Car_Ramrod:
2) My first ignore listing (that I know of)! Hurray!

Congrats!!

Joliet_Jake: Believe me, it will happen. There are still people who claim that the 90s stock market boom was a result of Reagan.

John Boener said as much last month.

Its an economic shiat storm, and blaming any one person (Bush, Obama etc...) makes you functionally retarded.

Erebus1954: Car_Ramrod:
Unemployment benefits, welfare, cashing in retirement funds, etc. Anything to weather the storm until job markets look more favorable.

And one in nine Americans are now on food stamps.

Is that true? That's f'd up if it is.

heap: Car_Ramrod: Unemployment benefits, welfare, cashing in retirement funds, etc. Anything to weather the storm until job markets look more favorable.

personally, i'm digging on that 'look around the house, see an ebay listing in everything i see' bit. it's awesome.

anybody want to buy a fork?

Sure, just let me put it on one of my credit cards. Those things are great!

Dil Doe: Are you dipshiats still going to call it the "Obama economy" when things improve? Or will you just forget about the whole thing and start biatching about something else to divert everyone from your idiocy and shallowness?

What was your solution to this mess again? Oh yeah, do nothing at all. Brilliant. Thanks for all your help. We'll let you know when you're relevant again.

When it improves it's because of George W Bush. Durrr. Don't you know how science works? If something bad happens it's a Democrat Socialist Nazi Child Molesting Party member's fault. If something good happens it's a Republican's fault. And nothing else matters.

Larofeticus: Oooo I found one! It's hot, though.



Time to add another reality dot to that fantasy.

If anyone doesn't believe that graph initially came from the Obama campaign, i'll go track down the pdf of it.

All that graph indicates is that even Obama didn't realize how badly Bushco screwed up our economy.

The Bushco failure was monumental.

DarnoKonrad: Car_Ramrod: 1) I have no idea who you are

I've yet to figure out what people really think they're claiming when they announce they've put someone on ignore. Something like:

"I have deemed my anonymous opinion of you highly regarded!"

Heh, it's funny cuz it's true. Though I'm opposed to the ignore list in general.

Erebus1954: Car_Ramrod:
2) My first ignore listing (that I know of)! Hurray!

Congrats!!

Thanks! Only took me 6 and a half years.

Joliet_Jake: Believe me, it will happen. There are still people who claim that the 90s stock market boom was a result of Reagan.

A variation on something Bill Clinton once said:

Republicans claim that if anything good happened during a Democratic administration, the president had nothing to do with it; but, if anything bad happened, he must have stayed up all night planning it.

My dad got the news that he's getting laid off from Briggs and Stratton yesterday. My aunt is being laid off as well from her job.

I do not blame Obama for either. This is the Bush aftermath. Unemployment is a lagging indicator. That is to say, in a recovering economy, jobs will be the VERY LAST THING to come back. Employers will keep telling themselves that all their rivals are laying off, but it's not gonna be them, so jobs are slow to be lost. But when the jobs ARE lost, employers get jittery and are afraid to hire again until they know the company can take that kind of burden again.

Lagging indicator. Not leading. LAGGING. The more leading indicators have stabilized somewhat, so we remain on pace.

Besides, if you'd been listening, Obama said at the very start that 2009 was going to suck, didn't he?

Bush broke the planet and now Obama's gonna save the Earth!!!!
Leave Obama alooooone!

Car_Ramrod:
And one in nine Americans are now on food stamps.

Is that true? That's f'd up if it is.


Sad but true:
Link (new window)

The democrats controlled congress for a few years before bush left. Did they vote for or against the federal budgets?

Larofeticus: Oooo I found one! It's hot, though.



Time to add another reality dot to that fantasy.

If anyone doesn't believe that graph initially came from the Obama campaign, i'll go track down the pdf of it.

So the economy was worse off than people had originally thought. Even the Obama administration admitted so.

What exactly is the point you guys are trying to make? That we're not quite out of the recession that started before Obama ever took office or even won the nomination?

Also, why is voting enabled so often these days?

Ok, just to make sure I have this straight on who is liable for anything negative to the United States.

1981-1989 all Carters fault
1989-1993 Blissfull heaven everything was perfect. If it wasn't it was Carters fault.
1993-2001 Pure hell and anything good was because of Reagan and Bush Sr.
2001-2009 all Clinton's fault.
2009-2012 Clinton's fault and Obama's.
2012-2016 Obama's fault



/Really?
//Really really?
///How do you not feel like a farking tool?

Spanky_McFarksalot: The democrats controlled congress for a few years before bush left. Did they vote for or against the federal budgets?

If you think the budget is the only, the primary, or a leading reason for the state of the economy right now, you need to stop sniffing airplane glue.

Erebus1954: Car_Ramrod:
And one in nine Americans are now on food stamps.

Is that true? That's f'd up if it is.


Sad but true:
Link (new window)

Jesus. Now I don't feel so bad about having a miniscule savings account.

/never used unemployment
//should send this to my parents to get them off my back

heap:

anybody want to buy a fork?

I'll trade you a Cup o' Noodles for it!


Oh, wait ...

Joliet_Jake: If you think the budget is the only, the primary, or a leading reason for the state of the economy right now, you need to stop sniffing airplane glue


I'm well aware of why we're in this mess, which is why I can easily blame both democrats and republicans for it.

Car_Ramrod: Yet... 9/11 was Clinton's fault.

Got it.

Obviously, because Obama can control the economy, while Bush couldn't control foreign policy. Duh.

Well, at least we're in agreement on one thing, Obama is far more in control than Bush ever was.

Spanky_McFarksalot: The democrats controlled congress for a few years before bush left. Did they vote for or against the federal budgets?

Cause the budget has so much to do with what the economy does.

Whaagarbl? Whaaaaagarbl!

Spanky_McFarksalot: The democrats controlled congress for a few years before bush left. Did they vote for or against the federal budgets?

I know! Especially with their overwhelming majorities and no threats of vetoes. It should've been no problem to make this country into a liberal paradise!

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Car_Ramrod: Yet... 9/11 was Clinton's fault.

Got it.

Obviously, because Obama can control the economy, while Bush couldn't control foreign policy. Duh.

Well, at least we're in agreement on one thing, Obama is far more in control than Bush ever was.

Yes, Obama is so in control that even Helen Thomas is getting sick of the bullshiat from that weasel Gibbs and the state-run media.

Joliet_Jake: you need to stop sniffing airplane glue.

So that's why planes keep crashing -- they're held together with glue!

Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm well aware of why we're in this mess, which is why I can easily blame both democrats and republicans for it.

And your solution is... ?

Erebus1954: Sad but true: [9:10 on food stamps]


I know people on food stamps. And in this state, the qualification are pretty damn destitute.

It has a lot to do with the last 10 years being the only economic expansion that saw buying power for consumers lower.

This really is miserable shiat.

MaxxLarge: Easy, pal. Bush had to work his ass off for almost his whole two terms to f*ck the economy up beyond description. It took plenty of rich-asshole tax cuts, two money-pit, exit-strategy-free foreign wars, complete negligence while a natural disaster wiped half a major American city clean off the map, and total ignorance of intelligence briefings leading to a significant terrorist attack on a financial center to bring the wealthiest country in the world to its knees.

That kind of crap is hard to undo overnight, Subby. Not that you'd be able to see that while you're busy checking out the view from the inside of your own colon like that. So give it time.

There's a lot of willful ignorance in your post, an almost obsessive determination to pin every setback of the past eight years upon one man and a grinding need to assign him blame for all negative current events and those far in the future that have yet to occur. It's almost as though, in your search for truth, you've crawled up your own asshole and lost contact with the real world. Send us a postcard.

godofusa.com: Yes, Obama is so in control that even Helen Thomas is getting sick of the bullshiat from that weasel Gibbs and the state-run media.

If only there was an appropriate thread in which you could focus your inanity. Perhaps one where people have already explained how many levels such a statement fails on. Oh well.

/voting enabled just for eraser8

WhyteRaven74: Cause the budget has so much to do with what the economy does.

Well, go tell the democrats they just spent a couple trillion based on that belief.

Car_Ramrod: godofusa.com: Yes, Obama is so in control that even Helen Thomas is getting sick of the bullshiat from that weasel Gibbs and the state-run media.

If only there was an appropriate thread in which you could focus your inanity. Perhaps one where people have already explained how many levels such a statement fails on. Oh well.

/voting enabled just for eraser8

Can't accept the fact that Gibbs and the WH Press Corps are full of shiat? Awwwwwwww.

godofusa.com: Yes, Obama is so in control that even Helen Thomas is getting sick of the bullshiat from that weasel Gibbs and the state-run media.

Ah, so now it's the "state-run" media, since anybody who goes around in public using the word "liberal" as a derogatory epithet is now properly recognized as an incompetent lunatic?

Clever... Cleee-veeer!

Exactly what McCain would have done that you think will make the situation right now any better off? Just curious, subby. I'm guessing Tax Cut? Which surely would have help the economy this whole SIX freaking month?

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: godofusa.com: Yes, Obama is so in control that even Helen Thomas is getting sick of the bullshiat from that weasel Gibbs and the state-run media.

Ah, so now it's the "state-run" media, since anybody who goes around in public using the word "liberal" as a derogatory epithet is now properly recognized as an incompetent lunatic?

Clever... Cleee-veeer!

The WH press conferences and the questions Gibbs receives/"answers" are pre-determined, therefore, it is state-run.

Shaggy_C: Larofeticus: The one that predicts unemployment without stimulus, and unemployment with stimulus, along with the extra line showing actual unemployment turned out to be much higher than either of them.


Ask and ye shall receive

The stimulus benefits are supposed to hit in Q3/Q4 of this year full-bore, which actually (interestingly enough to the report I listened to on NPR) means that the prime effects'll be in time for the mid term elections in 2010. I wonder how much of a coincidence that was; because if it works, there won't be a Republican in Congress outside of the Deep South/Mormon country.

PinkFuzzyBunny: Car_Ramrod...Welcome to my ignore list. You have just joined the ranks of:

BillCo
Capitalist1
Cup_O_Jo
Darconix
Hang On Voltaire
MethFreek
Nabb1
SouthernManDunWrong
The Stealth Hippopotamus

...for being ridiculously stupid.

/Seriously. Does calling the president "Barry" really make you feel better?
//Or does it just get your panties in such a bunch that the only fiscally responsible presidents we've had in the last 30 years have been Democrats?

Nabb1 really doesn't belong on that list. He's conservative but he's no where near as disingenuous, trollish, or retarded as most of those guys.

Stealth Hippopotamus might not belong either, but I may be thinking of the wrong poster.

/Only ignorelists people who post stupid pictures constantly or repeat the same argument over and over again and think that is "discussion."

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm well aware of why we're in this mess, which is why I can easily blame both democrats and republicans for it.

And your solution is... ?

Why does he have to have a solution? Aren't we allowed to blame the politicians on both sides who got us here in the first place? Didn't we elect them to fix this mess? Isn't that their job?

godofusa.com: The WH press conferences and the questions Gibbs receives/"answers" are pre-determined, therefore, it is state-run.

Wow, FOX News submits their questions? And Helen Thomas? I really doubt it.

Amatukaze: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm well aware of why we're in this mess, which is why I can easily blame both democrats and republicans for it.

And your solution is... ?

Why does he have to have a solution? Aren't we allowed to blame the politicians on both sides who got us here in the first place? Didn't we elect them to fix this mess? Isn't that their job?

Very well, I shall rephrase that...

What alternative do you offer?

godofusa.com: Car_Ramrod: godofusa.com: Yes, Obama is so in control that even Helen Thomas is getting sick of the bullshiat from that weasel Gibbs and the state-run media.

If only there was an appropriate thread in which you could focus your inanity. Perhaps one where people have already explained how many levels such a statement fails on. Oh well.

/voting enabled just for eraser8

Can't accept the fact that Gibbs and the WH Press Corps are full of shiat? Awwwwwwww.

*tossles hair* Keep fighting the good fight, kid.

Larofeticus: Time to add another reality dot to that fantasy.

On the bright side, this dot will only be 0.1% away from the previous dot.

godofusa.com: Can't accept the fact that Gibbs and the WH Press Corps are full of shiat?

Helen Thomas is just being honest. She is faulting the Obama administration for its secrecy because the administration is being overly stingy with the facts and overly controlling of the press environment.

But, these aren't new objections on Thomas' part. She was raising holy Hell during the Bush administration, too. Then, of course, the same right wingnuts who are now celebrating her boldness were dismissing her concerns of executive secrecy and press manipulation.

And I, for one, think the right wingnuts have no one to blame for this but themselves. They defended this kind of nonsense when the White House was in Republican hands. They were told that allowing Bush to get away with his shenanigans would set a bad precedent. They were told that once the executive asserts a privilege and that assertion is sustained politically, it is never given up.

So why are you right wingnuts whining about it now? If you were really against government secrecy of the type Obama is practicing, you should have objected when it first came up rather than waiting for eight years.

godofusa.com: The WH press conferences and the questions Gibbs receives/"answers" are pre-determined, therefore, it is state-run.

Odd how this didn't disturb you until now.

WhyteRaven74: Spanky_McFarksalot: The democrats controlled congress for a few years before bush left. Did they vote for or against the federal budgets?

Cause the budget has so much to do with what the economy does.

Are you suggesting congress has little if any influence on the economy? What about the executive?

rohar: WhyteRaven74: Spanky_McFarksalot: The democrats controlled congress for a few years before bush left. Did they vote for or against the federal budgets?

Cause the budget has so much to do with what the economy does.

Are you suggesting congress has little if any influence on the economy? What about the executive?

You think the Federal Budget directly effects the economy?

Really?

Pechorin [TotalFark] 2009-07-02 04:10:18 PM
"In order to lower the unemployment rate, we need to change the definition of "unemployment rate." Perhaps we can only count workers who lost their jobs in the past month. That would lower the unemployment rate to the lowest in decades. It would make the State look real good. Problem solved."

Wouldn't that just be delicious irony to watch the FARK Independents^TM, who so vigorously defended Bush's redefining "unemployment", argue as viciously against Obama redefining "unemployment". The circle of hypocrisy would be complete.

eraser8: So why are you right wingnuts whining about it now? If you were really against government secrecy of the type Obama is practicing, you should have objected when it first came up rather than waiting for eight years.

Happiness is seeing this...



... In the bargain bin at Barnes and Noble.

godofusa.com: Yes, Obama is so in control that even Helen Thomas is getting sick of the bullshiat from that weasel Gibbs and the state-run media.

Do you even know what "state-run media" means or did it just sound good in your head?

STATE-RUN media would be something like Armed Forces Radio.

Fart_Machine: rohar: WhyteRaven74: Spanky_McFarksalot: The democrats controlled congress for a few years before bush left. Did they vote for or against the federal budgets?

Cause the budget has so much to do with what the economy does.

Are you suggesting congress has little if any influence on the economy? What about the executive?

You think the Federal Budget directly effects the economy?


Some, not much. You were challenged with congress, you responded with one thing they do. I'll grant you SMF drove you that direction, but including all the powers of Congress, do they or don't they have an influence on the economy?

Really?

Fart_Machine: You think the Federal Budget directly effects the economy?

Well it does. It's like 35% of GDP. And the whole point of the stimulus package is to effect the economy. And that's in the budget.


But generally no, the Federal Budget is not used to manage the economy. That's what the Fed's for. But it does effect it.