If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Obama used his magical time machine to go back in time to 2007, fully implement Obamanomics, and crash the economy into the worst five years since the Great Depression   (forbes.com) divider line 458
    More: Obvious, President Obama, Great Depression, obamanomics, American Thinker, Reaganomics, american incomes, President George Bush, economic liberalism  
•       •       •

4599 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Feb 2013 at 12:33 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



458 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-10 01:37:50 PM  

MFK: [i780.photobucket.com image 257x196]


That's the one of the three that I could name.
 
2013-02-10 01:40:21 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Kumana Wanalaia: Conservatives wrecked their party once with this kind of fantasy politics. It's still wrecked. And they're still at it.

I can't wait for what tomorrow brings.

I think they looked outside the bubble (unwillingly) last November, decided they hated it, and then figured that becoming MORE insular would be the solution.


Maybe they'll shrink over the years and end up like the Amish, except more dickish.
 
2013-02-10 01:41:26 PM  

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Full time control over weather, war and the economy. One more and we'd have a cube.


What that cube might look like, with bonus picture of how Republicans view Obama:

www.heromachine.com
 
2013-02-10 01:41:49 PM  
This "THANKS OBAMA!" Meme will get out of control....

jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-10 01:43:09 PM  
Obama, as a senator, voted for these policies. As president he carried over the same economic team Bush had when he left office.

People are looking too closely at men and not ideas. Obama's ideas are a continuation of failed economic ideas. Ideas that Bush was pilloried by most Republicans for having back in 2008.

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Oh, and if you couldn't beat a sitting President who presided over the worst 5 years since the Great Depression, what does it say about you and the ideas you hold dear?


Democracy means popular ideas win not good ones. Americans are being brought up to think less critically and accept bad ideas as good ideas. And that's all that counts when it comes to winning elections.

cameroncrazy1984: What do YOU call $1.2T in spending cuts already combined with raising the top marginal rate?


A damned lie and an unrelated fact. We have not cut 1.2T in spending.

Granny_Panties: The Democrats didn't really even have a majority if you take out the Independents. Bush could have blocked anything he wanted to. Weak leader is weak.


The 2 independents caucused with the DNC.
 
2013-02-10 01:44:02 PM  

digistil: dickfreckle: Upon further investigation of this thread, it appears that at least - but not limited to - 3 of Fark's most notorious assholes are here. Do I go about my day, or do I try unsuccessfully to demonstrate how how they talk funny and their sh*t's all retarded?

I only know of one of the three people you're referring to. Who are the other two?


One of them apparently lost his mind and now spews fart that makes ged and animalalt look reasonable.

Thanks Obama.
 
2013-02-10 01:44:02 PM  
 Wait - I actually remember it now. I took some pics of a clearly retarded children and captioned them with said poster's name. Sort of like the whie "Deep thoughts" bit, but not popular enough to withstand a temporary ban.

 Anyway, just don't needlessly talk sh*t about the jerks here, unless aimed directly at them.
 
2013-02-10 01:44:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead, here's proof of your stupidity yet again:

Bush Signs 2009 Budget Resolution

A continuing resolution is not a budget resolution, crazy.

Point of order, why do you think the President must sign continuing resolutions and not budget bills?


I can't believe I'm saying this, but SkinnyHead is right. Budget resolutions do not carry the force of law, are not bills and are not signed by the president. Continuing resolutions which are like joint resolutions are signed by the president if appropriations legislation has been delayed.
 
2013-02-10 01:44:30 PM  

SkinnyHead: Budget resolutions are not signed by the President.


So you are saying that the bad economy of the past 5 years is due to the Republican Congress since the President doesn't sign the budgets or do anything?
 
2013-02-10 01:44:56 PM  

Mrbogey: A damned lie and an unrelated fact. We have not cut 1.2T in spending.


Please explain the lower deficit.
 
2013-02-10 01:45:27 PM  
Can I even spell? Christ, I stopped drinking.What else do I need to do?
 
2013-02-10 01:45:51 PM  

insano: Budget resolutions do not carry the force of law, are not bills and are not signed by the president.


That's not true. What would be the point of a budget resolution if it didn't carry the force of law?
 
2013-02-10 01:46:26 PM  

dickfreckle: Can I even spell? Christ, I stopped drinking.What else do I need to do?


Quit sniffing glue?
 
2013-02-10 01:47:27 PM  

Mrbogey: As president he carried over the same economic team Bush had when he left office.


What?
 
2013-02-10 01:48:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: dickfreckle: Can I even spell? Christ, I stopped drinking.What else do I need to do?

Quit sniffing glue?


Yeah, I quit that, too. This week as a matter of fact.
 
2013-02-10 01:49:10 PM  

dickfreckle: cameroncrazy1984: dickfreckle: Can I even spell? Christ, I stopped drinking.What else do I need to do?

Quit sniffing glue?

Yeah, I quit that, too. This week as a matter of fact.


Must have picked the wrong week.
 
2013-02-10 01:50:04 PM  
I was thinking about how bad things are when I was standing in the breadline this morning, aiting for my free bowl of soup and crust of bread waiting at Starbucks, surfing the 'net on my smartphone, letting my 2nd car idle so that the heater didn't get cold and waiting for my $7 cup of coffee.

Those people in the Depression? Pfft! Amateurs!
 
2013-02-10 01:51:14 PM  
THANKS, OBAMA!

i78.photobucket.com


 
2013-02-10 01:53:04 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Must have picked the wrong week.


LOL, but do I really have to make a tired joke more than once in a thread?
 
2013-02-10 01:53:23 PM  
Little do you all guys know that Obama, with his time machine, also altered the outcome of the Crusades.

Here is evidence of his meddling:

realhistoryww.com
 
2013-02-10 01:53:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: insano: Budget resolutions do not carry the force of law, are not bills and are not signed by the president.

That's not true. What would be the point of a budget resolution if it didn't carry the force of law?



A budget resolution is a concurrent resolution, which, like a simple resolution, is not presented to the president. Only joint resolutions and bills are presented to the president to become law. Simple and concurrent resolutions are more like guidelines or statements of opinion. in the case of a budget resolution, it is a guideline for how the budget should be constructed. The confusion here is the difference between a joint resolution and a concurrent resolution.


From wikipedia:

The budget resolution serves as a blueprint for the actual appropriation process, and provides Congress with some control over the appropriations process. No new spending authority, however, is provided untilappropriation billsare enacted. A budget resolution binds Congress, but is not a law. It does allow for certain points of order to be made if the President does not follow the resolution. There may not be a resolution every year; if none is established, the previous year's resolution stays in force
 
2013-02-10 01:55:18 PM  
If America enjoyed the same labor force participation rate as in 2008, the unemployment rate in December, 2012 would have been 11.4%, compared to 4.9% in December, 2007, under President George Bush and his "failed" economic policies of the past.

Hey Sparkles,

Bush was President for an entire YEAR after December of 2007, why don't you use tHOSe numbers, instead of cherry picking what you do and don't want to matter?

Jesus, I thought Forbes was supposed to understand economics.
 
2013-02-10 01:55:39 PM  

insano: Simple and concurrent resolutions are more like guidelines or statements of opinion. in the case of a budget resolution, it is a guideline for how the budget should be constructed. The confusion here is the difference between a joint resolution and a concurrent resolution.


So the budget resolutions don't actually spend anything, it's the spending bills.

So the point being that  SkinnyHeadis still wrong because it's the spending bills and not the budget resolutions that "count."
 
2013-02-10 01:55:50 PM  

Mrbogey:

Granny_Panties: The Democrats didn't really even have a majority if you take out the Independents. Bush could have blocked anything he wanted to. Weak leader is weak.

The 2 independents caucused with the DNC.


No shiat Sherlock. Reading comprehension must not be one of your many talents.
 
2013-02-10 01:56:52 PM  
OBAMAAAAAAAA!!!11
 
2013-02-10 01:57:26 PM  
imageshack.us

Thanks, Obama!
 
2013-02-10 01:57:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: insano: Simple and concurrent resolutions are more like guidelines or statements of opinion. in the case of a budget resolution, it is a guideline for how the budget should be constructed. The confusion here is the difference between a joint resolution and a concurrent resolution.

So the budget resolutions don't actually spend anything, it's the spending bills.

So the point being that  SkinnyHeadis still wrong because it's the spending bills and not the budget resolutions that "count."


Correct.  It boils down to semantic differences between types of resolutions and bills.  SkinnyHead is wrong about pretty much everything else in life.
 
2013-02-10 02:00:33 PM  
FTFA:  "From 2009 through 2012, the Obama cabal, and their allegiance to statist policies, has been in charge for four years."

2012-2009=4  Got it.  Is this some math you do...
 
2013-02-10 02:00:38 PM  
At least you can trust Forbes to put it in an Op-Ed.
 
2013-02-10 02:01:11 PM  

Weatherkiss: [imageshack.us image 250x190]

Thanks, Obama!


That scoundrel!.
 
2013-02-10 02:01:31 PM  

insano: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead, here's proof of your stupidity yet again:

Bush Signs 2009 Budget Resolution

A continuing resolution is not a budget resolution, crazy.

Point of order, why do you think the President must sign continuing resolutions and not budget bills?

I can't believe I'm saying this, but SkinnyHead is right. Budget resolutions do not carry the force of law, are not bills and are not signed by the president. Continuing resolutions which are like joint resolutions are signed by the president if appropriations legislation has been delayed.


Not really. The guy had been talking about "budget resolutions" as though they were actual budgets. It's one of his most common trolling methods - start off with some statement that's completely muddled and misleading as a way of setting up a "Hah, I am technically correct about something" response, which of course only works if you ignore the entire context of the exchange.
 
2013-02-10 02:01:37 PM  

Mikey1969: Bush was President for an entire YEAR after December of 2007, why don't you use tHOSe numbers, instead of cherry picking what you do and don't want to matter?


Let it go, man. Look, I'm on your side. But I'm telling you...let it go. No thrashing or even cogent arguments on your part will change this perception held by idiots.

Damn, even I'm a reasonable, formally educated person. But so was my father, and he thought Obama caused everything.  Let it go, man.
 
2013-02-10 02:03:03 PM  
s20.postimage.org
 
2013-02-10 02:03:23 PM  
Did I really read that in 2008 it was a D-dominated congress's fault and in the very next sentence, in the very same paragraph they say that at this time it's the president's fault.

/time machine not needed for that kind of dissonance
 
2013-02-10 02:04:12 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead, here's proof of your stupidity yet again:

Bush Signs 2009 Budget Resolution

A continuing resolution is not a budget resolution, crazy.

Point of order, why do you think the President must sign continuing resolutions and not budget bills?


That's the way the budget process is structured in Budget Act of 1974, which gave Congress more control over the budget.

Seeing as how Congress has more control over the budget, shouldn't the democrat Congress elected in 2006 share some of the blame for the economic collapse in 2008?  The way Libs tell it, Bush was entirely to blame because it happened when he was president, and democrats in Congress (including Obama) were entirely blameless.  Once Obama is elected, now the president cannot be blamed for anything during his presidency, but instead, republicans in Congress are entirely to blame.  Where is the sense in that?
 
2013-02-10 02:05:04 PM  

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Full time control over weather, war and the economy. One more and we'd have a cube.


Well then obviously the last factor must be "time".
 
2013-02-10 02:05:04 PM  

Mrbogey: People are looking too closely at men and not ideas. Obama's ideas are a continuation of failed economic ideas. Ideas that Bush was pilloried by most Republicans for having back in 2008.


The Economic Stimulus Plan of 2008 was passed 380-34 in the House, and 81-16 in the Senate, the biggest GOP opposition being to unemployment benefits, heating aid for the poor, and tax breaks for home building and energy industries.  Those were taken out.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was passed 244-188 (177 GOP opposed) in the House. 61-37 in the Senate (only 3 GOP in favor).

"Pilloried" has nothing to do with girls in pajamas jumping around on a bed, FYI.
 
2013-02-10 02:06:05 PM  
the enormously successful Reaganomics

... wtf am I even reading, is this Forbes: gibberish edition or something?

Clearly some idiot built a new tower of Babel by the magazine's headquarters and got use cast down again.  Thanks, Obama.
 
2013-02-10 02:07:04 PM  

Curious: Dinki: It's always good to see these articles every now and then, to remind us how farking clueless the right is when it comes to basic economic policy. Everything this guy said was wrong. It is truly a masterpiece of failure.

that's a fair summation.


Except that, as we all know, the Right is not part of the Reality-Based Community.  Facts don't matter unless they can be bent to conform with the Right Wing Articles of Faith; number one of which is that Republicans and their Policies are perfect and would always work as planned if it weren't for those damned Libruls and their eeeevul Regalatins.
 
2013-02-10 02:07:28 PM  

Rich Cream: Did I really read that in 2008 it was a D-dominated congress's fault and in the very next sentence, in the very same paragraph they say that at this time it's the president's fault.


To the right wingnut, it's always the Democrats' fault.

That's really all you need to understand to decipher what they're saying.

The party of "personal responsibility" will NEVER accept ANY responsibility for their own actions.
 
2013-02-10 02:08:10 PM  
dwellingintheword.files.wordpress.com
THANKS OBAMA
 
2013-02-10 02:08:18 PM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead, here's proof of your stupidity yet again:

Bush Signs 2009 Budget Resolution

A continuing resolution is not a budget resolution, crazy.

Point of order, why do you think the President must sign continuing resolutions and not budget bills?

That's the way the budget process is structured in Budget Act of 1974, which gave Congress more control over the budget.

Seeing as how Congress has more control over the budget, shouldn't the democrat Congress elected in 2006 share some of the blame for the economic collapse in 2008?  The way Libs tell it, Bush was entirely to blame because it happened when he was president, and democrats in Congress (including Obama) were entirely blameless.  Once Obama is elected, now the president cannot be blamed for anything during his presidency, but instead, republicans in Congress are entirely to blame.  Where is the sense in that?


Your argument fails because the President has the veto power. Sorry. The fact that Congress has control of the budget process does not mean the President has zero input, nor does it mean he is forced to sign a budget.
 
2013-02-10 02:08:32 PM  

DamnYankees: Here's what I don't understand about all these "ZOMG HORRIBLE RECOVERY" things. Do people just not notice or care that this was a worldwide economic catastrophe, and the US has pretty much been the most successful in recovering? And that pretty much every other country has been MORE austere than us? Is there no lesson here?


Even worse, they equate the fact that they can't buy a brand new car this year with people having to live in the streets and live off a crust of bread every day... It's like people who equate their little bit of suffering with the Jews in the holocaust, it disrespects the people who ACTUALLY suffered.
 
2013-02-10 02:10:53 PM  

Biological Ali: Not really. The guy had been talking about "budget resolutions" as though they were actual budgets. It's one of his most common trolling methods - start off with some statement that's completely muddled and misleading as a way of setting up a "Hah, I am technically correct about something" response, which of course only works if you ignore the entire context of the exchange.


Oh I totally agree with you. Take Skinny's post just above. He's trying to blame congress for the budget passed under Bush, as if the budget bills are not signed and passed by the President. I was only saying that technically, when he says that budget resolutions are not signed by the president he is correct. I immediately regret having defended his technical correctness.
 
2013-02-10 02:13:01 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Please explain the lower deficit.


A deficit is a product of revenues versus spending. Actual spending has not gone down.

Granny_Panties: No shiat Sherlock. Reading comprehension must not be one of your many talents.


Apparently. I blew apart your retarded talking point that the Dems weren't really in charge.

DamnYankees: Mrbogey: As president he carried over the same economic team Bush had when he left office.

What?


Bernanke and Geithner were involved with both Bush and Obama.

Ishidan: 2012-2009=4 Got it. Is this some math you do...


Is "through" really that tough of a word for you. Do you think that there is a whole day separating Tuesday 11:59:59PM and Wednesday 12:00:00AM
 
2013-02-10 02:14:19 PM  

SkinnyHead: shouldn't the democrat Congress elected in 2006 share some of the blame for the economic collapse in 2008?


You're exactly right.

The Democrats SHOULD accept some blame for the economic collapse...because they stupidly accepted Republican economic claims uncritically.  Likewise, if the president accepts the GOP's claims that austerity is the best path out of our current predicament, then he deserves part of the blame for the recession that will surely result from the adoption of Republican doctrine.

The president should be smart enough to know that Republican policies lead to economic dead-ends.  If he adopts them anyway, YES he deserves a great deal of blame.
 
2013-02-10 02:14:51 PM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead, here's proof of your stupidity yet again:

Bush Signs 2009 Budget Resolution

A continuing resolution is not a budget resolution, crazy.

Point of order, why do you think the President must sign continuing resolutions and not budget bills?

That's the way the budget process is structured in Budget Act of 1974, which gave Congress more control over the budget.

Seeing as how Congress has more control over the budget, shouldn't the democrat Congress elected in 2006 share some of the blame for the economic collapse in 2008?  The way Libs tell it, Bush was entirely to blame because it happened when he was president, and democrats in Congress (including Obama) were entirely blameless.  Once Obama is elected, now the president cannot be blamed for anything during his presidency, but instead, republicans in Congress are entirely to blame.  Where is the sense in that?


Who said the GOP is entirely to blame? I did a search on this whole thread and found 3 instances of "entirely", all from your post.

You're like the girlfriend who can't take any kind of responsibility for her actions and the second you imply even partial blame the entirety of the world's troubles are her fault! Chill out a bit, geesh.
 
2013-02-10 02:17:18 PM  

Mrbogey: A deficit is a product of revenues versus spending. Actual spending has not gone down.


So?

It's undeniable that spending as a share of GDP has gone down.

In our current circumstances, that isn't the policy the US should have pursued...but, that's what's actually happened.
 
2013-02-10 02:17:32 PM  

Mrbogey: Bernanke and Geithner were involved with both Bush and Obama.


Bernanke was, Geithner was not.  But I'm sure you'll sprinkle fairy dust on the word "involved," as that's why you used it in the first place.
 
2013-02-10 02:18:40 PM  

Mrbogey: A deficit is a product of revenues versus spending. Actual spending has not gone down.


citation needed
 
Displayed 50 of 458 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report