Wake up sheeple, Bush is still secretly controlling everything.

You know, Republicans, I don't know how quickly the economy is going to recover, but I'm going to bet it will look significantly better 3 years from now -- probably even a year from now -- and the general mood will therefore be happier.

And whether he deserves it or not, Obama will receive all the credit. And whether they deserve it or not, Republicans will be like the duck, the goose, the cat and the pig in the old childrens' fable of The Little Red Hen... biatching and moaning throughout the whole process, and then expecting a reward for it.

And even if the economy isn't significantly better in a year, I think the odds of it being better in 3 years are pretty durn good.

And you may remember what happened to the Democrats when they biatched and moaned during the '82 recession that ended in time for the '84 election.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: 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.

Gibbs annoyed me from day 1.

paygun: Wake up sheeple, Bush is still secretly controlling everything.

Clinton's. Weather. Machine. I see they've been using the atmosphere on you. Don't be duped.

I'd rather go with the

rohar: 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.

Well the question related to the budget not all of the powers of Congress. However for Congress to enact legislation that would effect the economy they would have to A) have it approved by the President or B) override a veto from the President.

So what legislation does that relate to under the previous Administration?

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

Yes, it does. Each year the government puts trillions into the economy. In agriculture, healthcare (social security and medicare) commerce, defense, education, energy, justice, transportation... just to name a few. Nearly 2 million people work for the federal government, all getting a pay check and putting that back into the economy.

The U.S. economy is around $14(?) trillion, the federal budget last year was $3 trillion. That's money being paid to someone to do (in theory) something. You don't spend that much not have an effect.

Just remember, guise.

Great Depression (1929 - 1933): FDR's fault
Recession of 1937: FDR's fault
Recession of 1945: FDR/Truman's fault
Recession of 1948: FDR/Truman's fault
Recession of 1953: FDR/Truman's fault
Recession of 1958: FDR/Truman's fault
Recession of 1960-1961: FDR/Truman's fault
Recession of 1969-1970: LBJ's fault
Recession of 1973-1974: LBJ's fault
Recession of 1980: Carter's fault
Recession of 1981-1982: Carter's fault
Recession of 1990-1991: Carter's fault
Recession of 2000: Clinton's fault
Recession of 2007-: Clinton/Obama's fault

godofusa.com: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: 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.

Gibbs annoyed me from day 1.

I think he was referring to the blatant propagandizing done by Fox News during the Bush administration- or, wait, they were just being Fair and Balanced then, amirite?

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

Yes, it does. Each year the government puts trillions into the economy. In agriculture, healthcare (social security and medicare) commerce, defense, education, energy, justice, transportation... just to name a few. Nearly 2 million people work for the federal government, all getting a pay check and putting that back into the economy.

The U.S. economy is around $14(?) trillion, the federal budget last year was $3 trillion. That's money being paid to someone to do (in theory) something. You don't spend that much not have an effect.

Well the key word here is directly. You really can't control what federal employees spend their paychecks on however they do put money back into the economy. However they don't directly control it. If that were the case we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

Unless you want to nationalize industry of course but that has its own set of problems.

Welfare Xmas: But....But....BUSH!!!

But....But....Regan!!!!

But....But....Anything but Obama!!!!

It's not so much that I fault y'all for blaming Obama, but I fault y'all for being inconsistent liars.

Recession that has so far been 67% in Bush's term: It's the fault of the guy who inherited it.

Recession that started early in Bush's term (despite claims, he technically did not inherit a recession, as it started and ended in 2001): It's the fault of the guy before.

Recession that occurred in Bush I's term: *crickets*

Recession that occurred in Reagan's first term: It's the fault of his predecessor.

Recession that occurred in Carter's term: It's Carter's fault.

etc...

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

Yes, it does. Each year the government puts takes trillions into out of the economy and pisses it down a rat hole. In agriculture, healthcare (social security and medicare) commerce, defense defence, education, energy, justice, transportation... just to name a few. Nearly 2 million people work for the federal government, all getting a pay check and putting that back into the economy.

The U.S. economy is around $14(?) trillion, the federal budget last year was $3 trillion. That's money being paid to someone to do (in theory) something. You don't spend that much not have an effect.

FTFY

/FLAME ON!

Chearl: We would have all been millionaires by now had McCain won.

Maybe not millionaires- but we would be better off.

Rockstone: Maybe not millionaires- but we would be better off.

Have you come from an alternate future where he won? Do tell!

WHAAAARGARBLE

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.


Now, c'mon... that's not completely true. They did suggest some big tax cuts for the wealthy.

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.

It took 6 posts before the "Blame Bush" crowd showed up!!! Farkers, you're letting me down!

I think your comment would carry more weight if the Savior hadn't promised he'd fix the economy quickly (you know, stimulus bills and what not).

elchip: Welfare Xmas: But....But....BUSH!!!

But....But....Regan!!!!

But....But....Anything but Obama!!!!

It's not so much that I fault y'all for blaming Obama, but I fault y'all for being inconsistent liars.

Recession that has so far been 67% in Bush's term: It's the fault of the guy who inherited it.

Recession that started early in Bush's term (despite claims, he technically did not inherit a recession, as it started and ended in 2001): It's the fault of the guy before.

Recession that occurred in Bush I's term: *crickets*

Recession that occurred in Reagan's first term: It's the fault of his predecessor.

Recession that occurred in Carter's term: It's Carter's fault.

etc...

Bush wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he inherited a recession from the burst of the "dot com" bubble, much like Bush was involved in the housing bubble (that Obama inherited).

We can also blame Greenspan and the Fed for lowering interest rates to 1%?! Should be 10%!

/25% if they want to pass all this spending

Rockstone: Chearl: We would have all been millionaires by now had McCain won.

Maybe not millionaires- but we would be better off.

At the very least, we would have had all the pancakes we could eat!

/PANCAKES!

RemyDuron: US Troops pull out of Iraq: "That was GEORGE W. BUSH's doing! Nothing to do with Obama at all!"

Economy sucks: "Obama is president now, it has all been his fault from the minute he got into office!"

Consistency is all I ask. . .

When Bush was in office....
Democrats = "We've lost the war in Iraq. It was horribly managed and it's all Bush's Fault. It's over, there's no hope, bring our troops home."

Now....
Democrats = "Victory in Iraq... Praise be to Obama"

A little consistency would be nice wouldn't it?

Joliet_Jake: Unemployment is a lagging indicator, and it tends to lag 6 months behind. We're just now getting to the numbers reflecting the tail end of the Bush recession. Jesus, you whargarblers don't even read the whargarble economists writings, do you?

Talking point #1 I came for...

moralpanic: Seeing as it took almost 8 years to break the economy, i think it's gonna take a little longer than 6 months to fix it. Generally it's a lot easier to break something than to fix it.

Ohh, and look! It's talking point #2!

Seriously folks, when is unemployment going to cease being the lagging indicator and start to show the results of all the governmental spending? August? October? Next May?

At what point is there the realization that the "cure" (read - Stimulus Package) is making things worse than it would have otherwise? Does unemployment have to be 30%?

My guess is we're just going to be hearing a lot of: "Hey, it took 8 years for you guys to wreck the economy, you can't expect Obama to have it fixed in 6months/1 year/2 years/3 and a half years, etc. etc."

Larofeticus: 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.

Republican humor strikes again! - laughing at Democratic failure to properly judge the enormity of Republican failure.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Obama has been President for almost 6 months and he STILL hasn't fixed the economy.

WTF is this guy's problem?

Worst President EVAR!

And in three years you'll just say it was a wash and Bush ruined it so bad Obama never had a chance to begin with. Kill yourself.

jgbrowning: Larofeticus: 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.

Republican humor strikes again! - laughing at Democratic failure to properly judge the enormity of Republican failure.

Talking point #3: Your guy sucked so bad that it's making our guy suck now, too. Cool.

Just wait until Cap and Tax passes... then we'll see a recession

Ontos: Joliet_Jake: Unemployment is a lagging indicator, and it tends to lag 6 months behind. We're just now getting to the numbers reflecting the tail end of the Bush recession. Jesus, you whargarblers don't even read the whargarble economists writings, do you?

Talking point #1 I came for...

moralpanic: Seeing as it took almost 8 years to break the economy, i think it's gonna take a little longer than 6 months to fix it. Generally it's a lot easier to break something than to fix it.

Ohh, and look! It's talking point #2!

Seriously folks, when is unemployment going to cease being the lagging indicator and start to show the results of all the governmental spending? August? October? Next May?

At what point is there the realization that the "cure" (read - Stimulus Package) is making things worse than it would have otherwise? Does unemployment have to be 30%?

My guess is we're just going to be hearing a lot of: "Hey, it took 8 years for you guys to wreck the economy, you can't expect Obama to have it fixed in 6months/1 year/2 years/3 and a half years, etc. etc."

This talking point is valid, 6 months is not enough to see any effect of the economic policy. One year, may be. Myself, my cut-off point is one and a half.

kleppe: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Obama has been President for almost 6 months and he STILL hasn't fixed the economy.

WTF is this guy's problem?

Worst President EVAR!

And in three years you'll just say it was a wash and Bush ruined it so bad Obama never had a chance to begin with. Kill yourself.

I think we're on the same page...

ou_fan222 - 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.

It took 6 posts before the "Blame Bush" crowd showed up!!! Farkers, you're letting me down!

I think your comment would carry more weight if the Savior hadn't promised he'd fix the economy quickly (you know, stimulus bills and what not).


Yeah... I'm gonna require a citation on the claim that Obama said he'd repair the economy in less than six months. If he said anything even remotely like that it would have been wall-to-wall on every network, so you shouldn't have ANY trouble at all backing up your claim.

You guys are the lyingest sacks of shiat ever. You'll just say absolutely anything, no matter how preposterous... no matter how easily fact-checked. You have no reservations about blowing utter bullshiat at the slightest whim if you think it will score you a point in an argument.

Fortunately, you're pretty farking retarded... so your lies are usually about as believable as the kid who picks his nose in geometry and claims he knows someone who makes his own bulletproof chainmail.

Masso:
This talking point is valid, 6 months is not enough to see any effect of the economic policy. One year, may be. Myself, my cut-off point is one and a half.

Honestly, that's one of the most valid positions I've read on the Politics tab of Fark.

Rockstone: Maybe not millionaires- but we would be better off.

No one knows how to drive back up the cliff than the guys that drove off it to begin with, I suppose. I see you really do believe that past performance isn't indicative of future performance.

I, however, suspect that anyone who was smart enough to select Palin as a running mate would somehow find us another cliff to drive off of were he in charge.

ou_fan222: Just wait until Cap and Tax passes... then we'll see a recession revolt

FTFY

/ the peasants are revolting!
// you got that right!

Ontos: Talking point #3: Your guy sucked so bad that it's making our guy suck now, too. Cool.

Call it a talking point if it makes you feel better. Sorry that reality hurts. Keep on believing!

Palin/Plumber 2012!

jgbrowning:
Republican Austrian humor strikes again! - laughing at Democratic Keneysian failure to properly judge the enormity of Republican Keneysian failure.

That is a more accurate perspective on my point of view. I find it amazing how a field of study with such a terrible track record for making predictions continues to find someone to listen to its predictions.

Hope and Change.

Fart_Machine: rohar: 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.

Well the question related to the budget not all of the powers of Congress. However for Congress to enact legislation that would effect the economy they would have to A) have it approved by the President or B) override a veto from the President.

So what legislation does that relate to under the previous Administration?

To finally go full circle, that's exactly my point. It doesn't exist. Inept government at it's best.

jgbrowning: Ontos: Talking point #3: Your guy sucked so bad that it's making our guy suck now, too. Cool.

Call it a talking point if it makes you feel better. Sorry that reality hurts. Keep on believing!

Palin/Plumber 2012!

Package it anyway you'd like, it's just as retarded.

Larofeticus: That is a more accurate perspective on my point of view. I find it amazing how a field of study with such a terrible track record for making predictions continues to find someone to listen to its predictions.

Oh, an Austrian. That's even funnier. Have you checked on the top story at the Ludwig von Mises Institute today? https://www.mises.org/

It's titled "Free Bernie Madoff" and it's as cute as a button.

Car_Ramrod: portscanner: Came here for the but, but, but, but Bush!!!

Left satisfied.

Seriously. Bush isn't in office anymore, guys. He has no relevency to what's happening. It's all Barry. Sorry you got duped.

6 months is enough to fix the worst economic melt down in 80 years but 9 months isn't enough to stop 20 guy with box cutters.

Got it.

Ontos: jgbrowning: Ontos: Talking point #3: Your guy sucked so bad that it's making our guy suck now, too. Cool.

Call it a talking point if it makes you feel better. Sorry that reality hurts. Keep on believing!

Palin/Plumber 2012!

Package it anyway you'd like, it's just as retarded.

Feeling better yet? Maybe you should respond to this post as well. Perhaps that would finally do the trick.

portscanner: FTFY

I wouldn't argue against your fixes.

I thought last months unemployment rate went up because GM shut a bunch of plants down when they went into bankruptcy.

Obviously all these problems could have been solved with a tax cut for the rich. Maybe similar to the 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut Bush put in to save the economy during his first term. That one did awesome!

jgbrowning: Oh, an Austrian. That's even funnier. Have you checked on the top story at the Ludwig von Mises Institute today? https://www.mises.org/

It's titled "Free Bernie Madoff" and it's as cute as a button.

That's nice. How is it relevent to this thread?

The other side wants to borrow as much money as possible to flush down the government toilet with no track record for success or even close to accurate predictions. That strikes me as not only a less rational point of view, but it's also a relevant one.

portscanner: ou_fan222: Just wait until Cap and Tax passes... then we'll see a recession revolt

FTFY

/ the peasants are revolting!
// you got that right!

Really? Did anyone revolt when NAFTA was passed? How about when the New Deal ramped up and got going? A riot? Really?

Can't wait for 2012 when nothing has changed and the Obama fellators claim that the economy was too jacked up and so sorry, but nothing could be done (please reelect us).

portscanner, you are a disingenuous cock.

Cap and trade for CO2 is revenue neutral, you stupid asshole. This has been pointed out to you again and again. Exactly the same way cap and trade for SO2 was revenue neutral. So stop being ignorant and obfuscating the debate with your nonsensical shenanigans.

kleppe: Can't wait for 2012 when nothing has changed and the Obama fellators claim that the economy was too jacked up and so sorry, but nothing could be done (please reelect us).

If nothing has changed by 2012 we're completely farked as a country.

kleppe - Can't wait for 2012 when nothing has changed and the Obama fellators claim that the economy was too jacked up and so sorry, but nothing could be done (please reelect us).



And it still wouldn't change the fact that the GOP drove this country right into the farking ground with greater velocity than a kamikaze pilot.

If he can't turn it around... it sucks, but sometimes the firemen just can't save the building... It's just too far gone.

When that happens... the blame doesn't rest with the firemen, the blame is on the crackheads who were smoking rock in the basement.

Every time you guys talk about how Obama is unable to fix the economy, all you're doing is pointing out once again, what an unbelievable farking mess Republicans left it in.

So go ahead... keep talking about what an astounding shiatpile this country's economy is in... because nobody's forgetting who put it there.

Larofeticus: Someone get that graph from the report Obama released during his campaign.

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.

That graph is hilarious.

And without the stimulus it would be even higher still. Government adding new spending increases employment, that is undeniable. Whether it is worthwhile in the long run can be debated, but the base fact is hard to deny - you would basically be saying that for every person the government hires, private enterprise reacts to that single fact by firing more than one person on average. Most analyses of historical employment policy (government vs private) suggest that in a period of high unemployment every extra employee the government takes on increases private employment (by amounts from 0.3 to 1.6 being a figure that sticks in my head but I can't remember which recessions we were discussing at the time). The government employees have more money to spend compared to when they were unemployed, so that tends to stimulate demand in the private sector.

Obviously when government takes on more employees during a period of low employment it competes with private industry more, and the net increase in employment drops below 1 and heads towards zero as you get closer to full employment. At full employment it is exactly 0, as any new employee must come from private industry by definition (ignoring immigration/emigration, new entrants/retirements and so on for simplicity).