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  
•       •       •

4589 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 02:20:31 PM

thamike: 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.


Well, to be fair, Geithner was president of the NY Fed starting in 2003.
 
2013-02-10 02:21:54 PM
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.
 
2013-02-10 02:22:49 PM

Mrbogey: Actual spending has not gone down.


Which has what, in and of itself, to do with the deficit which is a shortfall of revenue as compared to spending?
 
2013-02-10 02:23:29 PM

eraser8: thamike: 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.

Well, to be fair, Geithner was president of the NY Fed starting in 2003.


Ok, so I guess you're the one with the fairy dust.
 
2013-02-10 02:24:13 PM

thamike: eraser8: thamike: 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.

Well, to be fair, Geithner was president of the NY Fed starting in 2003.

Ok, so I guess you're the one with the fairy dust.


Wait, what?
 
2013-02-10 02:24:19 PM
This is not news.  I remember hearing the phrase "the Obama recession" as early as September 2008.
 
2013-02-10 02:25:12 PM

Heraclitus: Its Obamas sequestration deadline.


AKA "Fartquestration".
 
2013-02-10 02:25:44 PM
This trolls is dildos.
 
2013-02-10 02:26:50 PM

Heraclitus: 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.


I got to words #78 & #79 ("American Thinker"), stopped reading and starting doing stupid "thanks, obama" meme pictures.
 
2013-02-10 02:27:19 PM

eraser8: Wait, what?


Wait, what, what?  This entire conversation is in text.  Within that text there is context.  If I had no idea what Geithner was up to for a decade before becoming Obama's Sec. of Treas, why would I bring it up in this context, knowing full well why somebody would try to squeeze him into their point?
 
2013-02-10 02:28:35 PM

thamike: 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.


And the 2008 votes led to the 2009 tea party surge. 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. The 2008 still had broad opposition and only passed because it cut back on many things. The 2009 bill was a double down on the 2008 bill with everything Republicans opposed in 2008 piled on top. So it's little wonder why it was voted against by most.
 
2013-02-10 02:28:49 PM

thamike: Wait, what, what?


Is it your argument that the president of the NY Fed has nothing to do with federal fiscal policy?
 
2013-02-10 02:31:52 PM

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.
 
2013-02-10 02:32:04 PM

eraser8: thamike: Wait, what, what?

Is it your argument that the president of the NY Fed has nothing to do with federal fiscal policy?


No, it quite obviously is not.  Go play with your balls at another guy.
 
2013-02-10 02:33:12 PM

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.
 
2013-02-10 02:33:21 PM

eraser8: 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.


So you agree the other poster was wrong in saying we cut 1.2T in spending?

thamike: 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.


Is it really that hard for you to read the wiki on Timothy Geithner? He was part of the Bush economic team in 2008 that handled the bailouts.
 
2013-02-10 02:33:25 PM

Mrbogey: And the 2008 votes led to the 2009 tea party surge. 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. The 2008 still had broad opposition and only passed because it cut back on many things. The 2009 bill was a double down on the 2008 bill with everything Republicans opposed in 2008 piled on top. So it's little wonder why it was voted against by most.


Despite your timeline being riddled with holes, I'll just cut to the chase and rhetorically ask, "How's that working out for them?"
 
2013-02-10 02:33:26 PM

thamike: eraser8: thamike: Wait, what, what?

Is it your argument that the president of the NY Fed has nothing to do with federal fiscal policy?

No, it quite obviously is not.  Go play with your balls at another guy.


Then, what is your argument, exactly?  And, why are you biatching at me?
 
2013-02-10 02:34:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: 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.


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.

eraser8: 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.


So in other words, republicans are ultimately to blame when democrats err.  That's not exactly taking responsibility.
 
2013-02-10 02:35:28 PM
Poor Peter Ferrara. Another argument lost to simple math. That counting to 5 and subtracting years will really get ya. You get a silver star for trying though.
 
2013-02-10 02:35:32 PM

Mrbogey: So you agree the other poster was wrong in saying we cut 1.2T in spending?


I agree, absolutely, that US spending has been reduced as a share of GDP.  That implies a cut in real spending.
 
2013-02-10 02:35:55 PM

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.
 
2013-02-10 02:36:52 PM

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?
 
2013-02-10 02:37:43 PM

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?
 
2013-02-10 02:37:55 PM

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?
 
2013-02-10 02:37:56 PM

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.
 
2013-02-10 02:38:55 PM

SkinnyHead: eraser8: 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.

So in other words, republicans are ultimately to blame when democrats err.  That's not exactly taking responsibility.


Reading comprehension not your strong suit, I see.

Democrats are absolutely to blame for being so credulous as to accept Republican economic doctrine.  Republican economic theory has been proven wrong so consistently that Democrats really have no excuse for accepting it as if it had any chance of being proved correct.

It was stupid for Democrats to do that; and, they are the only ones to blame for doing that.
 
2013-02-10 02:38:57 PM
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.
 
2013-02-10 02:40:00 PM

Mrbogey: Is it really that hard for you to read the wiki on Timothy Geithner? He was part of the Bush economic team in 2008 that handled the bailouts.


Yes, for Bear Stearns and AIG.  As a consultant on the bailout, he helped Hank Paulson figure out how to minimize long term damage.  But none of this has f*ck-all to do with your incredulity at being questioned for this declarative statement:

As president he carried over the same economic team Bush had when he left office.
 
2013-02-10 02:40:39 PM

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.
 
2013-02-10 02:40:46 PM

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.
 
2013-02-10 02:40:48 PM
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.
 
2013-02-10 02:41:06 PM
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.
 
2013-02-10 02:42:01 PM
img803.imageshack.us

Way to go O'bummer.
He is probably out skeet shooting while we all suffer.
 
2013-02-10 02:42:14 PM

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?
 
2013-02-10 02:42:15 PM

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.


[citation needed]
 
2013-02-10 02:42:42 PM
Ebonomnics?
 
2013-02-10 02:46:46 PM

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.
 
2013-02-10 02:47:53 PM

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.
 
2013-02-10 02:47:54 PM

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.
 
2013-02-10 02:48:03 PM
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.
 
2013-02-10 02:48:22 PM

LordJiro: Y'know, the same characteristics that got the United States' credit rating downgraded.


What S&P said:
Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

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

Egan-Jones recently cut us due to QE3. The Republicans did that too, right? How now brown cow?
 
2013-02-10 02:50:05 PM

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.
 
2013-02-10 02:50:17 PM

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 only that, the economies that have done the worst have been those that have adopted the sort of austerity that Republicans are arguing the US should follow.
 
2013-02-10 02:51:17 PM

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?
 
2013-02-10 02:51:22 PM
LargeCanine:

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

Good luck with that.
 
2013-02-10 02:52:28 PM

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."
 
2013-02-10 02:52:38 PM

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?
 
2013-02-10 02:52:43 PM

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


I think it's streets ahead!
 
2013-02-10 02:52:47 PM

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.
 
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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report