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  
•       •       •

4597 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 02:53:27 PM
i277.photobucket.com

Thanks 0bama!
 
2013-02-10 02:53:31 PM
I doubt the author's ability to do simple subtraction involving single digit numbers.
 
2013-02-10 02:54:06 PM

HMS_Blinkin: Lionel Mandrake: Forbes is quoting American Thinker?

Didn't Forbes used to be respectable?

I'm glad this was covered in here.  Come on, Forbes, you will lose ALL of your credibility if you keep that shiat up.


I blame the failing newspaper industry causing them to jump ship to all of the blog media mongols, who are making money better than they are.  Or the likes of Murdoch (in the case of WSJ).

It's becoming more and more like Transmetropolitan, where you need advanced searching news feeds from underground sources to really find out the truth.
 
2013-02-10 02:55:02 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.


I would ask you for a citation, but it doesn't even make sense for Obama to say it wouldn't go above 8% in Febuary of 2009, considering it was already above 8% in February of 2009.
 
2013-02-10 02:55:08 PM

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


He never promised that with the $787B package that actually passed.

Try again!
 
2013-02-10 02:55:18 PM

i1091.photobucket.com


THANKS, OBAMA!
 
2013-02-10 02:55:38 PM

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


It IS a thread about a time-traveling president that leaps from life to life, ruining the economy.
 
2013-02-10 02:55:53 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%.


You're partially right.  Many of us argued that Mr. Obama's stimulus was woefully misguided.

The president implemented enormous tax cuts that did NOTHING to improve the economy.

What he should have done (and what credible economists argued at the time) was increase spending in order to stimulate demand.  But, for some reason, the president stupidly accept the GOP argument that tax cuts spur growth during times of excess supply.  And, those arguments were accepted without any empirical evidence to support them.
 
2013-02-10 02:56:41 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.


Nothing you can say or do is ever going to change the fact that the economic policies of the Republican Party caused our economy to go into the deepest recession in 50 years.

It should be telling that the best you can do is to argue that the democrats aren't cleaning up your mess fast enough.
 
2013-02-10 02:56:50 PM

Zeppelininthesky: [i277.photobucket.com image 180x261]

Thanks 0bama!


See? I've always maintained GIgli was AHEAD OF ITS TIME.
 
2013-02-10 02:56:53 PM

Electriclectic: with bonus picture of how Republicans view Obama:


Thanos has cankles.
/he IS a republican.
 
2013-02-10 02:57:17 PM
s20.postimage.org

(ok....last one...i promise)
 
2013-02-10 02:57:27 PM

eraser8: 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%.

You're partially right.  Many of us argued that Mr. Obama's stimulus was woefully misguided.

The president implemented enormous tax cuts that did NOTHING to improve the economy.

What he should have done (and what credible economists argued at the time) was increase spending in order to stimulate demand.  But, for some reason, the president stupidly accept the GOP argument that tax cuts spur growth during times of excess supply.  And, those arguments were accepted without any empirical evidence to support them.


That probably wasn't the answer he wanted to hear.
 
2013-02-10 02:58:24 PM

udhq: It should be telling that the best you can do is to argue that the democrats aren't cleaning up your mess fast enough.


"Stop hitting yourself"  and "Yeah?  Whattayagonnadoaboutit?" are the official mottos of the RNC.
 
2013-02-10 02:59:38 PM

muck4doo: 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.

They'll blame the Russians


You mean the Soviets.
 
2013-02-10 03:00:03 PM

thamike: udhq: It should be telling that the best you can do is to argue that the democrats aren't cleaning up your mess fast enough.

"Stop hitting yourself"  and "Yeah?  Whattayagonnadoaboutit?" are the official mottos of the RNC.


It's gotten them this far, and they're applicable both on the floors of Congress, and here in FARK threads.
 
2013-02-10 03:00:09 PM

Halli: 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.


Brinkmanship involves two parties.

thamike: I would ask you for a citation, but it doesn't even make sense for Obama to say it wouldn't go above 8% in Febuary of 2009, considering it was already above 8% in February of 2009.


cameroncrazy1984: He never promised that with the $787B package that actually passed.

Try again!


http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

Okay, here's his report not saying what it says.
 
2013-02-10 03:01:12 PM

Mrbogey:

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.


There you go again. I never said they weren't in charge. It was never even implied. So a 2 member majority can take the entire country into depression in less than 2 years. WOW! That's a system! Bush could have stopped anything they did with a simple veto. Do you know who was in charge in 2007? Bush was, not the Senate. Can you please tell me exactly what bills the Democrats passed in 2007 and 2008 that sunk the economy? You won't. Republicans can't answer that.
 
2013-02-10 03:01:22 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-02-10 03:01:54 PM

DamnYankees: I'll actually argue this. Obama pretty clearly does seem to want to do some austerity. He's pretty gung ho on increasing taxes and lowering spending - ie austerity.


You forget that the Republicans want austerity without the tax increases.
 
2013-02-10 03:04:38 PM

Mrbogey: Brinkmanship involves two parties.


Really? It was the Dems acting crazy with the debt ceiling?
 
2013-02-10 03:06:14 PM
I just came in to say, "LIBTARDS!!!LIBTARDS!!!LIBTARDS!!!!"  because this is apparently the thread for that.

/BOOTSTRAPS!!!
 
2013-02-10 03:06:41 PM

Granny_Panties: Mrbogey:

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.

There you go again. I never said they weren't in charge. It was never even implied. So a 2 member majority can take the entire country into depression in less than 2 years. WOW! That's a system! Bush could have stopped anything they did with a simple veto. Do you know who was in charge in 2007? Bush was, not the Senate. Can you please tell me exactly what bills the Democrats passed in 2007 and 2008 that sunk the economy? You won't. Republicans can't answer that.


Everyone knows that Bush was forced to sign off on these bills from the Dem-led House and Senate even though deep down in his heart, he really didn't want to.
 
2013-02-10 03:06:49 PM

Mrbogey: Okay, here's his report not saying what it says.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/11/paul- ry an/ryan-obama-promised-unemployment-would-not-exceed-/

Yeah this has been an idiotic talking point for a while now.
 
2013-02-10 03:06:57 PM

Mrbogey: http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

Okay, here's his report not saying what it says.


That's the report from Jan 9, 2009, proposing a much larger stimulus plan.

Try a third time? Maybe that one will make it true.
 
2013-02-10 03:07:29 PM

Orange Rhyming Dictionary: "The article explained that the emerging Obamanomics was pursuing exactly the opposite of every policy of the enormously successful Reaganomics"

::Closes article::


i75.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-10 03:07:42 PM

Mrbogey: http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

Okay, here's his report not saying what it says.


Oh that's nice, a direct download.
 
2013-02-10 03:07:52 PM
Mrtraveler01: Granny_Panties: Mrbogey:

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.

There you go again. I never said they weren't in charge. It was never even implied. So a 2 member majority can take the entire country into depression in less than 2 years. WOW! That's a system! Bush could have stopped anything they did with a simple veto. Do you know who was in charge in 2007? Bush was, not the Senate. Can you please tell me exactly what bills the Democrats passed in 2007 and 2008 that sunk the economy? You won't. Republicans can't answer that.

Everyone knows that Bush was forced to sign off on these bills from the Dem-led House and Senate even though deep down in his heart, he really didn't want to.

Obama personally held a gun to his head to force him to sign the bill.
 
2013-02-10 03:09:27 PM
i21.photobucket.com
Thanks Obama!
 
2013-02-10 03:10:42 PM

Halli: Mrbogey: Okay, here's his report not saying what it says.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/11/paul- ry an/ryan-obama-promised-unemployment-would-not-exceed-/

Yeah this has been an idiotic talking point for a while now.


I especially like this part:

Their report projected that the economic stimulus plan would create 3 to 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. It also included a chart predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009.

The important word here is projection. The economic analysis wasn't a promise, it was an educated assessment of how events might unfold. And it came with heavy disclaimers.

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

There's also a footnote that goes along with the chart stating: "Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."
 
2013-02-10 03:13:38 PM

Orange Rhyming Dictionary: "The article explained that the emerging Obamanomics was pursuing exactly the opposite of every policy of the enormously successful Reaganomics"

::Closes article::


You have to suppress your gag reflex and let it trickle down your throat.
 
2013-02-10 03:22:13 PM

Halli: Yeah this has been an idiotic talking point for a while now.


"Obama didn't lie. His economic team actually promised it and they were just wrong. Derp."

Gotcha.

Now look, I'm willing to not trust any projection Obama's team makes and discount it outright. Are you?

cameroncrazy1984: That's the report from Jan 9, 2009, proposing a much larger stimulus plan.

Try a third time? Maybe that one will make it true.


Define "much larger".

To me and most grade school graduates- 787,000,000,000 is about the same as 787,000,000,000. And they're both less than the 831,000,000,000 actually passed. All those numbers are higher than the 775,000,000,000 the report used as a baseline though.
 
2013-02-10 03:24:42 PM
Can I blame Bush yet, or is it still to painful for republicans to admit the cowboy costume even existed?
 
2013-02-10 03:24:53 PM

Mrbogey: Halli: Yeah this has been an idiotic talking point for a while now.

"Obama didn't lie. His economic team actually promised it and they were just wrong. Derp."

Gotcha.

Now look, I'm willing to not trust any projection Obama's team makes and discount it outright. Are you?

cameroncrazy1984: That's the report from Jan 9, 2009, proposing a much larger stimulus plan.

Try a third time? Maybe that one will make it true.

Define "much larger".

To me and most grade school graduates- 787,000,000,000 is about the same as 787,000,000,000. And they're both less than the 831,000,000,000 actually passed. All those numbers are higher than the 775,000,000,000 the report used as a baseline though.


Actually, it says "over" $775 million, and does not give a specific number.
 
2013-02-10 03:25:46 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: 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."


And has been for 4 years. Obama took a recession and made it worse.

Biological Ali: 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?


Seems that way. Blame Bush for an economy that is Obama's. Accusing Republicans for policies that Obama implemented. Hope smells more like desperation.
 
2013-02-10 03:28:47 PM

LargeCanine: And has been for 4 years. Obama took a recession and made it worse.


So the fact the unemployment rate dropped to a point lower than it was before he was elected and the fact the Dow has recovered as well means that the recession is worse now?

Are you trolling or really this stupid?
 
2013-02-10 03:28:51 PM

Mrbogey: Derp


Why was I left out this time? Can you please tell us what bills the 2 member majority Democrat Senate passed in 2007 and 2008 that sunk the economy?

We are waiting...
 
2013-02-10 03:29:58 PM
A bit like how Bush was somehow responsible for the tech bubble burst right at the end of the Clinton administration which was the primary force behind many job losses during his first term, but that didn't stop liberals from running ads blaming him for it in 2004 now did it?

At what point precisely is Obama responsible for anything negative? As it stands right now he is somehow simultaneously responsible for absolutely nothing and absolutely everything. He's like the Schrodinger's cat of presidents. The only other people who behave like this are religious fundamentalists trying to simultaneously tell you what a great guy their god is while at the same time explaining away all the bad things that happen as either not his fault or your own fault.
 
2013-02-10 03:34:45 PM

Mrbogey: A bit like how Bush was somehow responsible for the tech bubble burst right at the end of the Clinton administration which was the primary force behind many job losses during his first term, but that didn't stop liberals from running ads blaming him for it in 2004 now did it?

At what point precisely is Obama responsible for anything negative? As it stands right now he is somehow simultaneously responsible for absolutely nothing and absolutely everything. He's like the Schrodinger's cat of presidents. The only other people who behave like this are religious fundamentalists trying to simultaneously tell you what a great guy their god is while at the same time explaining away all the bad things that happen as either not his fault or your own fault.


Really?
 
2013-02-10 03:36:28 PM

udhq: 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.

Nothing you can say or do is ever going to change the fact that the economic policies of the Republican Party caused our economy to go into the deepest recession in 50 years.

It should be telling that the best you can do is to argue that the democrats aren't cleaning up your mess fast enough.


Nah. The economy would have recovered years ago if it were not for Obama's policies. The next President is going to have to clean up OBAMA'S mess, economic, diplomatic, and administrative.
 
2013-02-10 03:37:29 PM

LargeCanine: The economy would have recovered years ago if it were not for Obama's policies


lol
 
2013-02-10 03:37:59 PM
2007 Democrat majority in Congress.  Coincidence?
 
2013-02-10 03:38:10 PM

Mrbogey: "Obama didn't lie. His economic team actually promised it and they were just wrong. Derp."


Let me repeat this one more time so we can all understand this (from Politifact):

The important word here is projection. The economic analysis wasn't a promise, it was an educated assessment of how events might unfold. And it came with heavy disclaimers.

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."


Can we finally drop this stupid "Obama promised" BS when he did nothing of the sort?
 
2013-02-10 03:40:10 PM

Text translated:

"Thanks, Obama!"

 i309.photobucket.com

 
2013-02-10 03:42:21 PM

LargeCanine: And has been for 4 years. Obama took a recession and made it worse.


You do know that the recession officially ended in the 2nd quarter of 2009, right?

Actually, let's back up:  you are aware that a recession is an actual, specific event with a real definition (2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth), and not just a word for a lot of eceonomic bad news, right?

You can argue that we're growing slowly, but we're clearly and objectively not in recession.  Obama in inherited a recession, and ended it almost immediately.  That's reality, you can't argue with that.
 
2013-02-10 03:42:47 PM

Saturn5: 2007 Democrat majority in Congress.  Coincidence?


Bush was forced to sign off on everything they did!

Once again, the "Party of Personal Responsibility" not taking any responsibility.
 
2013-02-10 03:44:45 PM

Mrbogey: Halli: Yeah this has been an idiotic talking point for a while now.

"Obama didn't lie. His economic team actually promised it and they were just wrong. Derp."

Gotcha.

Now look, I'm willing to not trust any projection Obama's team makes and discount it outright. Are you?


Take the hit.
 
2013-02-10 03:45:58 PM

randomjsa: A bit like how Bush was somehow responsible for the tech bubble burst right at the end of the Clinton administration which was the primary force behind many job losses during his first term, but that didn't stop liberals from running ads blaming him for it in 2004 now did it?

At what point precisely is Obama responsible for anything negative? As it stands right now he is somehow simultaneously responsible for absolutely nothing and absolutely everything. He's like the Schrodinger's cat of presidents. The only other people who behave like this are religious fundamentalists trying to simultaneously tell you what a great guy their god is while at the same time explaining away all the bad things that happen as either not his fault or your own fault.


When he actually does something negative. The economy is not tanking, much to the chagrin to the Republicans. They tried everything in their power to blame Obama, but it failed badly.
 
2013-02-10 03:48:47 PM

randomjsa: A bit like how Bush was somehow responsible for the tech bubble burst right at the end of the Clinton administration which was the primary force behind many job losses during his first term, but that didn't stop liberals from running ads blaming him for it in 2004 now did it?

At what point precisely is Obama responsible for anything negative? As it stands right now he is somehow simultaneously responsible for absolutely nothing and absolutely everything. He's like the Schrodinger's cat of presidents. The only other people who behave like this are religious fundamentalists trying to simultaneously tell you what a great guy their god is while at the same time explaining away all the bad things that happen as either not his fault or your own fault.


When the world stops deteriorating from Bushes incredibly incompetent policies.

If the whole thing doesnt collapse before then.
 
2013-02-10 03:49:19 PM

Byno: This "THANKS OBAMA!" Meme will get out of control....

[jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com image 618x347]


And it will all be Obama's fault!
 
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