Well that escalated quickly!

Couldnt get through the first paragraph of the article...

Sounds like another attempt by Republicans at rebranding,

You know, 911 was about Benghazi and all Obamas fault.

Its Obamacare not the ACA.

Its Obamas sequestration deadline.

They REALLY dont want people to remember that Clinton left Bush with a surplus for the economy.

This is not news.  I remember hearing the phrase "the Obama recession" as early as September 2008.

Heraclitus: Its Obamas sequestration deadline.

AKA "Fartquestration".

This trolls is dildos.

Mrbogey: The GOP caving and supporting it caused a lot of people to lose their jobs and the party to take a different direction which led to fiercer opposition in 2009 and beyond.

And led directly to Obama's re-election, as well as the Dems holding the Senate in not one but TWO elections when they had vulnerable seats up.

cameroncrazy1984: Mrbogey: The GOP caving and supporting it caused a lot of people to lose their jobs and the party to take a different direction which led to fiercer opposition in 2009 and beyond.

And led directly to Obama's re-election, as well as the Dems holding the Senate in not one but TWO elections when they had vulnerable seats up.

They don't like it when you point out that the Tea Party cost the Republicans the Senate in two elections in a row.

SkinnyHead: That isn't my argument.  I'm not defending Bush, I am arguing against what seems to be the Lib theme of this thread, which is to mock the concept that Obama should bear responsibility for the bad economy that has persisted throughout his presidency.

Well for one, the economy has consistently improved throughout his presidency. And two, what do budget resolutions have to do with the economy?

Mrbogey: Give me a peak into what 2013 holds. Tell me how the next recession will be blamed on Republicans. Let me know what the next dishonest talking point will be.

Aww, poor baby.

You guys can't live without having to feel persecuted all the time huh?

Mrbogey: And the 2008 votes led to the 2009 tea party surge.

Tea Party surge?

Really?

The same Tea Party that cost the GOP more previously safe seats than they picked up for them?

Mrbogey: Kinda odd how as Democrats get more power they blame the Republicans even more.

Give me a peak into what 2013 holds. Tell me how the next recession will be blamed on Republicans. Let me know what the next dishonest talking point will be.

You sound oppressed.

Insofar as Obama failed to recognize that the repubs were determined to undermine any effort on his part to repair the economy, he is to blame. Insofar as Obama failed to utterly crush repub opposition and force the necessary actions through Congress, he is to blame. Insofar as Obama fails to impose his programs despite continuing repub intransigence, he will be to blame.

Mrbogey: cameroncrazy1984: And led directly to Obama's re-election, as well as the Dems holding the Senate in not one but TWO elections when they had vulnerable seats up.

Kinda odd how as Democrats get more power they blame the Republicans even more.

Give me a peak into what 2013 holds. Tell me how the next recession will be blamed on Republicans. Let me know what the next dishonest talking point will be.

I don't know what the dishonest talking point will be, but the honest points will likely have something to do with Republicans being obstructionist asshats who cling to a spiteful hatred of the President and repeatedly-disproven 'supply side economics'. Y'know, the same characteristics that got the United States' credit rating downgraded.

The article explained that the emerging Obamanomics was pursuing exactly the opposite of every policy of the enormously successful Reaganomics, and predicted that it would produce exactly the opposite results.

1) I know TFA means this as a swipe at Obama, but we should hope Obamanomics are that good.  Reaganomics feel good in the short term, but ruin the economy while concentrating wealth to a select few in the long run.

The opposite would be painful in the short term but great for the country in the long term.  We can only hope this guy is right.

2) Forbes is a shiat gossip rag and a personal platform for Steve Forbes political screeds.  I had a subscription until around the election in 2004.  The monthly ad hominem attacks against Michael Moore got to be too much.

Yes, I know politics and culture affect economics and finance, but how does Michael Moore's weight play in to my investment and retirement strategy?

I pity anyone who thinks Forbes is any different from People or Us as a source of entertainment.

I think you're all missing the point of this.

This is Forbes, a magazine by the ignorant rich, for the ignorant rich.

The stock market just reached 14,000 again.  And while "libtards" and "Omabamessiahmanics" may give a fark that jobs have been slow to follow, the readers of Forbes sure as hell don't.  All they care about is that stock prices and their portfolios are back to where they should be.

That's why you see articles this derpy that only the most ardent of FARK trolling morons can't even defend, but have to derail. One of the greatest metrics of bootstrappiness is back to it's all time high.  If this kind of shiat keeps up, it's going to be hard for them to argue that the policies aren't working.

Way to go O'bummer.
He is probably out skeet shooting while we all suffer.

SkinnyHead: mpirooz: 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.

Obama, for one.

What's his Fark handle?

SkinnyHead: That isn't my argument. I'm not defending Bush, I am arguing against what seems to be the Lib theme of this thread, which is to mock the concept that Obama should bear responsibility for the bad economy that has persisted throughout his presidency.

Bad economy?

He inherited the fastest shrinking economy in 50 years and stopped the contraction almost immediately.  The US has out-performed almost every other major economy in the world under his leadership.

udhq: SkinnyHead: That isn't my argument. I'm not defending Bush, I am arguing against what seems to be the Lib theme of this thread, which is to mock the concept that Obama should bear responsibility for the bad economy that has persisted throughout his presidency.

Bad economy?

He inherited the fastest shrinking economy in 50 years and stopped the contraction almost immediately.  The US has out-performed almost every other major economy in the world under his leadership.


Not to mention that the right still doesn't realize what is going to happen to our economy when ACA goes into effect and people's lives no longer depend on them staying in under-productive jobs.

CanisNoir: NewportBarGuy: I mean you are calling me a Nazi, right? Don't beat around the bush, son. Use your words.

Yea, but you're more this kind of Nazi, if you ask me.

[www.deviantart.com image 700x560]

In the meantime, Obama is in his second term now, Democrats hold a majority in the Senate, I think it's about time that they took some responsibility for the shiatty state of the Economy. Despite their promises it hasn't gotten better, and Pelosi stating that ending Subsidies on Oil isn't going to effect the "little people" is just crap.

Democrats hold a majority in the Senate?  This is news to me.  Unless 53D+2I is greater than or equals 60.

This became Obama's economy the moment he signed the first Stimulus bill promising that unemployment, then at less than 7%, would not go above 8%.

Its pretty funny listening to Democrats throw out all kinds of desperate excuses blaming Republicans for the current crappy economy.

SkinnyHead: mpirooz: 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.

Obama, for one.

What the right needs to recognize is that the economy is Obama's responsibility, but the recession that their policies caused is never, ever going to retroactively become his fault.

LargeCanine: This became Obama's economy the moment he signed the first Stimulus bill promising that unemployment, then at less than 7%, would not go above 8%.

Its pretty funny listening to Democrats throw out all kinds of desperate excuses blaming Republicans for the current crappy economy.

It's a mutual effort I suppose.

Oh wait, you're going to tell me that the Republicans aren't to blame for their ineptitude in the House right?

LargeCanine:

It's pretty funny watching you toss out old, discredited talking points.

Good luck with that.

LargeCanine: Its pretty funny listening to Democrats Republicans throw out all kinds of desperate excuses blaming Republicans Democrats for the current crappy economy.

The reverse is funnier, especially when it all hinges the little facetious hooks like "This is Obama's econony NOW."

LargeCanine: This became Obama's economy the moment he signed the first Stimulus bill promising that unemployment, then at less than 7%, would not go above 8%.

Its pretty funny listening to Democrats throw out all kinds of desperate excuses blaming Republicans for the current crappy economy.

Has this thread turned into an impromptu brainstorming session for alternate-history novelists or something?

Bloody William: Stop trying to make Obamanomics happen, Pete.

I think it's streets ahead!

Mrbogey: So lack of agreement on budget cutting and on the lack of entitlement reform. Damn those Republicans.

Pretty sure S&P said a lot more.

http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245 31 6529563

Some pretty damning stuff about GOP brinkmanship.