress for California "to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions". Carbon emissions are not an "extraordinary condition", they apply to the entire country, and hence California doesn't get to set its own standards on carbon emissions.