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

then are you saying that taxation doesn't matter?It's more about the tyranny behind taxation. In the terrible shit-storm that government has created thus far, it is almost impossible to eliminate most taxes today. However, we should be progressing past the need for taxation all together. Create a new system dependent on proper justification for spending and taxation (if necessary).The taxes today are irresponsible and incomprehensible by average Americans. Many people have to pay someone just so they don't accidentally miss any payments. The tax bracket is better now than it has been at times, but it is unrealistic. Taxes on Capital Gains are basically taxing the same income twice.Taxes for subsidizing wheat and corn, and products made by wheat and corn are taxed. Most states have sales tax asking that people pay the government if they wish to buy an item. Taxes on property, saying that you can't even have shelter without paying the government.This is not proper and it is, in a moral sense, evil. The idea that an authority figure can charge you for buying something from someone else is kind of ridiculous, yet it is currently the case.So it's not so wise to just say "yeah, taxes should go up because what about the debt?" The debt is from irresponsible spending from the government. The government is now asking us to pay for their mistakes. Furnishings that don't even benefit most of us. TJ called this shit tyrannical for a reason.Pure capitalism cares only about the number of dollars you will put towards something.The number of dollars and the strength of that dollar depends heavily on government. Higher inflation rates and higher tax rates makes business more desperate. People do not end their pursuit of profit just because government has made things more expensive for them. They will simply pass the expenses unto the consumer, as we have seen with the healthcare and agricultural businesses.As there is not equality of opportunity, this is not fair, those on the bottom have less, and not only from their own actions.As shown, historically (as I've pointed out a few times already), private endeavors succeed far more in spreading wealth across the nation than public efforts. This is because government has no concern for efficiency. While welfare and social services may be for noble reasons, they have been unsuccessful in getting people out of the slums. Allowing businesses to operate unrestricted creates growth. More goods and services are provided at a cheaper rate because the business men want to make these items cheaply. They don't want expensive items. Expensive items mean less consumers.As well, government efforts have created the great disproportion of wealth (historically). It goes all the way back to the bourgeoisie and we see it today with the monopolies created solely by government. The largest of corporations owe most of their strength to government regulations and restrictions that have hurt small business, subsidization and contracts that has chosen winners, and ridiculous business taxes that small businesses couldn't keep up with.Those with money rule, the corporatism we have seen recently within US politics is arguably nothing more than the merging of politics and the free market.The "corporatist" legislation includes major regulations on the market. Government should not have the power to put such restrictions on individuals, yet we give it that power by claims of non-trust for the free market. Free markets is very far from corporatism.Those who do not have money deserve protection, they need food, water, shelter, and other similar necessities.Even if we look to a futuristic utopia where the Free Market has prevailed over tyrannical government, government's place will still be to provide basic needs (security, vouchers for food and healthcare) at a much cheaper and efficient rate. However, government currently is a bureaucratic mess and the only defense that people can have for it all is the fear of an alternative that has never done harm (in fact, 'regression' towards free markets has done wonders for the economies of the USSR and China).Vouchers (like food stamps, or the Paul Ryan healthcare plan) are cheaper and allow the market to do what it does best, compete for customers. It's a system of welfare that is efficient and I have no problem with it. That is currently, however, not what government does.I love the idea of people being completely free to do what they want with their own money, their own time, their own labour, but people are not free, they are forced to work, they need an income to survive.Hardly. The expense of most food industries comes from heavy regulation and taxation. One is not allowed to sell food without going through months of expensive protocol. How can a poor person in a poor neighborhood afford to do that or keep up with all business regulations and fees? This is what impoverishes the people the most.A neighborhood is unable to bring in resources and capital because government, basically, will not allow them.I seem to remember you posting a link that showed that Obama is being blocked from increasing any taxesas explained, the Buffet Rule is a "red herring."The government ended sold their state bank about ten years ago I believe, outside banks came in, made loads of money for a while, everyone was happy, but they were just part of the problem, put no safeguards in place, acted recklessly, and were destroyed in the recession.Way to leave out the most important part. When the recession was occurring, the Icelandic government PANICKED and made drastic action believing that the banks wouldn't be able to handle the downfall of the European Union's dollar (the EU had much to do with this, sir). Iceland surrendered ownership of their banks to government regulators and this is where all hell broke loose. Now, the development of the banks was already a fault of government, as government, as I explained before, should have NOTHING TO DO with the banks. No start up help, no subsidies, no regulations, no nothing. Iceland would not have been able to invest so much power into three banks if they had completely avoided that market. As I've stated, it is better to either have a Centralized bank or no government involvement with banks at all. I'd choose the latter, especially today, because of the great catastrophe government has created in the banking and currency systems.Now the prime minister is being put onto trial for gross negligence (the only head of state to be formally punished as part of the recession). It's worth remembering that the banks that did this were new to the country (all but one), they were not used to government involvementIf government had stayed out of it all along, none of this would have been an issue. Iceland would have been one of the countries to avoid the mess that the EU and US created with their meddling in the private sector.(banks in many countries now refuse to lend to anyone those who need it, because they see it as 'high risk'. I understand taking a harsher tone on lending, but blocking off everyone, without considering them, is bad for people.The regulators of the Fed had a similar position as yours, and this is why the housing market crashed.They now only lend to businesses with capital to pay them back for sure).With a completely private sector, why would this be a problem if individuals decide to do business with whomever they please? Is it government's role to build up such monstrous corporations only to try and tame them and make them take care of us poor folk who need a nanny state? I find it quite shaky when we say "hey Frankenstein, make us one of them monsters to push us around."I'm sorry I trust bishops to stand up for the poor, it's not like they spend their life following a doctrine that tells them to do exactly that.And I don't trust them as economic advisers. For good reason, it's not very good to give the religious a voice in politics. But that's just my opinion.it's not hard to find criticisms from other people in a better position to judge it than me.Sure, but saying that still doesn't make a difference in what we're talking about.