VS: Ron Paul 2012

[voicelesscharlie]

Voor wie werkt is de medische zorg in de VS veel beter dan in België.

Iedere gemeente heeft er een ziekenhuis.

Deze zijn dag en nacht open voor het publiek.
Ook voor gewone zorgen.
Apotheker is er ter plaatse en is eveneens dag en nacht open.

Goedkoper als je een privé ziekteverzekering hebt.
Je betaald ten slotte voor jezelf en niet voor een ander.
Deze is niet verplicht,je kan deze dus zelf schikken naar je gezondheid.(goedkoper)

Buitenlanders kunnen beroep doen op hun eigen ziekteverzekering in hun eigen land.(heb het zelf meegemaakt)

De ziekteverzekering kan je er regelen met je werkgever of je beroepsvereninging.(groepsziekteverzekering)

Een goed systeem dus zonder dode administratiekosten.

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door AdrianHealey

En waarom ik niet met je 'argumenteer'? Omdat je niet op de hoogte bent van basiskenmerken van de Amerikaanse gezondheidszorg. En ik geen zin heb om je het uit te leggen.

Wat doe je dan op een discussie forum ?

Ik zat helemaal niet verkeerd... Ik beweerde dat Medicaid en Medicare voor de armen en de ouderen waren. Dat klopt.

Je beweerde voor iedereen

'Als de onverzekerden geen recht hadden op medicare/medicaid, dan betekent dit dat ze welgesteld genoeg waren om zaken uit eigen zak te betalen...'

fout .

En wie reguleert de werking van de overheid opdat die niet 'het meeste halen waar ze mee denken weg te kunnen geraken'?

De politiek heeft weinig persoonlijk winstbejag, als de gezonheidszorg geen verlies maakt krijgen ze geen cent meer loon hoor .

En de kiezer reguleert die dus .

Waarom geven die niet toe aan lobbygroepen die hen campagne geld beloven? (Incentive probleem) En hoe kunnen zij weten dat hun reguleringen goed zijn? (Kennis probleem)

Dat is dan weer een ander probleem in de VS maar in een vrij systeem heb je zelfs die lobby groepen niet nodig men doet wat men wil .




Zeg me nu trouwens eens duidelijk wat er zo mis is en wat jij dan wel voorstelt .

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door voicelesscharlie

Voor wie werkt is de medische zorg in de VS veel beter dan in België.


Iedere gemeente heeft er een ziekenhuis.

Deze zijn dag en nacht open voor het publiek.
Ook voor gewone zorgen.
Apotheker is er ter plaatse en is eveneens dag en nacht open.

dat is idd zo . Echter zie ik weinig verschil met hier, apotheker is ook dag en nacht open en ziekenhuizen zijn niet allemaal voor alles altijd open.

Goedkoper als je een privé ziekteverzekering hebt.
Je betaald ten slotte voor jezelf en niet voor een ander.
Deze is niet verplicht,je kan deze dus zelf schikken naar je gezondheid.(goedkoper)

Niet echt, en is zeker niet gemiddeld goedkoper , VS hefet eigenlijk het duurste systeem van de westerse wereld .

Buitenlanders kunnen beroep doen op hun eigen ziekteverzekering in hun eigen land.(heb het zelf meegemaakt)

De ziekteverzekering kan je er regelen met je werkgever of je beroepsvereninging.(groepsziekteverzekering)

Een goed systeem dus zonder dode administratiekosten.

dat je beroep kan doen op je eigen ziekteverzekering is dankzij belgische .

Zonder dode administratiekosten? je hebt de duizend voudige overhead kosten door 1000 verschillende ziekteverzekeraars , je hebt de winst,...


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...tal-per-capita

Bijna het dubbele van het duurste EU land

[Rr00ttt]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door k9

Onbetaalbaar heeft weinig te maken met de staatprogramma's maar alles met het feit dat alles steeds gebaseerd op is prive bedrijven die steeds maar meer willen.

De brute cijfers voor België.

- Overheid neemt ongeveer 50% van het BBP in.

- Staatsschuld rond de 100% (officieel)

- Staatsschuld in realiteit eerder 350% (i.e. als je al de verdisconteerde toekomstige lasten meerekent zoals de pensioenen, wat in elke serieuze boekhouding gebeurt)

- verbetering valt naar de toekomst niet te verwachten. Eerder verslechtering. Nog minder mensen dan nu zullen werken en nog veel meer onder een of ander uitkeringsstelsel vallen. Redenen: 1. dramatische nataliteit 2. massa immigratie van ongeschoolden 3. vergrijzing

Sorry maar dit systeem kan niet anders dan crashen, dat lijkt mij gewoon een mathematische zekerheid.

[Rr00ttt]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door k9

Beide werken niet door de menselijke natuur. En absoluut vrij als in de federale overheid legt geen enkele regel op (wat ron paul voorstelt dus)

Onzin. RP wil alleen dat de federale overheid zich beperkt tot de aan haar toegekende machten in de Amerikaanse grondwet.

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Rr00ttt

De brute cijfers voor België.

- Overheid neemt ongeveer 50% van het BBP in.

- Staatsschuld rond de 100% (officieel)

- Staatsschuld in realiteit eerder 350% (i.e. als je al de verdisconteerde toekomstige lasten meerekent zoals de pensioenen, wat in elke serieuze boekhouding gebeurt)



- verbetering valt naar de toekomst niet te verwachten. Eerder verslechtering. Nog minder mensen dan nu zullen werken en nog veel meer onder een of ander uitkeringsstelsel vallen. Redenen: 1. dramatische nataliteit 2. massa immigratie van ongeschoolden 3. vergrijzing

Sorry maar dit systeem kan niet anders dan crashen, dat lijkt mij gewoon een mathematische zekerheid.

En in de VS is het beter? Nee hoor integendeel zelfs. Dit is ook appelen met peren vergelijken, nutteloos dus.

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Rr00ttt

Onzin. RP wil alleen dat de federale overheid zich beperkt tot de aan haar toegekende machten in de Amerikaanse grondwet.

Het ging over gezondheidszorg/verzekering.

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door AdrianHealey

Geen idee waar je het over hebt; maar Ron Paul is wel degelijk een redelijk typische Libertariër?

Zijn we dan allen typische Libertariërs nu ?

We Are All Libertarians Now

by Susan Westfall

Recently, I was asked to explain whether or not it was "a common libertarian belief that any government is bad." This sticking point was one that in the questioners' own words caused them to "lose interest," and despite being "in agreement with a lot of libertarian thinking...talking about deregulating everything," turned them off. I was asked this because of my support for and recent article about Ron Paul, who despite decades of serving as a Republican Congressman, is still consistently labeled as a libertarian in almost every media interview with him or discussion about him. The subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, implication by the media is that either the word libertarian in and of itself (or perhaps just the idea of being a libertarian) is somehow not quite right, maybe even unacceptable, and most certainly not electable.

At this point I would like to make it clear that the people posing their questions seemed genuinely concerned with simply understanding better the issue of greatly reducing the size of government and not with deriding libertarianism. In fact, they assured me that they "like a lot of libertarian principles," but deregulation and "pursuing an idealized notion of a free market," is not an answer they understand and this, I assume, could affect their vote in 2012. However, their wording of the overarching question first asked shows how successful the media campaign against libertarian ideals over the years has been. The application of the label "libertarian" to someone's political character these days insinuates that said person is not only promoting an absence of any government whatsoever, but is almost eagerly awaiting the advent of anarchy and its chaotic and bloody results. Somalia is often used to demonstrate how such kooky libertarian ideals will end.

Libertarians, as with any other group, have beliefs that are wide and varied. I won't pretend to know them all, or purport to having done a deep or intensive study of the matter. "Libertarian ideas are like stones dropping into a body of water, making waves in so many directions that no one is sure where they come from," says Lew Rockwell in The Case for Libertarian Hope. An exact list of what libertarians believe in, stand for, or wish to attain might theoretically be compiled, but in reality would not be applicable to all its advocates. That said, there are at least two basic concepts that appear to be foundational to libertarianism: individual liberty and doing no harm. Everything else, in my opinion, is just extrapolation and lends to a general confusion that inevitably dilutes their strength.

Individual liberty is based on two concepts: life and property. Your life and your property are yours, and yours alone. You are free to do with them what you will, as long as you don't harm another with your doings. We exercise the choices we make regarding life and property through an ideal held dear by ALL people, no matter the political or religious label attached to them: that of free will. We choose what to eat and drink, where to live and how, what to think and believe, who to befriend or not, whether to be honest or lie, if we will act morally or immorally...the list could fill tomes. All individuals, regardless of race or gender, are born with this gift by which, at the very least, they are able to think, rationalize, and create. It is an accepted fact that free will is dictated by no person other than the one exercising it. If people are religious, they exercise their free will to adhere to God's laws. However, I doubt any of them seriously believe that a bolt of lightening will shoot out of the Walmart ceiling tiles to strike them dead should they decide to shoplift. God does not compel mankind through force to follow His laws regarding morality, the treatment of fellow man, or any other of His dictates. God gifts mankind with individual liberty and extolls us to use it to exercise our free will, follow His guidance, and choose wisely in all things. If we choose unwisely, we and we alone will suffer the consequences – not our parents, not our neighbors, and not the rich people who have more than us. Does government then deem itself more powerful, more all-knowing than God? It must. Through legislation written by Congress the federal government: denies us the liberty to exercise our free will and dictates our choices for us; takes our wealth through taxation and redistributes it to others; and forces us to comply with its dictates through threats of imprisonment and/or fines. Pretty presumptuous, not to mention overbearing. As Ron Paul is fond of saying, "It makes no sense whatsoever." It makes even less sense to label people who believe in the right of individual liberty to exercise free will as kooks, anarchists, or extremists.

So since government is most assuredly not God, what is the role and purpose of government? Thankfully, we have a document that lays out just exactly those things. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates specifically the 21 duties the federal government is authorized to perform. Unfortunately, the legislative branch ignores it, the executive branch appends it, the judicial branch undermines it, the States are remiss in their duty to guard against all of the latter, and the people have forgotten that they ARE the government. So instead of a Constitutional Republic that would restrain bureaucracy, protect liberty, and enforce laws, we now have a 'democracy' that is so gargantuan in size that it is unsustainable. One grows dizzy trying to count the number of departments, programs, bureaus, divisions, sub-departments, and offices instituted to enact all the unconstitutional legislation written over the last one hundred years to regulate and restrain the people. But will Congress cut it back? Not unless the people insist, and too many still don't understand that most of what government does is not really beneficial, but in actuality detrimental to the peoples' well-being and in direct opposition to the general welfare of their Republic.

...

The federal government's role in the market is to ensure that trade in goods produced remains regular and unrestricted between whatever parties want to have commerce, and to enforce and uphold contracts between those parties. It is not to control through legislation what can be produced in the name of regulating commerce. Nor is it, or has it ever been, to legislate into being an entity to plan the economy for the general welfare of the people. Intervention in the free markets by government created bodies based on Keynes's theory for central planning is the actual harbinger, and true culprit, of all our present woes. This understanding is becoming clearer to people, and is evidenced by a growing resurgence of belief in the idea that more government seldom translates to better government. One need not believe in any particular political theory to find the idea of smaller government attractive. In fact conservatives, republicans, constitutionalists, independents, and tea party people, as well as many dreaded libertarians, easily find common ground in advocating for smaller government. When asked about the size of government recently on the Diane Rehm show, Ron Paul commented, "[It should be] as small as possible." During that interview he further explained, "There is nothing wrong with describing conservatism as protecting the Constitution, protecting all things that limit government. Government is the enemy of liberty. Government should be very restrained." Growing support at the polls for Dr. Paul demonstrates that people are not finding his defense of liberty and small government such unacceptable ideas, despite his being labeled a libertarian by the media. In fact, judging by how frequently we now hear similar platitudes pass the lips of many a politician who previously derided Ron Paul for his stance, I would say his ideas are very acceptable to a majority of people. So much so that it seems quite sensible to proclaim that, "If we believe in having the liberty to exercise our free will and if we believe in smaller government, then perhaps we are all libertarians now."

June 6, 2011
lewrockwell

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door AdrianHealey

Geen idee waar je het over hebt; maar Ron Paul is wel degelijk een redelijk typische Libertariër?

Zijn we dan allen typische Libertariërs nu ?

We Are All Libertarians Now

by Susan Westfall

Recently, I was asked to explain whether or not it was "a common libertarian belief that any government is bad." This sticking point was one that in the questioners' own words caused them to "lose interest," and despite being "in agreement with a lot of libertarian thinking...talking about deregulating everything," turned them off. I was asked this because of my support for and recent article about Ron Paul, who despite decades of serving as a Republican Congressman, is still consistently labeled as a libertarian in almost every media interview with him or discussion about him. The subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, implication by the media is that either the word libertarian in and of itself (or perhaps just the idea of being a libertarian) is somehow not quite right, maybe even unacceptable, and most certainly not electable.

At this point I would like to make it clear that the people posing their questions seemed genuinely concerned with simply understanding better the issue of greatly reducing the size of government and not with deriding libertarianism. In fact, they assured me that they "like a lot of libertarian principles," but deregulation and "pursuing an idealized notion of a free market," is not an answer they understand and this, I assume, could affect their vote in 2012. However, their wording of the overarching question first asked shows how successful the media campaign against libertarian ideals over the years has been. The application of the label "libertarian" to someone's political character these days insinuates that said person is not only promoting an absence of any government whatsoever, but is almost eagerly awaiting the advent of anarchy and its chaotic and bloody results. Somalia is often used to demonstrate how such kooky libertarian ideals will end.

Libertarians, as with any other group, have beliefs that are wide and varied. I won't pretend to know them all, or purport to having done a deep or intensive study of the matter. "Libertarian ideas are like stones dropping into a body of water, making waves in so many directions that no one is sure where they come from," says Lew Rockwell in The Case for Libertarian Hope. An exact list of what libertarians believe in, stand for, or wish to attain might theoretically be compiled, but in reality would not be applicable to all its advocates. That said, there are at least two basic concepts that appear to be foundational to libertarianism: individual liberty and doing no harm. Everything else, in my opinion, is just extrapolation and lends to a general confusion that inevitably dilutes their strength.

Individual liberty is based on two concepts: life and property. Your life and your property are yours, and yours alone. You are free to do with them what you will, as long as you don't harm another with your doings. We exercise the choices we make regarding life and property through an ideal held dear by ALL people, no matter the political or religious label attached to them: that of free will. We choose what to eat and drink, where to live and how, what to think and believe, who to befriend or not, whether to be honest or lie, if we will act morally or immorally...the list could fill tomes. All individuals, regardless of race or gender, are born with this gift by which, at the very least, they are able to think, rationalize, and create. It is an accepted fact that free will is dictated by no person other than the one exercising it. If people are religious, they exercise their free will to adhere to God's laws. However, I doubt any of them seriously believe that a bolt of lightening will shoot out of the Walmart ceiling tiles to strike them dead should they decide to shoplift. God does not compel mankind through force to follow His laws regarding morality, the treatment of fellow man, or any other of His dictates. God gifts mankind with individual liberty and extolls us to use it to exercise our free will, follow His guidance, and choose wisely in all things. If we choose unwisely, we and we alone will suffer the consequences – not our parents, not our neighbors, and not the rich people who have more than us. Does government then deem itself more powerful, more all-knowing than God? It must. Through legislation written by Congress the federal government: denies us the liberty to exercise our free will and dictates our choices for us; takes our wealth through taxation and redistributes it to others; and forces us to comply with its dictates through threats of imprisonment and/or fines. Pretty presumptuous, not to mention overbearing. As Ron Paul is fond of saying, "It makes no sense whatsoever." It makes even less sense to label people who believe in the right of individual liberty to exercise free will as kooks, anarchists, or extremists.

So since government is most assuredly not God, what is the role and purpose of government? Thankfully, we have a document that lays out just exactly those things. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates specifically the 21 duties the federal government is authorized to perform. Unfortunately, the legislative branch ignores it, the executive branch appends it, the judicial branch undermines it, the States are remiss in their duty to guard against all of the latter, and the people have forgotten that they ARE the government. So instead of a Constitutional Republic that would restrain bureaucracy, protect liberty, and enforce laws, we now have a 'democracy' that is so gargantuan in size that it is unsustainable. One grows dizzy trying to count the number of departments, programs, bureaus, divisions, sub-departments, and offices instituted to enact all the unconstitutional legislation written over the last one hundred years to regulate and restrain the people. But will Congress cut it back? Not unless the people insist, and too many still don't understand that most of what government does is not really beneficial, but in actuality detrimental to the peoples' well-being and in direct opposition to the general welfare of their Republic.

...

The federal government's role in the market is to ensure that trade in goods produced remains regular and unrestricted between whatever parties want to have commerce, and to enforce and uphold contracts between those parties. It is not to control through legislation what can be produced in the name of regulating commerce. Nor is it, or has it ever been, to legislate into being an entity to plan the economy for the general welfare of the people. Intervention in the free markets by government created bodies based on Keynes's theory for central planning is the actual harbinger, and true culprit, of all our present woes. This understanding is becoming clearer to people, and is evidenced by a growing resurgence of belief in the idea that more government seldom translates to better government. One need not believe in any particular political theory to find the idea of smaller government attractive. In fact conservatives, republicans, constitutionalists, independents, and tea party people, as well as many dreaded libertarians, easily find common ground in advocating for smaller government. When asked about the size of government recently on the Diane Rehm show, Ron Paul commented, "[It should be] as small as possible." During that interview he further explained, "There is nothing wrong with describing conservatism as protecting the Constitution, protecting all things that limit government. Government is the enemy of liberty. Government should be very restrained." Growing support at the polls for Dr. Paul demonstrates that people are not finding his defense of liberty and small government such unacceptable ideas, despite his being labeled a libertarian by the media. In fact, judging by how frequently we now hear similar platitudes pass the lips of many a politician who previously derided Ron Paul for his stance, I would say his ideas are very acceptable to a majority of people. So much so that it seems quite sensible to proclaim that, "If we believe in having the liberty to exercise our free will and if we believe in smaller government, then perhaps we are all libertarians now."

June 6, 2011
lewrockwell

[Rr00ttt]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door k9

En in de VS is het beter? Nee hoor integendeel zelfs. Dit is ook appelen met peren vergelijken, nutteloos dus.

In de VS is het niet beter. De enige voordelen die ze er hebben zijn 1: zij kunnen nog op iets besparen wat relatief pijnloos is (defensie) 2: de gemiddelde mentaliteit daar is anders, waardoor ik ze sneller terug uit de put zie kruipen.

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Rr00ttt

In de VS is het niet beter. De enige voordelen die ze er hebben zijn 1: zij kunnen nog op iets besparen wat relatief pijnloos is (defensie) 2: de gemiddelde mentaliteit daar is anders, waardoor ik ze sneller terug uit de put zie kruipen.

Defensie? Dat is zoals hier zeggen "je zou veel kunnen besparen op ambtenaren hun pensioen. Not going to happen.

Belgen hebben trouwens een grote spaar reserve, amerikanen niet. Er zit dus meer geld in belgie voor een herstel terwijl in de VS alles moet gebaseerd zijn op leningen.

[Rr00ttt]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door k9

Defensie? Dat is zoals hier zeggen "je zou veel kunnen besparen op ambtenaren hun pensioen. Not going to happen.

Belgen hebben trouwens een grote spaar reserve, amerikanen niet. Er zit dus meer geld in belgie voor een herstel terwijl in de VS alles moet gebaseerd zijn op leningen.

Het zal wél gebeuren. De vraag is alleen - net zoals met de ambtenaren in België - wanneer en of het min of meer gecontroleerd gebeurd of op een chaotische manier.

Je kan geen geld blijven uitgeven dat je simpelweg niet hebt.

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Rr00ttt

Het zal wél gebeuren. De vraag is alleen - net zoals met de ambtenaren in België - wanneer en of het min of meer gecontroleerd gebeurd of op een chaotische manier.

Je kan geen geld blijven uitgeven dat je simpelweg niet hebt.

Defensie denk ik echt niet, misschien beperkte of geen verhoingen (en dus via inflatie een effectieve vermindering) maar echt het budget naar beneden halen denk ik niet.

Zelfde voor in belgie, onze politici zijn gewoon veel te laf.

[Rr00ttt]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door k9

Defensie denk ik echt niet, misschien beperkte of geen verhoingen (en dus via inflatie een effectieve vermindering) maar echt het budget naar beneden halen denk ik niet.

Zelfde voor in belgie, onze politici zijn gewoon veel te laf.

Als Obama of een 'traditioneel Republikein' wint zal dat inderdaad niet gebeuren. Indien RP zou winnen, zal hij het alleszins proberen. Of hij die poging overleeft is een andere zaak.

Mbt België geef ik u overigens volledig gelijk.

[zonbron]

0 % voor Ron Paul ! Dit volgens een CNN Poll

According to CNN Poll, Ron Paul scores 0%

Video
Ron Paul scores 0% while Mitt Romney scores 51%? Now what could this be, an error perhaps? No, it’s clearly not an error as you can hear the lady in red saying that congresswoman Bachmann is the only other candidate in double digits (21%). So yes, according to CNN, Ron Paul is below 10%, 0% to be more precise.

Ron Paul is a US representative and congressman for almost 40 years, he is also an author and the founder of the Tea Party movement. How could he get 0%? If this isn’t mainstream media manipulation, then what is? But it looks like not all newspapers and tv stations are badly intended to discredit and defame Ron Paul. Los Angeles Times for example reported that Ron Paul handily won GOP debate according to applause:

According to our friends at the Baltimore Sun, Paul was applauded 11 times while Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty were applauded five times each. Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain were applauded four times each. Rick Santorum brought up the rear by only being applauded three times during the two-hour CNN debate.

CNN’s online poll also tells a completely different story, it tells that Ron Paul scored 81% while the other candidates are insignificant, including Mitt Romney which got only 5%. It looks like they forgot to manipulate the numbers there.

So it should be clear now that Ron Paul is actually the winner but some of the mainstream media are trying to silence him down by manipulating people into believing that a vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote because he has no chance at 0%.

Posted by EU Times on Jun 15th, 2011 // 4 Comments

EU Times

[Kodo Kodo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door k9

Ja, tuurlijk Alle dokters zijn maar kwakzalvers.

Dit is een politiek forum. Het probleem is hier dus niet dat jij, laten we zeggen: meestal, de dokters vertrouwt en de heer K. Kodo niet, maar wel dat de belastingbetaler voor een geneeskunde moet opdraaien die niet noodzakelijk de zijne is, niet de geneeskunde waaraan hij of zij zich wil toevertrouwen.

[Kodo Kodo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door zonbron

0 % voor Ron Paul ! Dit volgens een CNN Poll

Hoog tijd dat het volk alles overneemt van de zogenaamde "deskundigen": de media (dank u, internet!), de wetgeving, de rechtspraak, en het uitgeven van valuta's.

Maak van de overheid een onderheid!

[k9]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Kodo Kodo

Dit is een politiek forum. Het probleem is hier dus niet dat jij, laten we zeggen: meestal, de dokters vertrouwt en de heer K. Kodo niet, maar wel dat de belastingbetaler voor een geneeskunde moet opdraaien die niet noodzakelijk de zijne is, niet de geneeskunde waaraan hij of zij zich wil toevertrouwen.

Dat hoort nu eenmaal zo in een maatschappij. Je staat af voor het goede van de maatschappij. Iedereen profiteert van die maatschappij dus is dat maar normaal.

[AdrianHealey]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door k9

Dat hoort nu eenmaal zo in een maatschappij. Je staat af voor het goede van de maatschappij. Iedereen profiteert van die maatschappij dus is dat maar normaal.

En hoe legitimeert dat geld aan de overheid te moeten geven?

[zonbron]

Slechts 30% van de de Amerikanen zouden ervan overtuigd zijn om terug op Mr. Obama te stemmen.

Obama Gets 30% of Americans Certain to Support Re-Election in Economy Poll
bloomberg

Poll: 44% of Americans Worse Off Under Obama
bloomberg