Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies.

"War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left."Keynesian EconomicsEconomic theory that believes it is the government's job to smooth out the bumps in business cycles. Intervention would come in the form of government spending and tax breaks in order to stimulate the economy, and government spending cuts and tax hikes in good times, in order to curb inflation. YOUR definition isn't even the real definition of Keynesian Economics, it is just a quote from your source (which I looked at) and showed some effects of Keynesian economics on the negative side. You framed this definition, while mine is of neutral definition.C1: Why Gov't is needed in EconomyYOU SAID: Keynesian Economics causes the economic bubbles and cycles we face. However, this is not entirely true. Government may contribute to economic cycles, but Gov't intervention in the economy also is needed to smoothen out the bumps, and Gov't ultimately helps the economy in different ways. USING YOUR SOURCE your source includes the FACT that the recessions of the pre–World War I era were relatively frequent and quite variable in size. This is consistent with the fact that before World War I, the government had little influence on the economy. Prewar recessions stemmed from a wide range of private-sector-induced fluctuations in spending, such as invesment busts and financial panics, that were left to run their course. As a result, recessions occurred frequently, and some were large and some were small. [1] [2]Plus, now since the government intervenes in the economy with a social welfare net, and necessary regulation, shows that recessions no longer wreak the havoc on individuals’ standards of living that they once did. YOU used this source, and I just did too. My usage was valid, yours was illegitamely framed.C2: Militarism is Keynesian - But Not Obama-PolicyObama has ended the War in Iraq. This view of Obama's differs from Keynesian theory then.C3: Tax Rates on corporations - You may be surprisedObama supports reducing corporate taxes on businesses and small businesses that create jobs in the U.S.A. This is true, the main disagreement with tax rates on corporations/ business is what the target rate should be and dealing with loopholes (which Obama opposes). [4]C4: Health CareObama is moving us to a Universal Health Care system. Your source shows the opinion of a writer who is talking about a DIFFERENT VERSION of the health care bill. Plus, THIS IS NOT SOCIALISM. I will say though it is closer to Socialism, but IT IS NOT SOCIALISM! Compare it to a person. The guy eats meat and vegetables and everything that the doctor recommends. However, he adjusts his diet to eat 3 fruits a day as well as his beef sandwich and such. This doesn't make him a vegetarian, but does make him closer. Note the difference.Your argument of "increased costs" is fully unsupported. The Obama bill lowers costs, and this is proven. It lowers the deficit $132 billion over 10 years. [5] Plus, nations with universal health care have BETTER health care and lower costs than the USA. Singapore, like you mentioned, has Universal Health Care. The USA is already last or next-to-last in quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and the ability of its citizens to lead long, healthy, productive lives. We pay 13.4% in GDP on healthcare, but than get THESE CRAPPY RESULTS? "ObamaCare" has been found to go a long way to improving the current system. [6] The USA has lower life expectancies and higher infant mortality rates, and other worse health care quality aspects than Universal Health Care nations (excuse me, we don't yet have U.H.Care). C5: Obama saves Auto-IndustryThe Big 3 automakers have a HUGE economic stake in our nation. If they were allowed to bankrupt and then die away, over $97 billion in personal income would of been erased in 2009 and 2010. Michigan, where I live, would of been devastated. Plus, the Big 3 have a tough time competing due to HIGHER HEALTH CARE COSTS compared to UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE nations. Now, the Big 3 are on a stable footing, and if we let them go, the USA would be back in a depression. C6: Stimulus Package on U.S. Economy Plus, the jobs created in the USA have slowly but surely grown back since the Stimulus, the reason that the stimulus didn't fully bounce the economy back to its haven is because a $800 billion dollar program cannot fill a $3 Trillion dollar gap. [7]C7: Wall Street mattersObama regulated Wall Street to make sure the Great Recession will not happen again. The subprime mortgage deregulation scheme allowed un-worthy (and likely gullible) homeowners to get homes that they couldn't afford. The Fed didn't create the crisis, although its inflation rates did play a role to a small amount. If subprime mortgages were regulated, as well as derivatives trading, the main core causes of the Great Recession which led to a bubble explosion, if they were regulated, a future similar recession wouldn't occur. Truth is DEREGULATION caused the GREAT RECESSION. [8] [9] Ron Paul wants us to go back to the ideas THAT CREATED THE CRISIS IN THE FIRST PLACE! That is why History is helpful ---- to prevent us from making the same mistakes again! Paul's ideas are therefore counter-intuitive.Plus, the Consumer Protection Agency protects consumers from unsafe goods that businesses sell. Ron Paul opposes this. Remember that about 106 years ago and before, businesses and the free market was believed that they would regulate themselves. Look at what happened. You get food that contains poisions, rats, and feces from rodents. This CANNOT be allowed to happen again. [10]C8: Free market "solutions"Refere to C1.In response to the Jobs Act, it pays citizens to re-modernize the infrastructure of this nation, and also puts a big dent in unemployment and improves GDP. Many citizens are not "lazy" as you imply, they appreciate having a job because having a job is a core belief in self-responsibility and the knowledge that people can support themselves. Many people want work, let's help them in a good way.C9: Ron Paul Conclusion Plus, the Fed is necessary to controlling inflation in the nation and reducing the impact of recessions and depressions. No regulation besides libertarian regulation doesn't work. Monopolies occur after a while, products become dangerous to consumers in some methods, and the environment is desecrated. Citizens work in conditions that are dangerous with few to no protections. No workers compensation is allowed either. Economy of the USA swings frequently and by huge amounts. The "free market" only works in well reguated scenarios when the gov't works with the private sector for both the private and public benefit. At the scale Ron Paul's talking about, it’s unlikely you could have an immediate reduction in government without hurtling the economy into recession. [11] Another comment "That much deficit reduction in one year is going to be a huge drag on the economy." This is from a private source (Moody's). Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.econlib.org...[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[4] President Obama State of the Union Address, 2012[5] http://www.politifact.com...[6] http://www.businessweek.com...[7] http://www.huppi.com...[8] Yale M. Braunstein, "The Role of Information Failures in the Financial Meltdown", School of Information, UC Berkeley, Summer 2009[9] "What You Should Know About Politics... But Don't" By Jessamyn Conrad--A Nonpartisan Guide to the Issues[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...[11] http://www.washingtonpost.com...