Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

It's more about the tyranny behind taxation.While I don't disagree that taxes do need a justification (which I feel is there, but am currently unable to provide - only heard of Libertarianism a few months ago, I'll think of something), in terms of debt, the level of taxation is very important.This is not proper and it is, in a moral sense, evil.Is it not (somewhat) balanced out by the fact that the money is (mostly) spent on the people?The number of dollars and the strength of that dollar depends heavily on government.You don't get what I'm saying :( My issue is that a society simply based on the value to which each person provides a good or service to another does not sound like a utopia to me. Obviously, utopia is not possible, but that's something that I like about socialistic policies, that everyone has worth, value, and deserves equality. The value or number of dollars has little do with that.As well, government efforts have created the great disproportion of wealth (historically).I disagree. I feel that taxes or no, in the globalized world we live in, economies of scale has such an advantage that they are able to push people out of business with ease. Remember that countries with higher tax rates tend to have a lower wealth inequality rate (Scandanavian ones come to mind).Free markets is very far from corporatism.I meant simply in the way that people spend money on goods or services that they wish to possess, and people offer them. I did not mean that corporatism encouraged the free market, or is in any way good.It's a system of welfare that is efficient and I have no problem with it.The Ryan plan calls for little reform (as far as I am aware, feel free to call me out on that if I am wrong), but simply cuts people from government provision to save money.A neighborhood is unable to bring in resources and capital because government, basically, will not allow them.I agree that this is a major problem, I have many complaints for the current government (Obama included, this started off as me defending his impact on debt), and over-regulation is one of them.as explained, the Buffet Rule is a "red herring."There is much more to the tax debate than the Buffet Rule. Your article claimed that he was unable to raise taxes on the rich in anyway, pushing millionaires' taxes to 30% is only part of it.Way to leave out the most important part.The banks damage was done at that point, one bank went into voluntary administration before it was taken over. So no, I don't feel that the government was the cause of the crash, the high risk, over-leveraged, under-regulated banking bubble was the cause of the Icelandic crash.The regulators of the Fed had a similar position as yours, and this is why the housing market crashed.The housing market crashed because of banks, CDO's & derivatives, pretending high risk options were completely safe, and frivolously acting bankers.Out of interest, why do you feel that regulators have a responsibility to see these sort of things, if you are against them?With a completely private sector, why would this be a problem if individuals decide to do business with whomever they please?Funny how you talk about how government hurts small businesses, then defend corporations actions which do the same.And I don't trust them as economic advisers.An economy is nothing but a system of allocation of resources to fulfill the needs and wants of society. I trust them to say when the system would not meet needs and wants adequately. I would not trust them to suggest an alternative system, just as I would never presume to do the same, but the commentary they provide is not worthless.