I wasn't trying to sound rude.

Many people in the western world have opinions about America and American politics and law, however, very infrequently do the actually SAY what the law is or does. As a former American law student, I spent hours every day, for several years studying these American laws and judicial opinions. Its important to be able to look at the actual materials and create your own opinions from them, never let someone else (i.e., media) tell you what it means.

But I hope I have at least given you a few sources to start reading into if you would like to learn more about Constitutional law and the relationship to the Presidency.

For my reference of President Reagan, you want to look specifically into his "deregulation"--many of the deregulated laws were established to protect the health and safety of consumer public, but for 50 years, those standards simply disappeared. Although Reagan removed them originally, it would be both petty and rather moot to say, "We should blame "X" dead president and move on." Rather, a more responsible approach is to use the government as a tool, and furthermore, remember, each public official is a tool for a specific purpose, either yours or someone else's.

"Obama isn't the reason for those changes..."

Sure, but he sure as hell didn't have a problem extending the PATRIOT act. In fact, you can look into President Obama's extension of the PATRIOT act and realize...."Hey, wait, the law was about to become not law because of a legal clause which was demanded by the Senate, and in fact, delayed the Senate's vote originally for the act itself unless their was a hard-line timer built in that could only be extended by Presidential decree." One day after expiration, Obama re-authorizes the PATRIOT act.

The simply irony is....every presidential candidate and president has the exact same policies as any other. The last 'original' President Jimmy Carter; every Reagan (and as a native Californian) was the worst possible president this country could have ever had.

What you said is both a misrepresentation of the role of the Presidency of the United States as well as the civic expectations Americans place on the Presidency. The President only has one affirmative role under the Constitution, the power of veto, and the more important role was clearly established under the SCOTUS's decision under Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer which established the differentiation between Executive Orders and Congressional law.

And to close, the public opinion of the PATRIOT act is still widely diverse, with Democrats becoming progressively more supportive of the act itself. However, the Hague, Interpol, as well as the Civil Liberties Division of the United Nations have publicly regarded the PATRIOT act as a fundamental contradiction of American politics and law, and is neither consistent with judicial opinions, or post-WW2 decisions regarding the fundamental need for "privacy."

Perhaps before you just spout off information you've clearly just picked up from watching far too much media television (which, to remind you, is there to keep your attention to make money, not to inform you), you could look into Constitutional law.

I don't watch the news I see on tv. Like i said before, i am not too familiar with American politics and have a really broad understanding of it. But thanks for clearing some things up.

I wasn't trying to sound rude.

Many people in the western world have opinions about America and American politics and law, however, very infrequently do the actually SAY what the law is or does. As a former American law student, I spent hours every day, for several years studying these American laws and judicial opinions. Its important to be able to look at the actual materials and create your own opinions from them, never let someone else (i.e., media) tell you what it means.

But I hope I have at least given you a few sources to start reading into if you would like to learn more about Constitutional law and the relationship to the Presidency.

For my reference of President Reagan, you want to look specifically into his "deregulation"--many of the deregulated laws were established to protect the health and safety of consumer public, but for 50 years, those standards simply disappeared. Although Reagan removed them originally, it would be both petty and rather moot to say, "We should blame "X" dead president and move on." Rather, a more responsible approach is to use the government as a tool, and furthermore, remember, each public official is a tool for a specific purpose, either yours or someone else's.

NDAA, Patriot Act, Gun control, Indefinite Detention, Military Tribunal, Occupy, etc. Yeah, those were all signed by Obama

I'm Canadian as well, and as far as I can tell, people hate him for one of 3 reasons
1 - He is doing things that help the lower and middle classes
2 - He has not pulled a miracle out of his ass and saved the country economically
3 - Because he is the president and people blindly think that he is in charge of everything and blame everything on him

1 - He is doing things that help the lower and middle class like the healthcare bill, but it hurts the wealthy, he is also trying to implement taxes on the wealthy that won't be on the poor (or at least not as present on the poor)
They are trying to re-arrange the tax system, as it stands now, if you have a job where you make $100 000 a year, like if you an attorney, then you pay a decent amount of taxes. but let's say your grandfather was an attorney, made a few million and invested it, and every so often you get money off it, you get almost no taxes
TLDR - If you work for your money you pay more taxes than people whose money earns them money
This gets a lot of people upset because all they see is that people who make a lot of money will be taxed more, when really, he is going to be taxing the interest made off of old-money, mainly what many republicans live off of, so this creates a lot of fighting
2 - When he was campaigning he said "change' and he promised 'change" and that there would be a better America. People expected that once he was president everything would be different and that money problems would go away, but because of the people who knew they were be affected by the aforementioned tax changes, there was a lot of resistance, so change is slow going.
Not to mention that neither candidate would have been able to do much, there were only so many options.
3 - People who don't like the government, or have problems with it, whether it be on a municipal, state or national level, see obama as a figurehead and would be just as likely to gripe about a republican as they would about Obama because they like to whine.

My mom absolutely despises Obama. She blames everything on him. Like this morning when my father found a leak in the pipes in our wall, she yelled "DAMN IT OBAMA" Honestly, I don't like him much, but I'm sure he can fix this shit soon.

"I said explain why everyone hates Obama." Ok so you explained that your mother has problems and can't face her the problems in her life so she uses Obama as a scapegoat for everything wrong in her life. So she has no real reason to hate him. But what is yours? Like do you not like his policies or all the bills and acts that he signed?

Not everyone hates Barry (I call him Barry. You probably know him as Barack). Many of his policies favor strengthening the middle and lower class by raising taxes and increasing funding for many social benefits like health care. He's very liberal so naturally many conservatives would disagree with his plan. The biggest reason, I think, that people make jokes about him stepping on the constitution is because many see his agenda as socialist. I, personally, disagree with those people and, even if he was openly socialist, don't see this as a bad thing.

He was a prominent figure in the socialist club at Harvard. He doesn't deny it either.

That's awesome

While we do need reform and a health care system to cover all and to strengthen the lower class, I don't think he went about it the right way.

I am in the lower middle class and my family now pays double what we used to for less coverage.

What I think would work well is to make the tax optional so we have a private health care system and then if you pay the tax you get the government provided health care. Which would be paid through those who pay taxes into it, and a scaled income tax to cover it. What I mean by that is tax the people making millions of dollars plus per year more to cover the difference. That way it can be affordable to those in the middle class, cover the lower class, and be paid for and not plummeting into debt, like social security.

Ugh, once again, I don't mean to sound rude (read below).

But your recommendation is a fundamental misunderstanding of the health care system not only previously, but the one recently implemented.

Lets start with a few premises....
(1) health care costs have been increasing at an almost constant rate fopr 20 years
www.ssab.gov/documents/TheUnsustainableCostofHealthCare_graphics.pdf

(2) the private industry according to Forbes has been 'spiking' premiums in response to "Obamacare", more correctly referred to as Public Option.

(3) Insurance (i.e., what we call coverage) is a for-profit business, they cannot accept donations, and are subject to chapter 7, 11, and 12 bankruptcies (remember, chapter 13 is for individuals only, not businesses)

And lastly, to tie it together. The big misconception of the American public involves purely economical practice. The U.S. was a "privatized" healthcare system (i.e., limited general coverage governments)--there were no alternative options other than pursuing health coverage besides finding a company to pay.

Other countries, such as Sweden, Canada, and Denmark, have almost polar opposites, complete government coverage in form of a flat rate tax. The rationale behind this was that human life could not be equated in business terms, unlike car insurance, or life insurance which are luxuries, these countries believe that human life and the obligations of medical staff to people is absolute and MUST be granted.

The U.S. under Public Option was designed to do just that--create ANOTHER, PURELY GOVERNMENTAL entity to provide coverage, and use a tax or your exemption (i.e., you already HAVE coverage) to be immune from the tax. Your alternative would be most likely, impossible to execute.

If you KNEW you had to pay more because you are rich, for the same service as everyone else, why would you pay it? You pay for a Bentley but get a Honda....That simply is irrational behavior and economically impossible.

Ya that's why I said scale the income, to cover the difference :).

You mean....reduce the quality of care received or reduce the deductibles?

If you reduced the required deductibles (which by the way, are only $2,000), no one who made over $100,000 would blink an eye at that deductible, it would be a pain to my budget, but I don't pursue medical attention that frequently, but if I did, I wouldn't care portion of my paycheck for my well being.

And reduce the quality of care.....that would be a very, very difficult thing to do. In fact, it would be functionally equivalent to debtor's prisons, which lead to 4 of the most deadly revolutions in European history. Not sure if the lack of equity would work out too well. However, I do suggest you thoroughly read the link I posted and look into the "spike" people blame on one additional business entering the market. "Obamacare" doesn't increase costs, it increases competition, and very profitable companies don't like that--thus they raise your costs and blame the other business. Nothing about Public Option law forces insurance rates up--thats a purely voluntary business action. I call it spite.

No I mean this:
Two taxes will cover health care the first is the health care tax, who ever pays it will receive its benefits like would at the present. But if you do not pay it you do not recieve its benefits.

As you mentioned this creates a problem because why would rich people pay this when they can afford much better coverage to compensate for this I would add a scaled tax percentage to the income tax we have now but it would only affect those in the high tax bracket. So the middle class would not be burdened and neither would the lower class

As in income tax

An exemption on income tax if you paid more into health care?

Well, it *COULD* work, but you are limited to the number of exemptions you can claim, and I did do some tax law advising before, and I would have to say that the exemption MUST be have a higher reduction than any other exemption.

Suffice to say, the exemptions today are more generous than they ever should have been, and to create a plan like that would reduce total tax income as a whole. So you'd increase public option health care, but would drastically reduce total tax income...And I am not sure if you looked at the national budget lately, but I think you should be advocating tax reform over any type of health care reform.

Surely, your increased premiums are a problem, but your country's incredibly insane amount of debt and recently authorized debt ceiling of 300% higher than potential GDP *OUGHT* to be more concerning. If for whatever reason, the loans don't continue and the world demands the U.S. become self-sufficient, you and your neighbors personally won't make a dime for around 30 years....with the same amount of work you have today.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles

Country wide economic debt created a World War quite easily. I'd rather not have it happen again, I think I want to be a parent one day, not have a war over shiny materials going on in my house.

Well in an ideal world there would be no exemptions but even in a world of exemptions it would work fairly well, but on top of this, if we lowered corporate taxes and made that more of a flat tax, while having a scaled income tax, I feel that would alleviate a lot of problems over time. I don't have exact numbers, the tax code isn't my thing but I can at least under stand this elementary idea. With lower corporate taxes companies will stop moving head quarters and offices out of the country and will not have to worry about budgeting for taxes as much. While income will help close the gap between the rich and the poor and help cover those necessary social programs. But of course people can hide there money which is sad but in an ideal world I think this would help but maybe it could work with exemptions because I don't think everyone hides there money

The *business tax rate is actually quite low in this country. And business taxes *ARE* flat rate already. It only varies for small businesses, medium businesses, and large businesses, and if it is a sole proprietorship, an limited liability corporation, or corporation general.

When referencing why businesses leave, its important to remember its almost EXCLUSIVELY large businesses that leave. The reason is businesses are taxed in several ways. I speed-read this source, but it is a good conceptual idea of *why* in particular businesses do leave.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2007/may07/07-05-02.html

However, its VERY for any American to work for a large business, and if you look into BLS statistics ( I cannot seem to link them?), most Americans work for medium businesses (50-250 employees). However, large businesses (such as Google) remain in America BECAUSE of the ingenuity of the working class. Those are a tech heavy industry and it would be nearly impossible to expect the same results from a low-educated country that are often moved to. Very infrequently does a business move from the United States to an otherwise very competitive European market (such as Germany)

To be honest, I don't know how to help the American economical system. There are too many blatant mistakes that continue to be "built" upon, but the foundation is shoddy and doomed. If you ask me, I think the American people have no other option than to revolt and upset the federal bank.

Anyways, enjoy the sources and feel free to PM me if you want to continue.

Well ty, this was definitely interesting, I actually never stop hearing how high corporate taxes are but I should probably do more research into that of my own when I have time, but ty very much!

The hell's wrong with socialism? Denmark is socialist and they're the happiest country in the world.

Lots of places are very successfully socialist. They do, however, in all cases, pay much higher taxes than Americans do which is obviously a downside. But I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

I call him Obabo

People hate him because he got votes by appealing to people with no money and has all the power.
So if people with no money want something they can't afford, they fuck the economy and the people
who work their asses off, make them have to give up 35% of their money to people choose not to work,
so that they can get 20k a year from welfare, and never have to get a job, afford cable, and get a 12 pack
of beers every week. Everybody gets one vote, which is why democracy is a terrible system, because
it puts people with no money the power to take away people who work's money.

So you're suggesting that people who earn more money get more votes than poor people? Or that poor people are not allowed to vote at all? Basically you are saying the worth of person or the amount of influence a person has on society should be related how much money he earns per year?

Obama isn`t the reason why all those new changes got passed. I know that he was the reason for gun control, but indefinite detention and whatnot got passed before he came to power or he had nothing to do with it.

"Obama isn't the reason for those changes..."

Sure, but he sure as hell didn't have a problem extending the PATRIOT act. In fact, you can look into President Obama's extension of the PATRIOT act and realize...."Hey, wait, the law was about to become not law because of a legal clause which was demanded by the Senate, and in fact, delayed the Senate's vote originally for the act itself unless their was a hard-line timer built in that could only be extended by Presidential decree." One day after expiration, Obama re-authorizes the PATRIOT act.

The simply irony is....every presidential candidate and president has the exact same policies as any other. The last 'original' President Jimmy Carter; every Reagan (and as a native Californian) was the worst possible president this country could have ever had.

What you said is both a misrepresentation of the role of the Presidency of the United States as well as the civic expectations Americans place on the Presidency. The President only has one affirmative role under the Constitution, the power of veto, and the more important role was clearly established under the SCOTUS's decision under Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer which established the differentiation between Executive Orders and Congressional law.

And to close, the public opinion of the PATRIOT act is still widely diverse, with Democrats becoming progressively more supportive of the act itself. However, the Hague, Interpol, as well as the Civil Liberties Division of the United Nations have publicly regarded the PATRIOT act as a fundamental contradiction of American politics and law, and is neither consistent with judicial opinions, or post-WW2 decisions regarding the fundamental need for "privacy."

Perhaps before you just spout off information you've clearly just picked up from watching far too much media television (which, to remind you, is there to keep your attention to make money, not to inform you), you could look into Constitutional law.

I don't watch the news I see on tv. Like i said before, i am not too familiar with American politics and have a really broad understanding of it. But thanks for clearing some things up.

I wasn't trying to sound rude.

Many people in the western world have opinions about America and American politics and law, however, very infrequently do the actually SAY what the law is or does. As a former American law student, I spent hours every day, for several years studying these American laws and judicial opinions. Its important to be able to look at the actual materials and create your own opinions from them, never let someone else (i.e., media) tell you what it means.

But I hope I have at least given you a few sources to start reading into if you would like to learn more about Constitutional law and the relationship to the Presidency.

For my reference of President Reagan, you want to look specifically into his "deregulation"--many of the deregulated laws were established to protect the health and safety of consumer public, but for 50 years, those standards simply disappeared. Although Reagan removed them originally, it would be both petty and rather moot to say, "We should blame "X" dead president and move on." Rather, a more responsible approach is to use the government as a tool, and furthermore, remember, each public official is a tool for a specific purpose, either yours or someone else's.

NDAA, Patriot Act, Gun control, Indefinite Detention, Military Tribunal, Occupy, etc. Yeah, those were all signed by Obama

yay. porn.

That would be helpful if FUCKING EVERYTHING WASN'T ONLINE ONLY.

Exactly. I've gone to places and they won't even get the manager for me until I filled out the online application, waited 2 weeks, and then talked to that guy by the door.