Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Obvious, President Obama, Great Depression, obamanomics, American Thinker, Reaganomics, american incomes, President George Bush, economic liberalism  
•       •       •

4725 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Feb 2013 at 12:33 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



458 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-02-10 08:18:41 AM  
Full time control over weather, war and the economy. One more and we'd have a cube.
 
2013-02-10 08:35:18 AM  
Stop trying to make Obamanomics happen, Pete.
 
2013-02-10 09:25:27 AM  
Does anyone want to explain to this douche that it usually takes a full fiscal year before any tinkering actually shows up in indicators? That would chop off two years of his 5 year time frame and force him to explain the wonders caused under Bush the Lesser.

Hell, Obama wasn't even President for the first f*cking year of that 5 years. What an asshole.
 
2013-02-10 09:37:56 AM  
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.
 
2013-02-10 10:27:38 AM  

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


I know.  They should use EconObamaNomicals.
 
2013-02-10 10:36:09 AM  
So, does anyone know what the Kondratiev cycle is?
 
2013-02-10 10:53:11 AM  
Forbes is quoting American Thinker?

Didn't Forbes used to be respectable?
 
2013-02-10 10:54:58 AM  
You know what's worse than the first five years since the Great Depression?  The Great Depression.
 
2013-02-10 10:58:17 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Forbes is quoting American Thinker?

Didn't Forbes used to be respectable?


The ownership group of Forbes also owns RealClearPolitics.  In other words, it went stupid the same way the WSJ did.
 
2013-02-10 11:04:14 AM  
That makes Jerry Jones president or something.

/Lib humor
 
2013-02-10 11:06:37 AM  
Let's see.  I wonder if anything else happened in 2007, like the Dems getting control of the House and all that yummy overspending.
 
2013-02-10 11:08:14 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Does anyone want to explain to this douche that it usually takes a full fiscal year before any tinkering actually shows up in indicators? That would chop off two years of his 5 year time frame and force him to explain the wonders caused under Bush the Lesser.

Hell, Obama wasn't even President for the first f*cking year of that 5 years. What an asshole.


It's just math Republicans do to make themselves feel better
 
2013-02-10 11:14:08 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Let's see.  I wonder if anything else happened in 2007, like the Dems getting control of the House and all that yummy overspending.


Shut your whore mouth! At least now our dear leader kills US citizens with drones!
 
2013-02-10 11:14:22 AM  
Oh, good, the FARK Genius Brigade has shown up to prove how smart they are

Because lib, or something.
 
2013-02-10 11:17:04 AM  
i159.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-10 11:18:00 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Oh, good, the FARK Genius Brigade has shown up to prove how smart they are

Because lib, or something.


This is the most intelligent post I have ever seen. You guys should all try to emulate this.
 
2013-02-10 11:20:37 AM  

muck4doo: At least now our dear leader kills US citizens with drones!


Much like I feel about the abortion debate... why don't you adopt those misguided people and protect them from the evil drones. I'm sure you'd get along swimmingly.

Problem solved.
 
2013-02-10 11:21:38 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: It's just math Republicans do to make themselves feel better


Republicans can't do math. They should just accept that and move on to paste eating.
 
2013-02-10 11:24:06 AM  

NewportBarGuy: muck4doo: At least now our dear leader kills US citizens with drones!

Much like I feel about the abortion debate... why don't you adopt those misguided people and protect them from the evil drones. I'm sure you'd get along swimmingly.

Problem solved.


Nah, just kill them all like dear leader does. I'm sure you approve.
 
2013-02-10 11:25:41 AM  

muck4doo: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, good, the FARK Genius Brigade has shown up to prove how smart they are

Because lib, or something.

This is the most intelligent post I have ever seen. You guys should all try to emulate this.


Yeah, not as "yummy" as your post.

So, we want more Reagonomics, do we?

About a dozen tax hikes and more than doubling the debt is what you want, Real Americans?

Or are you talking about the brave, fiscally responsible, terrorist-fighting, debt destroying, intelligent and competent Reagan that only exists in your wet dreams?
 
2013-02-10 11:26:17 AM  

muck4doo: NewportBarGuy: muck4doo: At least now our dear leader kills US citizens with drones!

Much like I feel about the abortion debate... why don't you adopt those misguided people and protect them from the evil drones. I'm sure you'd get along swimmingly.

Problem solved.

Nah, just kill them all like dear leader does. I'm sure you approve.


Now, that's an intelligent post!
 
2013-02-10 11:27:04 AM  

NewportBarGuy: MaudlinMutantMollusk: It's just math Republicans do to make themselves feel better

Republicans can't do math. They should just accept that and move on to paste eating.


You look forward to a bright new day for the fatherland i see.
 
2013-02-10 11:28:36 AM  
This is the worst thing Obama has done since Pearl Harbor.
 
2013-02-10 11:28:43 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: muck4doo: NewportBarGuy: muck4doo: At least now our dear leader kills US citizens with drones!

Much like I feel about the abortion debate... why don't you adopt those misguided people and protect them from the evil drones. I'm sure you'd get along swimmingly.

Problem solved.

Nah, just kill them all like dear leader does. I'm sure you approve.

Now, that's an intelligent post!


Dear leader looks at those killed by drones like your little abortion. Be happy, peasant.
 
2013-02-10 11:29:48 AM  

beantowndog: This is the worst thing Obama has done since Pearl Harbor.


Obama has never done a worst thing ever, you teatard.
 
2013-02-10 11:30:53 AM  

beantowndog: This is the worst thing Obama has done since Pearl Harbor.


I don't know, blacklisting all those colleagues of his was pretty bad.

Oh, wait...that was Reagan!!
 
2013-02-10 11:33:06 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: beantowndog: This is the worst thing Obama has done since Pearl Harbor.

I don't know, blacklisting all those colleagues of his was pretty bad.

Oh, wait...that was Reagan!!


If the fracker was smart he should have just drone killed them.
 
2013-02-10 11:35:17 AM  

muck4doo: You look forward to a bright new day for the fatherland i see.


You've gotta admit, they were quite stylish:

i45.tinypic.com



I mean you are calling me a Nazi, right? Don't beat around the bush, son. Use your words.
 
2013-02-10 11:38:22 AM  
How did this thread go from how bad the economy was prior to Obama being president to drones?

Oh, I see. People don't want to talk about how badly Bush mismanaged the economy.
 
2013-02-10 11:38:46 AM  

NewportBarGuy: muck4doo: You look forward to a bright new day for the fatherland i see.

You've gotta admit, they were quite stylish:

[i45.tinypic.com image 419x269]

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


Okay, I admit it. I want one of those hats. Where do you get them?
 
2013-02-10 11:39:34 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: How did this thread go from how bad the economy was prior to Obama being president to drones?

Oh, I see. People don't want to talk about how badly Bush mismanaged the economy.


Correct. This thread was supposed to be about Bush.
 
2013-02-10 11:41:06 AM  
That's all? Hell, the keynote speaker of the 2012 Republican National Convention had him going back to 2001 to invade Afghanistan.
 
2013-02-10 11:42:00 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: How did this thread go from how bad the economy was prior to Obama being president to drones?

Oh, I see. People don't want to talk about how badly Bush mismanaged the economy.


Well, at least no one brought up Obama's illegal sale of arms to one of our greatest enemies.

Oh, wait...that was Reagan!!
 
2013-02-10 11:44:27 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: cameroncrazy1984: How did this thread go from how bad the economy was prior to Obama being president to drones?

Oh, I see. People don't want to talk about how badly Bush mismanaged the economy.

Well, at least no one brought up Obama's illegal sale of arms to one of our greatest enemies.

Oh, wait...that was Reagan!!


cameroncrazy1984: How did this thread go from how bad the economy was prior to Obama being president to drones?

Oh, I see. People don't want to talk about how badly Bush mismanaged the economy.


Now see how dumb you look. This thread is about Reagan.
 
2013-02-10 11:44:51 AM  
This thread is a pretty good example of the intelligence level of the average Republican.
 
2013-02-10 11:46:07 AM  

GAT_00: This thread is a pretty good example of the intelligence level of the average Republican.


Glad you're here to represent.
 
2013-02-10 11:46:56 AM  
Seriously though, let's get back to reagan...
 
2013-02-10 11:50:31 AM  

muck4doo: Seriously though, let's get back to reagan...


Why? This thread is about the economy in 2007, when Obama was clearly President.
 
2013-02-10 11:51:51 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: Seriously though, let's get back to reagan...

Why? This thread is about the economy in 2007, when Obama was clearly President.


No, this thread is about why we need to vote Reagan out of office next election. Get with the program here.
 
2013-02-10 11:52:20 AM  
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?
 
2013-02-10 11:53:08 AM  
All in favor of Reagan say "aye", all who won't vote for him say "Nay".
 
2013-02-10 11:53:57 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: i159.photobucket.com


Maybe we shouldn't mock this woman. You know she's barely scraping by on $200k of investment income, right?
 
2013-02-10 11:54:04 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Let's see.  I wonder if anything else happened in 2007, like the Dems getting control of the House and all that yummy overspending.


And wasn't Obama part of the Democrat controlled senate at the time?  Didn't he vote for Democrat budget resolutions in 2007 and 2008, even though republicans warned them they would damage the economy?  That's the way I remember it.
 
2013-02-10 11:54:22 AM  

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?


You know who led his country through a good recovery during a depression?
 
2013-02-10 11:54:47 AM  
Authors like this prey on ignorance.  The miracle of "Reaganomics" was really just Paul Volcker's Fed cutting interest rates from about 20% in 1981 down to like 5% by 82-83.  Unemployment came down, inflation was beaten, and the economy grew.  Reagan could have done nothing except jack off in the Rose Garden for 4 years and the same thing would have happened.

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?  They must be pretty weak, tired and played-out, actuallyl
 
2013-02-10 11:54:48 AM  

muck4doo: 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?

You know who led his country through a good recovery during a depression?


Roosevelt?
 
2013-02-10 11:55:03 AM  

SkinnyHead: Didn't he vote for Democrat budget resolutions in 2007 and 2008, even though republicans warned them they would damage the economy?  That's the way I remember it.


That's because you remember sh*t that never happened.

This thread is about how Obama made  muck4doogo completely insane.
 
2013-02-10 11:55:56 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Didn't he vote for Democrat budget resolutions in 2007 and 2008, even though republicans warned them they would damage the economy?  That's the way I remember it.

That's because you remember sh*t that never happened.

This thread is about how Obama made  muck4doogo completely insane.


Too much credit given. You know I was already insane before that. :p
 
2013-02-10 11:56:24 AM  

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

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.
 
2013-02-10 11:56:34 AM  

muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Didn't he vote for Democrat budget resolutions in 2007 and 2008, even though republicans warned them they would damage the economy?  That's the way I remember it.

That's because you remember sh*t that never happened.

This thread is about how Obama made  muck4doogo completely insane.

Too much credit given. You know I was already insane before that. :p


Yes, hence why I said "completely"
 
2013-02-10 11:57:06 AM  

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?


The lesson is an old one: ODS infects everything these pathological fools look at.

Despite "austerity" being a complete and abject failure everywhere, they insist on it because it's what Obama doesn't want to do.

It is that simple, and the proponents are that simplistic.
 
2013-02-10 11:57:50 AM  

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
 
2013-02-10 11:58:02 AM  

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.
 
2013-02-10 11:58:02 AM  

CanisNoir: Despite their promises it hasn't gotten better,


Uh, yes it has. Measurably.
 
2013-02-10 11:58:34 AM  

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


Notice I was nice and didn't say Jews.
 
2013-02-10 11:58:40 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Despite "austerity" being a complete and abject failure everywhere, they insist on it because it's what Obama doesn't want to do.


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.
 
2013-02-10 11:59:31 AM  

CanisNoir: Despite their promises it hasn't gotten better,


spituponmyblazer.com
 
2013-02-10 12:01:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: CanisNoir: Despite their promises it hasn't gotten better,

Uh, yes it has. Measurably.


Forget it; he's rolling.
 
2013-02-10 12:01:41 PM  
Congratulations, Progressives.

lol
 
2013-02-10 12:03:16 PM  

DamnYankees: Lionel Mandrake: Despite "austerity" being a complete and abject failure everywhere, they insist on it because it's what Obama doesn't want to do.

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.


Republicans keep on telling themselves he doesn't want to do it b/c it gives them a reason to keep on living.  Otherwise... there'd have been mass suicides the day after election day last year.  Raising taxes and offering a chained CPI, as well as the Independent Payment Advisory Board don't count.  Because socialism, or something.
 
2013-02-10 12:03:18 PM  
I wonder what the GOP excuse will be in 2014 for why the economy is better despite their complete inability to get any of their policies passed.
 
2013-02-10 12:03:49 PM  

DamnYankees: Lionel Mandrake: Despite "austerity" being a complete and abject failure everywhere, they insist on it because it's what Obama doesn't want to do.

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.


LOL! Yes, Mr. Obamacare is looking for austerity.
 
2013-02-10 12:04:13 PM  

muck4doo: LOL! Yes, Mr. Obamacare is looking for austerity.


Yes, he is.
 
2013-02-10 12:04:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I wonder what the GOP excuse will be in 2014 for why the economy is better despite their complete inability to get any of their policies passed.


Reagan
 
2013-02-10 12:04:51 PM  

muck4doo: DamnYankees: Lionel Mandrake: Despite "austerity" being a complete and abject failure everywhere, they insist on it because it's what Obama doesn't want to do.

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.

LOL! Yes, Mr. Obamacare is looking for austerity.


What do YOU call $1.2T in spending cuts already combined with raising the top marginal rate?
 
2013-02-10 12:05:13 PM  

DamnYankees: muck4doo: LOL! Yes, Mr. Obamacare is looking for austerity.

Yes, he is.


ROFLMAO!!!! Good one.
 
2013-02-10 12:05:38 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Uh, yes it has. Measurably.


Not getting worse isn't exactly the same as getting better. The economy contracted and job numbers are still abysmal.
 
2013-02-10 12:05:43 PM  

muck4doo: DamnYankees: Lionel Mandrake: Despite "austerity" being a complete and abject failure everywhere, they insist on it because it's what Obama doesn't want to do.

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.

LOL! Yes, Mr. Obamacare is looking for austerity.


Independent Payment Advisory Board, or as we call it in DC: why Republicans are against restraining government health care spending.  Also known as Obamacare.
 
2013-02-10 12:06:36 PM  

muck4doo: LOL! Yes, Mr. Obamacare is looking for austerity.


You're right to criticize Obamacare.  For crying out loud, the Heritage Foundation came up with the idea.  That, by itself, should have warned the president away from it.

I mean, has the Heritage Foundation every been right about anything?
 
2013-02-10 12:06:38 PM  

DamnYankees: Lionel Mandrake: Despite "austerity" being a complete and abject failure everywhere, they insist on it because it's what Obama doesn't want to do.

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.


Fair enough.  He's just not being austere hard enough, I guess.
 
2013-02-10 12:07:18 PM  

muck4doo: They'll blame the Russians


i48.tinypic.com

"Russians? Nah, dawg. I said it was the Soviets!"



And, in response to Canis, by every measure, the economy is improving. I have no idea what indicators you look at, but they are not economic ones.
 
2013-02-10 12:07:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: DamnYankees: Lionel Mandrake: Despite "austerity" being a complete and abject failure everywhere, they insist on it because it's what Obama doesn't want to do.

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.

LOL! Yes, Mr. Obamacare is looking for austerity.

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


FDOLAPMGO!!!! Obama fans actually believe it's going to save money!!!!!! I'm going to laugh myself to death. I need to get out of here for a few.

/Does Obamacare cover laughing yourself to death?
 
2013-02-10 12:08:07 PM  

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


Communism?
 
2013-02-10 12:08:17 PM  

CanisNoir: cameroncrazy1984: Uh, yes it has. Measurably.

Not getting worse isn't exactly the same as getting better. The economy contracted and job numbers are still abysmal.


Because government spending dropped 22% in the 4th quarter?  Oh wait, that was Pentagon spending.  Is that not the same thing?
 
2013-02-10 12:08:37 PM  

CanisNoir: 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 once again you display your complete and total ignorance for all to see.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-02-10 12:09:31 PM  

NewportBarGuy: And, in response to Canis, by every measure, the economy is improving. I have no idea what indicators you look at, but they are not economic ones.


You clearly haven't been paying attention.  Right wingnuts have completely retreated into a bubble that maintains its own "reality."

Facts mean absolutely nothing to the Obama haters.
 
2013-02-10 12:09:46 PM  

CanisNoir: cameroncrazy1984: Uh, yes it has. Measurably.

Not getting worse isn't exactly the same as getting better. The economy contracted and job numbers are still abysmal.


Not sure what you think "Contracting" means, but the GDP didn't go down in 2012. You may only be thinking of the last quarter which still didn't contract the economy for the year.
 
2013-02-10 12:10:35 PM  

muck4doo: cameroncrazy1984: muck4doo: DamnYankees: Lionel Mandrake: Despite "austerity" being a complete and abject failure everywhere, they insist on it because it's what Obama doesn't want to do.

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.

LOL! Yes, Mr. Obamacare is looking for austerity.

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

FDOLAPMGO!!!! Obama fans actually believe it's going to save money!!!!!! I'm going to laugh myself to death. I need to get out of here for a few.

/Does Obamacare cover laughing yourself to death?


Uh, the $1.2T in spending cuts already don't have anything to do with Obamacare.
 
2013-02-10 12:10:49 PM  
A lot of shiatlords out today with the Obama is as bad as Stalin allusions...
 
2013-02-10 12:13:01 PM  

muck4doo: DamnYankees: muck4doo: LOL! Yes, Mr. Obamacare is looking for austerity.

Yes, he is.

ROFLMAO!!!! Good one.


It's actually a bad one. I wish he wasn't in favor of it.
 
2013-02-10 12:16:17 PM  
i45.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-10 12:17:03 PM  

DamnYankees: muck4doo: DamnYankees: muck4doo: LOL! Yes, Mr. Obamacare is looking for austerity.

Yes, he is.

ROFLMAO!!!! Good one.

It's actually a bad one. I wish he wasn't in favor of it.


IMO, he (and Patty Murray and Reid) are trying to get cuts that will take effect when the economy comes back (ie, unemployment under 6.5%, like the Fed is targeting).  R's are claiming that if they don't get immediate, up front cuts they'll never get any cuts, and that this is the best they're going to get.  Basically, R's are trying to take a shiat in Obama's bed AND get him to sleep in in.  But since he sees what they're doing, they'll settle for just shiatting in his bed.  I feel that's a pretty apt description of the Republican style of governance right now.
 
2013-02-10 12:20:33 PM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Authors like this prey on ignorance.  The miracle of "Reaganomics" was really just Paul Volcker's Fed cutting interest rates from about 20% in 1981 down to like 5% by 82-83.  Unemployment came down, inflation was beaten, and the economy grew.  Reagan could have done nothing except jack off in the Rose Garden for 4 years and the same thing would have happened.

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?  They must be pretty weak, tired and played-out, actuallyl


Pretty much this. You might remember when McCain suspended his campaign during Obama's first run to try to deal with the financial crisis. In what world did the most ineffective President in the history of Presidents acquire so much power that he could crash the economy before even being elected? Please: show your work kids.
 
2013-02-10 12:32:29 PM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Basically, R's are trying to take a shiat in Obama's bed AND get him to sleep in in.  But since he sees what they're doing, they'll settle for just shiatting in his bed.  I feel that's a pretty apt description of the Republican style of governance right now.


True and fair. As Ezra Klein put it during the Fiscal Cliff crap:

Today's Republican Party thinks the key problem America faces is out-of-control entitlement spending. But cutting entitlement spending is unpopular and the GOP's coalition relies heavily on seniors. And so they don't want to propose entitlement cuts. If possible, they'd even like to attack President Obama for proposing entitlement cuts. But they also want to see entitlements cut and will refuse to solve the fiscal cliff or raise the debt ceiling unless there are entitlement cuts.  You can see why these negotiations aren't going well.
 
2013-02-10 12:37:38 PM  
"The article explained that the emerging Obamanomics was pursuing exactly the opposite of every policy of the enormously successful Reaganomics"

::Closes article::
 
2013-02-10 12:39:17 PM  

FlashHarry: [i45.tinypic.com image 800x590]


Best one yet.  +1 internets sir
 
2013-02-10 12:39:24 PM  
Remember folks, wanting the economy to tank and in some cases actively trying to make it get worse is patriotic when Republicans do it. Now we return to our daily attempt to talk some sense into right wing trolls
 
2013-02-10 12:40:17 PM  
When did  muck4doo go off the deep end?

He used to be somewhat sane.
 
2013-02-10 12:40:40 PM  

Mrtraveler01: When did  muck4doo go off the deep end?

He used to be somewhat sane.


I don't remember this time.
 
2013-02-10 12:41:47 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.


Like the Dow Jones at its highest in years, the housing has increased and unemployment is lower than it was in 2007. Damn you, Obama!
 
2013-02-10 12:43:01 PM  

CanisNoir: cameroncrazy1984: Uh, yes it has. Measurably.

Not getting worse isn't exactly the same as getting better. The economy contracted and job numbers are still abysmal.


I too remember the better times in 2009.
 
2013-02-10 12:43:59 PM  

Bloody William: A lot of shiatlords out today with the Obama is as bad as Stalin allusions...


He is Stalin and Hitler combined with the anti-Torquemada in an empty suit.
 
2013-02-10 12:48:48 PM  
Conservatives need to suck it up and quit crying about 2bama.
 
2013-02-10 12:50:36 PM  

abb3w: So, does anyone know what the Kondratiev cycle is?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave
who KNEW that I would learn something new today?
CRAZY interesting, of for no other reason, it makes for a nice pattern.
and we are at the depression/improvement part of the cycle ...

nano/bio/ai will drive the next peak in the cycle
time to buy long
 
2013-02-10 12:51:33 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mrtraveler01: When did muck4doo go off the deep end?

He used to be somewhat sane.

I don't remember this time.


Trolling on a Sunday afternoon, probably already drunk, too. You have to pity these people.
 
2013-02-10 12:51:46 PM  
Dammit, Fartbama, how could you attempt to surrender West Point to the hated British? Have you no soul??
 
2013-02-10 12:52:19 PM  

Mrtraveler01: When did  muck4doo go off the deep end?

He used to be somewhat sane.


What gets more attention: someone changing lanes without signaling or a fifty car pileup that all crashed into a fireworks factory, exploded and a meteor crushed them?
 
2013-02-10 12:52:50 PM  

SkinnyHead: tenpoundsofcheese: Let's see.  I wonder if anything else happened in 2007, like the Dems getting control of the House and all that yummy overspending.

And wasn't Obama part of the Democrat controlled senate at the time?  Didn't he vote for Democrat budget resolutions in 2007 and 2008, even though republicans warned them they would damage the economy?  That's the way I remember it.


So you are saying that Bush was totally incompetent and a weak leader unable to stop himself from being forced, forced I tell ya, to sign a bill from Congress?
 
2013-02-10 12:53:52 PM  

NewportBarGuy: MaudlinMutantMollusk: It's just math Republicans do to make themselves feel better

Republicans can't do math. They should just accept that and move on to paste eating.


bwhahahahahahahahaa
 
2013-02-10 12:54:11 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: SkinnyHead: tenpoundsofcheese: Let's see.  I wonder if anything else happened in 2007, like the Dems getting control of the House and all that yummy overspending.

And wasn't Obama part of the Democrat controlled senate at the time?  Didn't he vote for Democrat budget resolutions in 2007 and 2008, even though republicans warned them they would damage the economy?  That's the way I remember it.

So you are saying that Bush was totally incompetent and a weak leader unable to stop himself from being forced, forced I tell ya, to sign a bill from Congress?


Obama directly forced him to sign the bills for Congress.
 
2013-02-10 12:55:02 PM  

NewportBarGuy: What an asshole.


You forgot the "Christ" in front of "what an asshole." I thought this was an internet rule now. Not to dis on Jesus (I kinda dig the guy), but just because it flows well.
 
2013-02-10 12:56:56 PM  

NeverDrunk23: someone changing lanes without signaling


I hate those people with the white hot passions of a thousand suns.

Wait, what were we talking about again?

NeverDrunk23: or a fifty car pileup that all crashed into a fireworks factory, exploded and a meteor crushed them?


That would be awesome!

/as long as no one got hurt of course
 
2013-02-10 12:58:53 PM  
 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?
 
2013-02-10 12:59:19 PM  

CanisNoir: 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.


1) of course the dems bear some responsibility
2) you do understand that the GOP house caused our debt to be down graded and have been holding our economy hostage by not voting on bills passed by THAT senate, right?
3) you do understand that a majority in the senate is meaningless given that the GOP minority has filibustered practically everything then dems tried to do right?
4) I wonder how many of those wonder GOP house bills which were never voted on in the senate, were filibustered. LOL

so no .... you are only about 10% right
 
2013-02-10 01:00:59 PM  

dickfreckle: 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?


Depends.

Did the Mardi Gras parades start for the day yet?
 
2013-02-10 01:01:59 PM  
Half of you people in this goddamn thread are so f*cking stupid it makes my head spin.  I know politics tab threads are bad, but you assholes really take the cake.  You literal mental children can't stay on topic for two posts in a row without resorting to stupid bullshiat ad-hominem attacks on each other.

The fact that people like you make up the voter base is what's really wrong with this country.

Get f*cked.
 
2013-02-10 01:02:49 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I wonder what the GOP excuse will be in 2014 for why the economy is better despite their complete inability to get any of their policies passed.


by blocking everything that the DEMS and Obama wanted to do, the GOP actively prevented things from getting MUCH MUCH MUCH worse!!!

seriously, that will be their position, unless things get worse, and then it will be see, the DEMS farked everything up

sigh
 
2013-02-10 01:03:10 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: SkinnyHead: tenpoundsofcheese: Let's see.  I wonder if anything else happened in 2007, like the Dems getting control of the House and all that yummy overspending.

And wasn't Obama part of the Democrat controlled senate at the time?  Didn't he vote for Democrat budget resolutions in 2007 and 2008, even though republicans warned them they would damage the economy?  That's the way I remember it.

So you are saying that Bush was totally incompetent and a weak leader unable to stop himself from being forced, forced I tell ya, to sign a bill from Congress?


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.

2007 Senate:

49 D
49 R
2 I
 
2013-02-10 01:03:54 PM  
Oh god he used the word "cabal." I can't believe Forbes has sunk this low.
 
2013-02-10 01:04:13 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: SkinnyHead: tenpoundsofcheese: Let's see.  I wonder if anything else happened in 2007, like the Dems getting control of the House and all that yummy overspending.

And wasn't Obama part of the Democrat controlled senate at the time?  Didn't he vote for Democrat budget resolutions in 2007 and 2008, even though republicans warned them they would damage the economy?  That's the way I remember it.

So you are saying that Bush was totally incompetent and a weak leader unable to stop himself from being forced, forced I tell ya, to sign a bill from Congress?


Budget resolutions are not signed by the President.  But enough about Bush.  Obama is the President now. Are you saying that Obama is a totally incompetent and weak leader?

Sounds to me like Obama is the not-responsible President.  He's always the first to claim credit for anything that goes right, but can't be blamed for anything that goes wrong, because he's not responsible.  Wouldn't it be better to have a leader who is responsible?
 
2013-02-10 01:04:55 PM  
I was TF for a very long time, until some computer disagreement between Fark's automated systems and PayPal's automated system caused Fark to stop accepting that five dollars.  I've often thought about getting around to un-clustering that issue, but then threads like this one pop in to the Politics tab already killed with 99 comments worth of thread-shiatting.  Now I'm on the fence.

What to do, what to do...
 
MFK
2013-02-10 01:07:24 PM  
i780.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-10 01:09:25 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Did the Mardi Gras parades start for the day yet?


Today is my full day off. Last Sunday I wasted it watching 34 minutes of stupidity at the Superdome. I do know that the p-rades were moved up in rotation, but I'm sitting right here, about to eat a 3,000 calorie NOLA lunch. Screw the parades today.

I'm still trying to figure out how I can juggle my schedule for my annual quest to get a Zulu coconut.. I've had one, but it was given to me by some chick and not the actual Krewe, rendering it kind of "meh."

If I fail to succeed, I can still look fondly upon having been knocked down by a full cabbage to the head, during St. Pat's. You know, cabbages really don't seem dangerous until some guy with an arm Drew Breeses it to your face.
 
2013-02-10 01:11:42 PM  

Granny_Panties: Princess Ryans Knickers: SkinnyHead: tenpoundsofcheese: Let's see.  I wonder if anything else happened in 2007, like the Dems getting control of the House and all that yummy overspending.

And wasn't Obama part of the Democrat controlled senate at the time?  Didn't he vote for Democrat budget resolutions in 2007 and 2008, even though republicans warned them they would damage the economy?  That's the way I remember it.

So you are saying that Bush was totally incompetent and a weak leader unable to stop himself from being forced, forced I tell ya, to sign a bill from Congress?

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.

2007 Senate:

49 D
49 R
2 I


nice try libs but the Demorats not only were pulling the puppet strings on W after they took away Dick Cheney's magic shotgun, they also had the rare ULTRA majority in Congress, meaning that no matter what happened it is the next Democrat president's fault unless it was good then it was all GOP
Wesley Snipes says always bet on black, well America did and they lost, next time bet red stupid libs.
 
2013-02-10 01:13:10 PM  
I should have stopped reading when I hit this statement ``enormously successful Reaganomics``
but I always try to read an article through to see the argument and judge its worth.

Then I hit this bit of massive b*llsh*t  ``I have explained in previous columns that the financial crisis was caused by government, not Wall Street`` and stopped reading. Obviously this Peter Ferrara person is writing about events that happened on Earth2 or else he forgot to put his tinfoil hat on before writing this ``column``
 
2013-02-10 01:13:44 PM  

SkinnyHead: Budget resolutions are not signed by the President.


What? Are you kidding me right now?
 
2013-02-10 01:15:55 PM  

www.samefacts.com


"I BELIEVE YOU.  I READ THE ARTICLE IN FORBES."

 
2013-02-10 01:17:12 PM  
I wonder what Forbes would say if a Republican President was in office and the Dow had crossed 14,000 after the Great Recession?

Greatest President Since Reagan!

But as long as Obama is black and a Democrat, the old white "investor" class -- the only people slow-witted enough to read Forbes -- will always need their commentary pre-chewed and well-digested for their irritable bowels.
 
2013-02-10 01:18:14 PM  

dickfreckle: Last Sunday I wasted it watching 34 minutes of stupidity at the Superdome.


I like to call it "Entergy at its finest!"

dickfreckle: but I'm sitting right here, about to eat a 3,000 calorie NOLA lunch.


I'm jealous of you right now.

dickfreckle: If I fail to succeed, I can still look fondly upon having been knocked down by a full cabbage to the head, during St. Pat's. You know, cabbages really don't seem dangerous until some guy with an arm Drew Breeses it to your face.


I shouldn't laugh at that but that is pretty funny.

/a sucker for slapstick
 
2013-02-10 01:18:52 PM  

thamike: [www.samefacts.com image 650x366]


"I BELIEVE YOU.  I READ THE ARTICLE IN FORBES."


I've been trying to get my beard to look like his, but it's not blending at the sideburn area. At the risk of a total threadjack, do you guys have any beard advice? Because right now I'm perilously close to looking like a complete ass.
 
2013-02-10 01:20:55 PM  
s20.postimage.org
 
2013-02-10 01:21:27 PM  
Cantor was on TV this morning with his imaginary economics and the Obama is killing us all line. I had to turn it off and go walk the dog. It is too frustrating to watch someone sit there and say we need to decrease taxes, decrease spending and decrease the deficit while not losing any jobs.
 
2013-02-10 01:22:05 PM  
I just found out Farb0b0ng0 was responsible for the Scilly Naval Disaster of 1707
www.watch-around.com
Yeah, no shiat. Heavy stuff. And it gets better...

Get this, the 4 ships that sank (killing over one thousand sailors) in that disaster?

HMSs Association, Eagle, Firebrand and ROMNEY! Yes, the HMS Romney was sank over 300 years ago by our own special Mao Tse Bama the Czar maker in chief.

I kid you not, look it up. He really will go to no ends.
matzav.com
What the hell is this guys problem?

I bet Michelle was there in 1707 too, with her... face and.. trying to tell people what to eat. She's ugly, I don't know if you noticed.
 
2013-02-10 01:23:02 PM  
Something tells me that the author of that article doesn't like Barack Obama. I can't really put my finger on it.
 
2013-02-10 01:23:52 PM  
Lionel Mandrake:

did he give her herpes?
 
2013-02-10 01:25:43 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Does anyone want to explain to this douche that it usually takes a full fiscal year before any tinkering actually shows up in indicators? That would chop off two years of his 5 year time frame and force him to explain the wonders caused under Bush the Lesser.

Hell, Obama wasn't even President for the first f*cking year of that 5 years. What an asshole.


Sad things is people nod their heads in agreement.  I have a relative that blames Obama for economic collapse; not just the amount of time the recovery has taken, but the collapse itself.  Yes, the one that happened well before most people even knew who he was.

We'll never be able to seriously discuss what goes wrong and what goes right in this country.  There's simply too many disingenuous people and too many people that take pride in stubborn ignorance.
 
2013-02-10 01:26:15 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Budget resolutions are not signed by the President.

What? Are you kidding me right now?


No, it's totally true.
 
2013-02-10 01:27:26 PM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Budget resolutions are not signed by the President.

What? Are you kidding me right now?

No, it's totally true.


No, it's really not.
 
2013-02-10 01:28:53 PM  
www.digitalfilmtree.com


DAMN YOU FARTBONGO!

 
2013-02-10 01:29:34 PM  

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?


Nah, they do more damage to their own stances every time they post.
 
2013-02-10 01:29:44 PM  
SkinnyHead, here's proof of your stupidity yet again:

Bush Signs 2009 Budget Resolution
 
2013-02-10 01:30:42 PM  
this entire argument is retarded. Until our policy makers have accept the insights of Modern Monetary Theory, and continue to embrace the autistic mainstream macroeconomic policies which fail to appropriately incorporate stock-flow consistency, the economy will continue to stagnate for 99% of the country, while the 1% prosper.

I know this is true. I've done all the work myself.
 
2013-02-10 01:32:05 PM  

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?
 
2013-02-10 01:32:38 PM  

I BLAME OBAMA!

www.liberalrev.com

 
2013-02-10 01:34:02 PM  

Mentat: You know what's worse than the first five years since the Great Depression?  The Great Depression.


You know which band I really like? Better than Ezra. You know which band I don't like? Ezra. They're not as good.
 
2013-02-10 01:34:17 PM  
s20.postimage.org
 
2013-02-10 01:34:34 PM  

THANKS OBAMA!

www.forbidden-history.com

 
2013-02-10 01:34:52 PM  
images.nationalgeographic.com

THANKS OBAMA!
 
2013-02-10 01:34:58 PM  
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.
 
2013-02-10 01:35:15 PM  

homelessdude: [s20.postimage.org image 302x269]


Shakes tiny fist
 
2013-02-10 01:35:27 PM  
LMAO, a themed trifecta!
 
2013-02-10 01:35:41 PM  
2bama!
 
2013-02-10 01:36:03 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Hell, Obama wasn't even President for the first f*cking year of that 5 years. What an asshole.


The market crashed because of the possibility that he might become President someday.

You see, the only way that people get rich is by being super-smart independent-thinker entrepreneur mavericks who work harder than you can possibly imagine and are better than you at everything.  Those are the type of people who could predict what a disaster Obama would be for the country, and they planned accordingly.
 
2013-02-10 01:36:05 PM  

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

Bush Signs 2009 Budget Resolution


A continuing resolution is not a budget resolution, crazy.
 
2013-02-10 01:36:25 PM  
www.peterbonnet.nl

THANKS, OBAMA.

 
2013-02-10 01:36:31 PM  

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.
 
2013-02-10 01:37:15 PM  

THANKS OBAMA!


leedsdantediaries.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-10 01:37:29 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?


Eh, calling out assholes when in not direct response isn't cool. I was timed-out (only a day, but yeah) for calling an infamous poster a jerk but not in response to anything he had actually posted. And I deserved it.

/spent that day at Wired, PopUrls, and even looked at Reddit for a few miniutes
 
2013-02-10 01:37:40 PM  

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.
 
2013-02-10 01:37:49 PM  

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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.