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

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

4600 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Feb 2013 at 12:33 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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.
 
2013-02-10 03:44:45 PM  

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

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

Gotcha.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


When the world stops deteriorating from Bushes incredibly incompetent policies.

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

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

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


And it will all be Obama's fault!
 
2013-02-10 03:49:50 PM  

LargeCanine: 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.


What do you mean "would have recovered"?  The economy is experiencing healthy, sustained growth for the first time in a decade under Obama's policies.

The economy sustained a devastating contraction under the policies that you're advocating.

The US has never in history wielded more diplomatic clout than it does now.  Your fantasies about American decline are just not supported by reality.
 
2013-02-10 03:49:58 PM  

udhq: 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.


Arguing with reality is the entire Republican MO, though.
 
2013-02-10 03:50:35 PM  

Saturn5: 2007 Democrat majority in Congress.  Coincidence?


Yes.
 
2013-02-10 03:51:09 PM  

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


And it would've stopped the economic crisis in Europe from happening too right?
 
2013-02-10 03:51:56 PM  

Mrtraveler01: 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.


Kind of like Bush signing the Fascist Patriot Act and the kinder and gentler Obama extending it.
Bush was not a good conservative with fiscal policy.  He had the highest deficit in recorded history at that time - $455 Billion.

Just ignore that the smallest of Obama's deficits have been two to four times that much.
 
2013-02-10 03:54:30 PM  

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

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


Ladies and gentlemen, my first "ignore".

Not because he's conservative, not even because he's an idiot, but because he's a gutless threadshiatter who lobs bombs then runs away because he knows his beliefs are wrong and indefensible.

Bottom line?  Parents, teach your kids the difference between good attention and bad attention, or else they'll end up like our friend randomjsa here.
 
2013-02-10 04:04:31 PM  

Saturn5: Mrtraveler01: 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.

Kind of like Bush signing the Fascist Patriot Act and the kinder and gentler Obama extending it.
Bush was not a good conservative with fiscal policy.  He had the highest deficit in recorded history at that time - $455 Billion.

Just ignore that the smallest of Obama's deficits have been two to four times that much.


As long as you keep ignoring that Bush came into his first term with a surplus, I Will!
 
2013-02-10 04:05:14 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Can we finally drop this stupid "Obama promised" BS when he did nothing of the sort?


Christina Romer promised it would stay under 8% because she failed to take into account the golden rule, never make projections until you have all the facts. The revised numbers showed just how FUBAR our situation was. She went with preliminary numbers and was trying to be a good cheerleader. They have been hanging that one line around Obama's neck ever since she said it, and I knew they would because I had an instant facepalm when I saw her say it live.

Obama said nothing of the 8%, but Romer did. It's unfortunate, because she seems to be a very competent and capable woman. She got caught up in the whole thing and shot off too soon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR20 10 080606271.html

Of course, it was not the promise made by the President considering the revised numbers, but because something was said once, it means that Obama said it and we're all his slaves, or something.

It was a fluid situation and they did mostly the right things. One day, a long time from now... even the idiots will realize that the right things were done for the benefit of the country. Just not now or in the near future.
 
2013-02-10 04:05:29 PM  

LargeCanine: 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 Bush's policies. The next President is going to have to Obama has cleaned up OBAMA'S Bush' mess, economic, diplomatic, and administrative.

FTFY and reality

 
2013-02-10 04:06:17 PM  

Saturn5: Mrtraveler01: 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.

Kind of like Bush signing the Fascist Patriot Act and the kinder and gentler Obama extending it.
Bush was not a good conservative with fiscal policy.  He had the highest deficit in recorded history at that time - $455 Billion.

Just ignore that the smallest of Obama's deficits have been two to four times that much.


cdn.factcheck.org

LOLNo.
 
2013-02-10 04:08:23 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

THANKS OBAMA
 
2013-02-10 04:09:29 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Thanks, Obama!
 
2013-02-10 04:09:55 PM  

Saturn5: Mrtraveler01: 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.

Kind of like Bush signing the Fascist Patriot Act and the kinder and gentler Obama extending it.
Bush was not a good conservative with fiscal policy.  He had the highest deficit in recorded history at that time - $455 Billion.

Just ignore that the smallest of Obama's deficits have been two to four times that much.


Just ignore that W kept BOTH wars off the books, and 2bama put them back on the books.
 
2013-02-10 04:10:15 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Christina Romer


Say what you want about Christina Romer, but she was the only one who had the guts to talk about the president's secret plan to fight inflation.
 
2013-02-10 04:10:30 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Actually, it says "over" $775 million, and does not give a specific number.


ummm... thanks for the assist.

Granny_Panties: 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..


Mrbogey: People are looking too closely at men and not ideas. Obama's ideas are a continuation of failed economic ideas.


Granny_Panties: 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?


I was puzzled at first why my name was highlighted and the words that followed were foreign to me. I get the intent of what you did there. But no, I'm not anyone other than me.

Mrtraveler01: Can we finally drop this stupid "Obama promised" BS when he did nothing of the sort?


Okay, Democrats can't be assed to make decent projections. We agree.

udhq: 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?


That's not true anymore. We didn't have 2 consecutive bad quarters in 07Q01 and yet here we are.

udhq: The economy is experiencing healthy, sustained growth for the first time in a decade under Obama's policies.


Not even God Almighty can sink this ship.
 
2013-02-10 04:12:24 PM  

udhq: LargeCanine: 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.

What do you mean "would have recovered"?  The economy is experiencing healthy, sustained growth for the first time in a decade under Obama's policies.

The economy sustained a devastating contraction under the policies that you're advocating.

The US has never in history wielded more diplomatic clout than it does now.  Your fantasies about American decline are just not supported by reality.



The economy has been experiencing anemic growth which is often lower than the rate of population growth, high inflation, and high official and even higher real unemployment. Much of the "growth" is really just government deficit spending and is not real productivity and will have to be repaid someday.

Obama hurts the poor with regressive policies like Quantitative Easing in which the government invents money out of nothing, thus reducing the value of each dollar. This hurts the poor because their income and money is worth less, and they have little in the way of tangible assets. Affluent people have tangible assets which increase in price, hedging against inflation. Thus, every time Geithner massively increases the money supply, he is taxing the poor.

Diplomatically, we have alienated our allies and are held in contempt my the Russians and Chinese. Our embassies are being targeted. Friendly governments can't rely on us and are making deals/alliance predicated on American weakness. Obama has been judged by the international community as being feckless and weak.

I didn't advocate any particular policy, and saying that I advocated politics leading to contraction is simply you projecting. I never said anything about America being in decline. You are trying to put words into my mouth - building a straw man to knock down. Of course, you knew that, you are just trying to change the subject from Obama.
 
2013-02-10 04:13:11 PM  

Mrtraveler01: LargeCanine: Nah. The economy would have recovered years ago if it were not for Obama's policies.

And it would've stopped the economic crisis in Europe from happening too right?


Europe's ecconomic issues are self-inflicted, much like ours.
 
2013-02-10 04:15:33 PM  

Mrbogey: 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.


Um, so are you saying that privatizing social security and medicare are good ideas?
 
2013-02-10 04:15:35 PM  

LargeCanine: Seems that way. Blame Bush for an economy that is Obama's. Accusing Republicans for policies that Obama implemented. Hope smells more like desperation.


The "What If?" literary genre isn't really my cup of tea, so I'm not going to try to critique your writings or anything. I just feel that a Fark Politics thread isn't necessarily the best place for you to be debuting your work.
 
2013-02-10 04:16:27 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: Saturn5: Mrtraveler01: 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.

Kind of like Bush signing the Fascist Patriot Act and the kinder and gentler Obama extending it.
Bush was not a good conservative with fiscal policy.  He had the highest deficit in recorded history at that time - $455 Billion.

Just ignore that the smallest of Obama's deficits have been two to four times that much.

Just ignore that W kept BOTH wars off the books, and 2bama put them back on the books.


Oh, come on, libby von libenstein from liberalvania!  Don't you think the mainstream MSM media would mention that fact when they mention the deficit?  Don't you think they'd point out to partisan Republicans that they had no problem with debt when it came to demolishing and then rebuilding two foreign nations?  Of course they would, because they're fair, and they're balanced.
 
2013-02-10 04:17:59 PM  

LargeCanine: Mrtraveler01: LargeCanine: Nah. The economy would have recovered years ago if it were not for Obama's policies.

And it would've stopped the economic crisis in Europe from happening too right?

Europe's ecconomic issues are self-inflicted, much like ours.


So you agree that Bush's bad policies tanked the economy? Good to know.
 
2013-02-10 04:19:03 PM  

LargeCanine: Diplomatically, we have alienated our allies and are held in contempt my the Russians and Chinese.


It was like that way before Obama came into office.

LargeCanine: Our embassies are being targeted.


They're always targeted.

LargeCanine: Friendly governments can't rely on us and are making deals/alliance predicated on American weakness. Obama has been judged by the international community as being feckless and weak.


Who has actually said this besides Neoconservative wingnuts?
 
2013-02-10 04:21:06 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: Just ignore that W kept BOTH wars off the books, and 2bama put them back on the books.


Are we still talking federal deficit or national debt? There's no keeping something off the books for national debt unless it's through clever use of bonds and interest rates and repayment there of (TARP). Bush had low deficits with his proposed budget because he did supplemental budgeting to pay for it but the national debt still grew due to it. Bush, the wars, and everything took the debt from about 5 trillion to about 10 trillion. Obama has taken it from about 10 trillion to about 16.5 with projected debt to reach 20T when he leaves office.

The largest Bush deficit his in 2008 due to TARP. Since then Obama has not really lowered his deficits.
 
2013-02-10 04:22:11 PM  
Mrbogey

Do you get some kind of sexual pleasure out of being told you're wrong on the internet? There's got to be a better way to get your kicks than this.
 
2013-02-10 04:24:04 PM  
NewportBarGuy: What an asshole.
 
2013-02-10 04:24:47 PM  

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: Can we finally drop this stupid "Obama promised" BS when he did nothing of the sort?

Okay, Democrats can't be assed to make decent projections. We agree.


I think the Democrats can make decent projections, much like everyone else. What went wrong was the Democrats didn't take into account the possibility that the opposing party was willing to destroy the economy to prove the Democrats wrong.  When the GOP took over the House of Representatives in November 2010 (and starting in January 2011), the GOP promised to work on creating jobs, jobs, jobs. Instead, they did nothing of the sort, even going as far as filibustering their own bills that would create jobs.

If Romer had added that into the equation, I'm sure her assessment would be a bit different.
 
2013-02-10 04:25:42 PM  

Mrbogey: udhq: 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 economic bad news, right?

That's not true anymore. We didn't have 2 consecutive bad quarters in 07Q01 and yet here we are.


Wait, so your argument is that there was never a recession in the first place?

udhq: The economy is experiencing healthy, sustained growth for the first time in a decade under Obama's policies.

Not even God Almighty can sink this ship.


Fair enough, you're free to believe that the positive economic tides of the last few years happened in spite of Obama rather than because of him, but it's just that:  a belief.  It's dogma, it exists independently of all evidence, either pro or con.

That's difference between you and me, and ultimately between liberals and conservatives, I would suspect:  your disapproval of Obama exists without regard to any evidence, either way, whereas I allowed Bush to plead his case, and in the end he provided me with all the evidence I needed to conclude that he and policies of his party were a failure.
 
2013-02-10 04:25:48 PM  

fatassbastard: NewportBarGuy: What an asshole.

 
2013-02-10 04:25:48 PM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Um, so are you saying that privatizing social security and medicare are good ideas?


Had we partially privatized SS as was proposed by Republicans circa 2005, those eligible would have started investing in early 2009. They would begin retiring next year. The growth rate from 2009 to current in the market would have been wildly beneficial. The gov't would have unloaded debt obligation and retirees would have made significant financial growth in their retirement accounts.

This is looking back of course but it disproves the argument of the dangers of privatized accounts.

Medicare will eventually collapse either way at this point so old people are farked either way.
 
2013-02-10 04:26:39 PM  

Mrbogey: Granny_Panties: 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..


Why won't you answer the question?

I know why. Because the Democrat majorities in 2007 and 2008 had zero to do with it. That's why you "smart" guys refuse to answer the question. What bills? Why is this so hard for you guys?

Now log back into your other account randomjsa. We all know it's you. Get over yourself. You'll screw up and out yourself in a more obvious manor eventually.
 
2013-02-10 04:28:22 PM  

Mrbogey: The largest Bush deficit his in 2008 due to TARP. Since then Obama has not really lowered his deficits.


Don't forget the collapsing of the tax base as businesses and people all across the country stopped making money at the same time.  And in 2009, and 2010.  Businesses got profitable again, but at the expense of the now-unemployed former laborer who is still not paying taxes.  I think it's too convenient to forget that sometimes.

"Why, 50% of Americans don't even pay income taxes anymore!  We're a nation of takers!!!!"  But don't bother asking why 50% of Americans don't make enough money to qualify to pay taxes anymore.  That question is verboten.  And the cost of unemployment insurance, and food stamps, and, why look at that you get real close to explaining the deficit.
 
2013-02-10 04:30:31 PM  

LargeCanine: udhq: LargeCanine: 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.

What do you mean "would have recovered"?  The economy is experiencing healthy, sustained growth for the first time in a decade under Obama's policies.

The economy sustained a devastating contraction under the policies that you're advocating.

The US has never in history wielded more diplomatic clout than it does now.  Your fantasies about American decline are just not supported by reality.


The economy has been experiencing anemic growth which is often lower than the rate of population growth, high inflation, and high official and even higher real unemployment. Much of the "growth" is really just government deficit spending and is not real productivity and will have to be repaid someday.

Obama hurts the poor with regressive policies like Quantitative Easing in which the government invents money out of nothing, thus reducing the value of each dollar. This hurts the poor because their income and money is worth less, and they have little in the way of tangible assets. Affluent people have tangible assets which increase in price, hedging against inflation. Thus, every time Geithner massively increases the money supply, he is taxing the poor.

Diplomatically, we have alienated ...


You do know that embassies have been targeted since forever, right?
 
2013-02-10 04:31:40 PM  

Granny_Panties: Why won't you answer the question?


I answered it for you. You were just too daft to realize it.

Granny_Panties: Now log back into your other account randomjsa. We all know it's you. Get over yourself. You'll screw up and out yourself in a more obvious manor eventually.


I figured that's why you edited my name onto his reply. It's odd when I get an email alert saying someone is quoting me and the reply is completely foreign. Your ability to assess sockpuppets is worse than your economic acumen. I hope you aren't speaking for everyone. I'd hate to think less of people I already spend too much time thinking less of.
 
2013-02-10 04:33:43 PM  

Biological Ali: Do you get some kind of sexual pleasure out of being told you're wrong on the internet? There's got to be a better way to get your kicks than this.


He gets paid for it.
 
2013-02-10 04:37:45 PM  
 "I don't have time to "fact check" every piece of political swagger that comes across. Do I feel Obama should have to put up or shut up? YES. There's no fact check for my beliefs."

 - quote from a Republican friend, when presented with factual, non-partisan information.

/asked her if she "believed" 2+2 = potato
//she's a teacher
 
2013-02-10 04:39:05 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-10 04:39:40 PM  

Mrbogey: Granny_Panties: Now log back into your other account randomjsa. We all know it's you. Get over yourself. You'll screw up and out yourself in a more obvious manor eventually.

I figured that's why you edited my name onto his reply. It's odd when I get an email alert saying someone is quoting me and the reply is completely foreign. Your ability to assess sockpuppets is worse than your economic acumen. I hope you aren't speaking for everyone. I'd hate to think less of people I already spend too much time thinking less of.


You two do seem to share the same persecution complex where everyone is out to get Conservatives for whatever reason pops up in your head.

/Just an observation
 
2013-02-10 04:47:39 PM  

dionysusaur: Except that, as we all know, the Right is not part of the Reality-Based Community.


i just got an email from my governor bobby jindal touting his school reform successes. not mentioned is that the legislation went to court and was ruled unconstitutional.

A Baton Rouge judge ruled Friday that Louisiana's expanded voucher program, and another key legislatively approved piece of Gov. Bobby Jindal's plan to overhaul public schools, "unconstitutionally divert" public funds to private and parochial schools.

if you saw what private religious wack job schools were now getting voucher money you would know why the judge threw the voucher law out.

by reply i ask bobby why that wasn't mentioned in his email. one of these days he is going to take me off the email list. and perhaps add me to some others :)
 
2013-02-10 04:48:09 PM  

CygnusDarius: 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 image 767x553]


You posted the doctored version of that painting. Here is the REAL one:

i1222.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-10 04:50:05 PM  

Mrtraveler01: You two do seem to share the same persecution complex where everyone is out to get Conservatives for whatever reason pops up in your head.


Persecution? I've not alleged that. There is a bias by some posters against anything conservative to the point where in some threads things that have nothing to do with conservatives get labeled as conservative due to the froth. People don't like their ideas challenged. Most people here are liberal... ergo they don't challenge their beliefs and they hate when others do.

And no, modern liberalism isn't about questioning beliefs. It's essentially what old progressivism used to be. Just another catalogue of ideas that is in search of good packaging.
 
2013-02-10 04:51:41 PM  
Also,

i1222.photobucket.com

/oblig
 
2013-02-10 04:52:06 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: You do know that embassies have been targeted since forever, right?


Because once Omaba got his time machine, "when" didn't matter anymore, now did it?
 
2013-02-10 04:52:21 PM  

Mrbogey: And no, modern liberalism isn't about questioning beliefs. It's essentially what old progressivism used to be. Just another catalogue of ideas that is in search of good packaging.


Can't we say that modern Conservatism is the same thing?
 
2013-02-10 04:53:07 PM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: Also,

[i1222.photobucket.com image 591x180]

/oblig


Dammit!
 
2013-02-10 04:53:16 PM  
Thanks Obama.
lh6.ggpht.com
 
2013-02-10 04:53:49 PM  
tenpoundsofcheese (farkied: It ain't cheese): Let's see.  I wonder if anything else happened in 2007, like the Dems getting control of the House and all that yummy overspending.

Roight, guv.  It isn't overspending when it goes to killing Scary Mooselimbs for fun and profit.  USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
 
2013-02-10 04:54:10 PM  
Good lord. The dumbass contingent drove this thread in to the ground. Within the first 150 comments I see idiotic messiah comments, nazi comparisons, and the standard easily disprovable factual statements.

Impressive.
 
2013-02-10 04:54:24 PM  
If I honestly thought Obama or the Dems who got voted into Congress a few months before the 2007 meltdown began had anything to do with it I'd be the first to blame them. But I've yet to see any credible evidence it wasn't the result of the same free market deregulation policies right wingers have always pushed.

There's nothing wrong with easing regulation to stimulate growth temporarily as long as it doesn't get out of hand, especially in the housing sector. Construction jobs have always been the basic barometer of our economy because it has the greatest impact on every aspect of the market for each dollar spent. But it got out of hand under the Republican's watch and to argue otherwise is just plain stupid.

What's more, they were warned time and time again but chose to ignore it despite the fact we had just emerged from the so-called tech bubble - an almost identical situation where scam artists were shuffling money from one account to another short-trading and margin trading until the whole thing just finally collapsed.

Nobody worried about the national debt, government spending, the integrity of our financial system, or anything else back then. It was a goddamn greed festival. In the end only a few benefited from this corruption, most took huge hits to investments and retirement accounts. But the same shiat is still allowed to go on today with only a few exceptions.

Meanwhile, people are whining about Obama phones and food stamps and a culture of entitlement that has nothing to do with the fact that a small cadre of influential rich people are playing us all for fools, while simultaneously race-baiting the morons who think we need to act like China so they can have cheap labor and goods.

You people are f*cking crazy.
 
2013-02-10 04:57:04 PM  
The answer seems pretty clear to me - Zero needs to send drones to get all of our jobs back from China. Furthermore, he needs to bring our U6 unemployment rate down by forcing all those retirees back to work.

I don't know who the guy who wrote that article is, but someone needs to remind him this is 2013 - not 1980 anymore.
 
2013-02-10 04:58:56 PM  

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: You two do seem to share the same persecution complex where everyone is out to get Conservatives for whatever reason pops up in your head.

Persecution? I've not alleged that. There is a bias by some posters against anything conservative to the point where in some threads things that have nothing to do with conservatives get labeled as conservative due to the froth. People don't like their ideas challenged. Most people here are liberal... ergo they don't challenge their beliefs and they hate when others do.

And no, modern liberalism isn't about questioning beliefs. It's essentially what old progressivism used to be. Just another catalogue of ideas that is in search of good packaging.


Our bias is against the party of rape, misogamy  obstructionism,  racism, hate, religious idiocy, rejection of reality, facts, and hatred of everything that is Democrat just to make them look bad.
 
2013-02-10 04:59:04 PM  

LargeCanine: The economy has been experiencing anemic growth which is often lower than the rate of population growth, high inflation, and high official and even higher real unemployment. Much of the "growth" is really just government deficit spending and is not real productivity and will have to be repaid someday.



This is just objectively false.  Public sector payrolls are at their lowest level in a decade.  Government simply is not growing.  Like I said, you can argue we're growing to slowly, but the choice we have is between slow, steady growth and contraction, because we know that that is what republican economic policy does; we watched it do so with our own eyes in 2007-9.

Obama hurts the poor with regressive policies like Quantitative Easing in which the government invents money out of nothing, thus reducing the value of each dollar. This hurts the poor because their income and money is worth less, and they have little in the way of tangible assets. Affluent people have tangible assets which increase in price, hedging against inflation. Thus, every time Geithner massively increases the money supply, he is taxing the poor.

You're not going to get any argument from me that there isn't a single piece of economic policy that has come from the Obama administration that couldn't have been more progressive in nature.  But I'm not going to say monetary policy shouldn't be one of the tools in our tool belt to deal with economic crises.  That's really the realm of failed RON PAUL/gold standard monetary lunacy.

Diplomatically, we have alienated our allies and are held in contempt my the Russians and Chinese. Our embassies are being targeted. Friendly governments can't rely on us and are making deals/alliance predicated on American weakness. Obama has been judged by the international community as being feckless and weak.

Exactly which friends have we lost in the last 4 years that we hadn't already lost to the Iraq war?  Frankly, I think it's a good thing that the Russians and Chinese are leery of the US.  We, and our way of life, pose a direct threat to their totalitarian governments.  The last 4 years have seen the global era of sustainable autocracy effectively come to an end, dictators anywhere are no longer safe, and history will show US has been on the right side of this shift.

Oh, and by the way, no one outside of the right-wing infotainment industry think Obama is "feckless and weak".  This is the guy who ended a genocide and deposed one of the US's worst enemies in Libya without a single US casualty, although I understand that you may not recognize what effective foriegn policy looks like when it doesn't involve 10 years of ground war.  In fact, you need to get your talking points straight, as I believe this week they're going with "Obama and his drone war are not weak and feckless enough."

I didn't advocate any particular policy, and saying that I advocated politics leading to contraction is simply you projecting. I never said anything about America being in decline. You are trying to put words into my mouth - building a straw man to knock down. Of course, you knew that, you are just trying to change the subject from Obama.

No, you clearly advocated in favor of austerity earlier in this same comment.  That is a policy that has failed every where and every time is has tried.  You're simply trying to play the "I have no dog in this fight" card because you don't want to have to defend your own positions, and frankly, I don't blame you.  I wouldn't want to have to back up what I say if I was so consistently wrong either.

Look, we live in tough times, I don't dispute that.  But, when you look at the rest of the world, we're actually doing pretty well for ourselves in this country.  Now, you can choose to say that this is in spite of Obama rather than because of him, but like I said earlier, this is merely dogma in the face of contrary evidence.
 
2013-02-10 05:07:13 PM  

born_yesterday: GreatGlavinsGhost: Also,

[i1222.photobucket.com image 591x180]

/oblig

Dammit!


Someone told me to hurry and post it before you did.

/heh, heh
 
2013-02-10 05:08:26 PM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: born_yesterday: GreatGlavinsGhost: Also,

[i1222.photobucket.com image 591x180]

/oblig

Dammit!

Someone told me to hurry and post it before you did.

/heh, heh


Thanks a lot, Obama!
 
2013-02-10 05:10:29 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Can't we say that modern Conservatism is the same thing?


Does modern conservatism bill itself as such?

Zeppelininthesky: Our bias is against the party of rape, misogamy obstructionism, racism, hate, religious idiocy, rejection of reality, facts, and hatred of everything that is Democrat just to make them look bad.


Misogamy... good one. It's funny because the other day I described how people here describe the Republican party as such and I was told that doesn't happen.

You sound almost like a crude dogberry with your list.
 
2013-02-10 05:12:47 PM  

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: Can't we say that modern Conservatism is the same thing?

Does modern conservatism bill itself as such?


My point is that modern conservatism isn't conservative in the least.
 
2013-02-10 05:24:58 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: Can't we say that modern Conservatism is the same thing?

Does modern conservatism bill itself as such?

My point is that modern conservatism isn't conservative in the least.


Lately, the Republican party has been wildly radical, and simply calling these radicals "Conservative" is sort of like calling kittens born in a stove biscuits...

These radicals are what drove me from the party. Plain and simple.
 
2013-02-10 05:25:09 PM  

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: Can't we say that modern Conservatism is the same thing?

Does modern conservatism bill itself as such?

Zeppelininthesky: Our bias is against the party of rape, misogamy obstructionism, racism, hate, religious idiocy, rejection of reality, facts, and hatred of everything that is Democrat just to make them look bad.

Misogamy... good one. It's funny because the other day I described how people here describe the Republican party as such and I was told that doesn't happen.

You sound almost like a crude dogberry with your list.


All of those bills outlawing abortion, and pro-rape, are for whom, exactly?
 
2013-02-10 05:26:50 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: All of those bills outlawing abortion, and pro-rape, are for whom, exactly?


Pro-rape? Sure. Sure they are.
 
2013-02-10 05:27:33 PM  

The Thoroughbred of Sin: 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``


Republicans and their masters on Wall street have been under the delusion that somehow it was the federal government and it's policies that made them greedy, amoral, psychopathic assholes. In their tiny little minds if all the laws against murder were repealed tomorrow, any killing that happened afterward would not be the murderer's fault, but the government's fault for repealing those laws.

Once regulation after regulation after law after law was repealed from the Carter administration through today, giving Wall Street unprecedented power and control over the national economy, those in charge of that ship of fools just HAD to engage in shady and illegal practices designed to reap billions for themselves without any thought as to what fruit the consequences of that reaping would bear. Never mind what was right, or what was prudent, or what made sense... if there were no specific law, rule, statute, or regulation prohibiting that action, then f*ck the consequences.

Of course these same corporations have spent billions over the decades not only shaping and writing the laws, rules, statues and regulations which remain, but electing politicians who would make sure they weren't enforced the way they should be.

If a law is the only thing that might stop you from doing evil, then it is you that have the problem.
 
2013-02-10 05:32:06 PM  

Mrbogey: Zeppelininthesky: All of those bills outlawing abortion, and pro-rape, are for whom, exactly?

Pro-rape? Sure. Sure they are.


You seem to forget all the comments by  Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin, Paul Ryan, and quite a few others.
 
2013-02-10 05:32:37 PM  
"I have explained in previous columns that the financial crisis was caused by government, not Wall Street, which was just another victim of bad government policies."

That's gold Jerry...GOLD!
 
2013-02-10 05:35:18 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: misogamy


I'll admit upfront, I had to google this one. Is this what you really meant to say?
 
2013-02-10 05:38:36 PM  

mittromneysdog: misogamy


Let me clarify, they dislike women. They also dislike gays marrying.
 
2013-02-10 05:38:37 PM  

Mrbogey: Pro-rape


Preposterous overstatement. They're only pro legitimate rape.
 
2013-02-10 05:40:37 PM  
As others have probably done I stopped reading at 'Enormously successful Reaganomics'.
 
2013-02-10 05:41:31 PM  

mittromneysdog: Mrbogey: Pro-rape

Preposterous overstatement. They're only pro legitimate rape.


My brain shut the whole thing down
 
2013-02-10 05:41:54 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.


Yeah, almost like they voted for two wars AND a tax holiday AT THE SAME TIME. Stunning stupidity, there. Truly makes you question if the man should be Commander-In-Chief.
 
2013-02-10 05:43:29 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: And no, modern liberalism isn't about questioning beliefs. It's essentially what old progressivism used to be. Just another catalogue of ideas that is in search of good packaging.

Can't we say that modern Conservatism is the same thing?


Yes!  In a sign that the end must be very near, I agree with you 100%.

Real conservatism requires us to leave (without judgement) these social issues to the states because the Constitution is silent on them.  Regional differences in social mores if fine, maybe even desirable.  But it also requires no using the commerce clause to shove each others' opinions down everybody else's throats.

True conservatism on economic and foreign interests is a worthwhile debate that IMHO has alot of merit.  Sadly, economic conservatives are now mostly "borrow and spend" instead of "tax and borrow and spend" and foreign affairs thinking just means a defense plant in every critical district.

There is a great documentary on HBO about Goldwater and conservatism before we lost our way.  Worth a look, you would probably really like it.
 
2013-02-10 05:47:01 PM  
Bulldg4life


"You will now witness the power of this fully armed, and operational DERP STATION!!!!"
 
2013-02-10 06:00:50 PM  

Mrbogey: Granny_Panties: Why won't you answer the question?

I answered it for you. You were just too daft to realize it.

Granny_Panties: Now log back into your other account randomjsa. We all know it's you. Get over yourself. You'll screw up and out yourself in a more obvious manor eventually.

I figured that's why you edited my name onto his reply. It's odd when I get an email alert saying someone is quoting me and the reply is completely foreign. Your ability to assess sockpuppets is worse than your economic acumen. I hope you aren't speaking for everyone. I'd hate to think less of people I already spend too much time thinking less of.


You haven't answered anything.

WHAT BILLS DID THE DEMOCRATS PASS THAT SUNK THE ECONOMY IN 2007 AND 2008?

Do you understand English? Or are you really this obtuse?

Answer the question. You have not answered it. You are randomjsa. You don't get e-mail sent to you when someone uses your name. So you just openly admitted you are in fact randomjsa? Are you really this dumb? Seriously? So you sponsored yourself with total fark? Let me queses your secret sponsor is randomjsa? Psycho.

Answer the question.

Answer the question.

Answer the question.
 
2013-02-10 06:15:58 PM  

Granny_Panties: You are randomjsa. You don't get e-mail sent to you when someone uses your name. So you just openly admitted you are in fact randomjsa? Are you really this dumb? Seriously? So you sponsored yourself with total fark? Let me queses your secret sponsor is randomjsa? Psycho.


And yet.... I received an email.

Of course that's probably because I have notifications set to do so when someone says my name in reply format.

Learn how the site works, Sherlock.

As to my sponsorship, I was sponsored for one month by a certain person and I followed it up myself for another 2 months and have passed it along by sponsoring 3 people.

You've become unhinged.
 
2013-02-10 06:16:28 PM  
ts3.mm.bing.net

/History's greatest monster!
 
2013-02-10 06:21:47 PM  

Mrbogey: Granny_Panties: You are randomjsa. You don't get e-mail sent to you when someone uses your name. So you just openly admitted you are in fact randomjsa? Are you really this dumb? Seriously? So you sponsored yourself with total fark? Let me queses your secret sponsor is randomjsa? Psycho.

And yet.... I received an email.

Of course that's probably because I have notifications set to do so when someone says my name in reply format.

Learn how the site works, Sherlock.

As to my sponsorship, I was sponsored for one month by a certain person and I followed it up myself for another 2 months and have passed it along by sponsoring 3 people.

You've become unhinged.


What bills did the Democrats pass that sunk the economy in 2007 and 2008? Answer the question.
 
2013-02-10 06:48:17 PM  
i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-10 06:48:25 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Forbes is quoting American Thinker?

Didn't Forbes used to be respectable?


Yeah, but Malcolm's been dead for more than 20 years at this point.
 
2013-02-10 06:50:29 PM  

Granny_Panties: What bills did the Democrats pass that sunk the economy in 2007 and 2008? Answer the question.


I have. You just rejected the answer.
 
2013-02-10 06:55:22 PM  

Mrbogey: Granny_Panties: What bills did the Democrats pass that sunk the economy in 2007 and 2008? Answer the question.

I have. You just rejected the answer.


Study it out Libs!
 
2013-02-10 07:01:05 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.


Yup.  There have been riots in the streets in Greece and Britain, we've got idiots tying teabags to their hats and calling it political dissent.
And don't even get into the REAL third-world countries, where warlords and their buddies tool around in old Toyota pickups shooting shiat at random with their bed-mounted machine guns.
 
2013-02-10 07:05:02 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Lionel Mandrake: Forbes is quoting American Thinker?

Didn't Forbes used to be respectable?

Yeah, but Malcolm's been dead for more than 20 years at this point.


You ever see Steve Forbes on those Fox Sunday "business" shows? If he wasn't born on third, he'd be bagging groceries.
 
2013-02-10 07:06:10 PM  

Mrbogey: Granny_Panties: What bills did the Democrats pass that sunk the economy in 2007 and 2008? Answer the question.

I have. You just rejected the answer.


Where? I don't see it. Why won't you answer that simple question?

What bills did the Democrats pass that sunk the economy in 2007 and 2008?
 
2013-02-10 07:08:16 PM  
randomjsa:
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.

Somebody buy Obama a white suit and white tie, stat.
www.jimcarreyonline.com
 
2013-02-10 07:09:44 PM  

mittromneysdog: Mrbogey: Pro-rape

Preposterous overstatement. They're only pro legitimate rape.


As opposed to...amateur legitimate rape?
 
2013-02-10 07:32:15 PM  

rewind2846: Once regulation after regulation after law after law was repealed from the Carter administration through today, giving Wall Street unprecedented power and control over the national economy,


Wall street would have no control over the economy if it didn't have government there to back up its bad bets and false financial products.  What Enron did was illegal. What bernie Madoff did was illegal. What Allen Sanford did was illegal.  People dont give a shiat where their bank invests their money because their deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC and the banks have no incentive to invest responsibly because their bets are backed up by the Fed and "too big to fail"

Remember, any company - bank included can only offer you a product you arent forced to buy or a job you're not forced to work. the only way business can "Control" you is if they partner with government.  We call that cronyism and statists are all to happy to see it continue so long as their preferred companies are first in line at the trough.
 
2013-02-10 07:42:55 PM  

o5iiawah: rewind2846: Once regulation after regulation after law after law was repealed from the Carter administration through today, giving Wall Street unprecedented power and control over the national economy,

Wall street would have no control over the economy if it didn't have government there to back up its bad bets and false financial products.  What Enron did was illegal. What bernie Madoff did was illegal. What Allen Sanford did was illegal.  People dont give a shiat where their bank invests their money because their deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC and the banks have no incentive to invest responsibly because their bets are backed up by the Fed and "too big to fail"

Remember, any company - bank included can only offer you a product you arent forced to buy or a job you're not forced to work. the only way business can "Control" you is if they partner with government.  We call that cronyism and statists are all to happy to see it continue so long as their preferred companies are first in line at the trough.


So we shouldn't have the FDIC?

I'm confused.
 
2013-02-10 07:48:43 PM  

Mrtraveler01: So we shouldn't have the FDIC?


We should have let everything crash and gone through with Great Depression 2:  Electric Boogaloo for Galt's Gulch to become a reality.
 
2013-02-10 07:50:26 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: LargeCanine: Mrtraveler01: LargeCanine: Nah. The economy would have recovered years ago if it were not for Obama's policies.

And it would've stopped the economic crisis in Europe from happening too right?

Europe's ecconomic issues are self-inflicted, much like ours.

So you agree that Bush's bad policies tanked the economy? Good to know.


Your debate technique does you no credit.

Bush's weak dollar policy and failure to restrain spending were wrong and bad for the long term health of the economy. Obama's policies include and even weaker dollar and even more deficit spending. Bush's policies were bad, Obama's an order of magnitude worse.
 
2013-02-10 07:53:27 PM  

LargeCanine: Zeppelininthesky: LargeCanine: Mrtraveler01: LargeCanine: Nah. The economy would have recovered years ago if it were not for Obama's policies.

And it would've stopped the economic crisis in Europe from happening too right?

Europe's ecconomic issues are self-inflicted, much like ours.

So you agree that Bush's bad policies tanked the economy? Good to know.

Your debate technique does you no credit.

Bush's weak dollar policy and failure to restrain spending were wrong and bad for the long term health of the economy. Obama's policies include and even weaker dollar and even more deficit spending. Bush's policies were bad, Obama's an order of magnitude worse.


You're one of those people who believe Government should be run like a household budget right?
 
2013-02-10 07:57:25 PM  

Mrtraveler01: So we shouldn't have the FDIC?

I'm confused.


Why should the average taxpayer be on the hook for a private transaction between a depositor and a bank?  Isn't it the depositor's job to research the bank and find out what sorts of investments the bank makes with depositor funds?   If a bank wants to divert its depositor funds into investing in lottery tickets and people are willing to deposit money into the bank, why the hell should you be on the hook when the whole thing comes crashing down?

The larger problem is the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of toxic assets that got passed around the market like a game of musical chairs with each bank knowing full well that when the music stopped, the last bank without a chair would get a bailout, a few million for the CEO and would be on their merry way.
 
2013-02-10 07:58:20 PM  

udhq: LargeCanine: The economy has been experiencing anemic growth which is often lower than the rate of population growth, high inflation, and high official and even higher real unemployment. Much of the "growth" is really just government deficit spending and is not real productivity and will have to be repaid someday.


This is just objectively false.  Public sector payrolls are at their lowest level in a decade.  Government simply is not growing.  Like I said, you can argue we're growing to slowly, but the choice we have is between slow, steady growth and contraction, because we know that that is what republican economic policy does; we watched it do so with our own eyes in 2007-9.

Obama hurts the poor with regressive policies like Quantitative Easing in which the government invents money out of nothing, thus reducing the value of each dollar. This hurts the poor because their income and money is worth less, and they have little in the way of tangible assets. Affluent people have tangible assets which increase in price, hedging against inflation. Thus, every time Geithner massively increases the money supply, he is taxing the poor.

You're not going to get any argument from me that there isn't a single piece of economic policy that has come from the Obama administration that couldn't have been more progressive in nature.  But I'm not going to say monetary policy shouldn't be one of the tools in our tool belt to deal with economic crises.  That's really the realm of failed RON PAUL/gold standard monetary lunacy.

Diplomatically, we have alienated our allies and are held in contempt my the Russians and Chinese. Our embassies are being targeted. Friendly governments can't rely on us and are making deals/alliance predicated on American weakness. Obama has been judged by the international community as being feckless and weak.

Exactly which friends have we lost in the last 4 years that we hadn't already lost to the Iraq war?  Frankly, I think it's a good thing that the Rus ...


Okaaaaaay..... I said nothing about drones or public payrolls and you keep trying to change the subject. Its pretty clear that you are arguing with someone else in your head.
 
2013-02-10 08:00:29 PM  

Fart_Machine: You're one of those people who believe Government should be run like a household budget right?


And governments operating on perverse debt to GDP ratios, loose monetary policy and stimulus spending are succeeding where?
 
2013-02-10 08:04:07 PM  

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: You're one of those people who believe Government should be run like a household budget right?

And governments operating on perverse debt to GDP ratios, loose monetary policy and stimulus spending are succeeding where?


Are you his sock puppet account or were you going to answer the question?
 
2013-02-10 08:07:27 PM  

o5iiawah: Mrtraveler01: So we shouldn't have the FDIC?

I'm confused.

Why should the average taxpayer be on the hook for a private transaction between a depositor and a bank?  Isn't it the depositor's job to research the bank and find out what sorts of investments the bank makes with depositor funds?   If a bank wants to divert its depositor funds into investing in lottery tickets and people are willing to deposit money into the bank, why the hell should you be on the hook when the whole thing comes crashing down?

The larger problem is the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of toxic assets that got passed around the market like a game of musical chairs with each bank knowing full well that when the music stopped, the last bank without a chair would get a bailout, a few million for the CEO and would be on their merry way.


Agreed. No one should receive subsidies or bailouts. Its wrong when either party does it.
 
2013-02-10 08:09:15 PM  

o5iiawah: Why should the average taxpayer be on the hook for a private transaction between a depositor and a bank? Isn't it the depositor's job to research the bank and find out what sorts of investments the bank makes with depositor funds? If a bank wants to divert its depositor funds into investing in lottery tickets and people are willing to deposit money into the bank, why the hell should you be on the hook when the whole thing comes crashing down?


Probably because the depositor tends to be the little guy who gets left holding the bag.  But by all means we should fark over those people because the industry was deregulated.
 
2013-02-10 08:15:35 PM  

Fart_Machine: Are you his sock puppet account or were you going to answer the question?


My account is 4+ years older than yours.  I've stated time and time again that I dont have alts. just questions people cant answer without getting their ass in a bind.

LargeCanine: Agreed. No one should receive subsidies or bailouts. Its wrong when either party does it.


It isn't really a party thing so much as a - how you believe the market should be run - thing.  A marketplace is an aggregate of individuals making choices in regards to what stuff should cost, how much their labor is worth and is best run if people are free to act voluntarily with one another.  A government regulator, who has the power to shut down a bank can be bribed to keep it open in exchange for certain leeway with some assets on the sheet that dont look so hot.  The bad bank stays open, depositors see the stamp-of-approval on the bank, know their money is guaranteed by the FDIC so they dont bother to research the investments and when the cards come crashing, everyone gets paid but the taxpayer.
 
2013-02-10 08:15:59 PM  

LargeCanine: Agreed. No one should receive subsidies or bailouts. Its wrong when either party does it.


The FDIC is insurance because without it we'd get the bank runs that contributed to the crash of the economy back in the 1930's.  It isn't a subsidy or a bailout.
 
2013-02-10 08:17:32 PM  

Fart_Machine: Probably because the depositor tends to be the little guy who gets left holding the bag.  But by all means we should fark over those people because the industry was deregulated.


So instead, the depositor gets paid, the too-big-to-fail bank gets paid and the taxpayer is left holding the bag.  Brilliant.
 
2013-02-10 08:17:55 PM  

o5iiawah: My account is 4+ years older than yours. I've stated time and time again that I dont have alts. just questions people cant answer without getting their ass in a bind.


You answered a question with a question which added nothing but an irrelevant strawman.  And the age of your account doesn't mean anything.
 
2013-02-10 08:20:39 PM  

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Probably because the depositor tends to be the little guy who gets left holding the bag.  But by all means we should fark over those people because the industry was deregulated.

So instead, the depositor gets paid, the too-big-to-fail bank gets paid and the taxpayer is left holding the bag.  Brilliant.


You know that the bailouts and the FDIC are two different things right?  FDIC protects the depositors and has been around since the 1930's.  The bailouts for the banks were part of a measure passed in 2008.  You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2013-02-10 08:24:14 PM  

Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: My account is 4+ years older than yours. I've stated time and time again that I dont have alts. just questions people cant answer without getting their ass in a bind.

You answered a question with a question which added nothing but an irrelevant strawman.  And the age of your account doesn't mean anything.


You didn't ask a question, it was snark which I was ignoring. When you have something interesting to say, I may decide to reply.

I don't have an alt either.  Your insinuation is indicative of the weakness of your position.
 
2013-02-10 08:24:42 PM  

Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Probably because the depositor tends to be the little guy who gets left holding the bag.  But by all means we should fark over those people because the industry was deregulated.

So instead, the depositor gets paid, the too-big-to-fail bank gets paid and the taxpayer is left holding the bag.  Brilliant.

You know that the bailouts and the FDIC are two different things right?  FDIC protects the depositors and has been around since the 1930's.  The bailouts for the banks were part of a measure passed in 2008.  You have no idea what you're talking about.


I have every idea what I am talking about. I clearly broke them down as two separate government intrusions in the banking market which provide no incentive for banks to make good bets (bailouts) and no incentive for depositors to choose good banks (FDIC).

Thats as pretty simple as it gets.
 
2013-02-10 08:28:50 PM  

Fart_Machine: LargeCanine: Agreed. No one should receive subsidies or bailouts. Its wrong when either party does it.

The FDIC is insurance because without it we'd get the bank runs that contributed to the crash of the economy back in the 1930's.  It isn't a subsidy or a bailout.


I have not said anything about FDIC insurance, nor is FDIC insurance an issue for me. Its pretty minor compared to TARP, Stimulus spending, green subsidies, bank bailouts, etc. You should be having this discussion with that o5iiwah guy.
 
2013-02-10 08:37:00 PM  

LargeCanine: When you have something interesting to say, I may decide to reply.


That OK.  You don't need to keep me in suspense of your intellectual prowess any longer.  "Ploink"

o5iiawah: I have every idea what I am talking about. I clearly broke them down as two separate government intrusions in the banking market which provide no incentive for banks to make good bets (bailouts) and no incentive for depositors to choose good banks (FDIC).


No you really don't since the FDIC has been around for over 70 years without a problem.  Deregulating courtesy of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act had been around since 2000. Which one had an actual impact?  Hmmmmmmn......
 
2013-02-10 08:43:47 PM  

LargeCanine: Okaaaaaay..... I said nothing about drones or public payrolls and you keep trying to change the subject. Its pretty clear that you are arguing with someone else in your head.


You said government was expanding and that there was consensus that Obama's foreign policy was weak.

Both statements are objectively false, and I provided examples as such.

That shouldn't be so hard to follow.
 
2013-02-10 08:50:49 PM  

LargeCanine: Zeppelininthesky: LargeCanine: Mrtraveler01: LargeCanine: Nah. The economy would have recovered years ago if it were not for Obama's policies.

And it would've stopped the economic crisis in Europe from happening too right?

Europe's ecconomic issues are self-inflicted, much like ours.

So you agree that Bush's bad policies tanked the economy? Good to know.

Your debate technique does you no credit.

Bush's weak dollar policy and failure to restrain spending were wrong and bad for the long term health of the economy. Obama's policies include and even weaker dollar and even more deficit spending. Bush's policies were bad, Obama's an order of magnitude worse.


You are showing everyone you have no clue what the heck you are talking about.
 
2013-02-10 08:55:01 PM  
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-02-10 09:05:51 PM  
The most difficult aspect of the current crisis to contain was that roughly 80% of nonprime loans were made by entities not subject to direct federal regulation (primarily mortgage bankers). (Note that this also meant they were not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and to requirements to file criminal referrals.)

The Federal Reserve (Fed), however, had unique statutory authority to regulate all mortgage lenders under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), but Greenspan and Bernanke refused to use it. Finally, over a year after the secondary market in nonprime loans (CDOs) collapsed, and after Congressional pressure to act, the Fed used its HOEPA authority to order an end to some of the most abusive nonprime lending practices.

Prior to that time, the federal regulatory agencies acted aggressively throughout the decade to assert federal ―pre-emption of state regulation as a means of attempting to prevent the states from protecting their citizens from predatory nonprime lenders.

All the regulators needed to do to prevent the crisis was ban lending practices that were rational only for control frauds engaged in looting. The regulators consistently refused to do so because of their anti-regulatory ideology. Traditional mortgage underwriting practices are highly effective against fraud. The regulators knew what reforms would work, but refused to mandate the reforms


Read all this testimony and get back to us, Forbes: Link (PDF) William Black, 03/12  Senate Judiciary Committee
/nothing much good to say about Obama, either (but no mention of H.G. Wells)
 
2013-02-10 09:10:37 PM  

o5iiawah: government intrusions in the banking market


You see. This is where you fail at life.
 
2013-02-10 09:22:13 PM  
FTFA: No, Obama apologists can't say the recovery has been so bad because the recession was so bad, as the American historical experience is the worse the recession the stronger the recovery.

The American historical experience is also to raise taxes to support war efforts, not to start two wars and cut taxes. The American historical experience is also to have two parties that will eventually get things done. I'm pretty sure the last congress (last two, perhaps) were the least productive in decades.

/not so much an apologist as a realist
 
2013-02-10 09:31:09 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Dwight_Yeast: Lionel Mandrake: Forbes is quoting American Thinker?

Didn't Forbes used to be respectable?

Yeah, but Malcolm's been dead for more than 20 years at this point.

You ever see Steve Forbes on those Fox Sunday "business" shows? If he wasn't born on third, he'd be teabagging groceries.

 
2013-02-10 09:33:34 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: LargeCanine: Zeppelininthesky: LargeCanine: Mrtraveler01: LargeCanine: Nah. The economy would have recovered years ago if it were not for Obama's policies.

And it would've stopped the economic crisis in Europe from happening too right?

Europe's ecconomic issues are self-inflicted, much like ours.

So you agree that Bush's bad policies tanked the economy? Good to know.

Your debate technique does you no credit.

Bush's weak dollar policy and failure to restrain spending were wrong and bad for the long term health of the economy. Obama's policies include and even weaker dollar and even more deficit spending. Bush's policies were bad, Obama's an order of magnitude worse.

You are showing everyone you have no clue what the heck you are talking about.


How to argue
 
2013-02-10 09:37:57 PM  

LargeCanine: Zeppelininthesky: LargeCanine: Zeppelininthesky: LargeCanine: Mrtraveler01: LargeCanine: Nah. The economy would have recovered years ago if it were not for Obama's policies.

And it would've stopped the economic crisis in Europe from happening too right?

Europe's ecconomic issues are self-inflicted, much like ours.

So you agree that Bush's bad policies tanked the economy? Good to know.

Your debate technique does you no credit.

Bush's weak dollar policy and failure to restrain spending were wrong and bad for the long term health of the economy. Obama's policies include and even weaker dollar and even more deficit spending. Bush's policies were bad, Obama's an order of magnitude worse.

You are showing everyone you have no clue what the heck you are talking about.

How to argue


How exactly did the economy get worse than it was in 2007? Give me specific examples.
 
2013-02-10 09:43:20 PM  

Mrbogey: Granny_Panties: Why won't you answer the question?

I answered it for you. You were just too daft to realize it.

Granny_Panties: Now log back into your other account randomjsa. We all know it's you. Get over yourself. You'll screw up and out yourself in a more obvious manor eventually.

I figured that's why you edited my name onto his reply. It's odd when I get an email alert saying someone is quoting me and the reply is completely foreign. Your ability to assess sockpuppets is worse than your economic acumen. I hope you aren't speaking for everyone. I'd hate to think less of people I already spend too much time thinking less of.


I agree with Mrbogey. Randomjsa is completely nutso. Mrbogey is more coherent, although wrong.
 
2013-02-10 10:16:07 PM  

muck4doo: Shut your whore mouth! At least now our dear leader kills US citizens with drones!


I love how some people never seemed to care that over 4000 American soldiers died for a lie in Iraq, but cannot get over that 2 members of AL-QAEDA  were hosed in a country they can't spell. And they expect someone..anyone to take them seriously? Is this what criticism of Obama amounts to?
 
2013-02-10 11:44:20 PM  

Somacandra: muck4doo: Shut your whore mouth! At least now our dear leader kills US citizens with drones!

I love how some people never seemed to care that over 4000 American soldiers died for a lie in Iraq, but cannot get over that 2 members of AL-QAEDA  were hosed in a country they can't spell. And they expect someone..anyone to take them seriously? Is this what criticism of Obama amounts to?


It's all they got, man.  They got nowhere else to go.

They go nowhere else to go.
 
2013-02-10 11:54:18 PM  

Somacandra: muck4doo: Shut your whore mouth! At least now our dear leader kills US citizens with drones!

I love how some people never seemed to care that over 4000 American soldiers died for a lie in Iraq, but cannot get over that 2 members of AL-QAEDA  were hosed in a country they can't spell. And they expect someone..anyone to take them seriously? Is this what criticism of Obama amounts to?


Some people genuinely seem to hate Obama more than they hate actual terrorists. Kind of hilarious, really.
 
2013-02-11 12:03:20 AM  

Biological Ali: Somacandra: muck4doo: Shut your whore mouth! At least now our dear leader kills US citizens with drones!

I love how some people never seemed to care that over 4000 American soldiers died for a lie in Iraq, but cannot get over that 2 members of AL-QAEDA  were hosed in a country they can't spell. And they expect someone..anyone to take them seriously? Is this what criticism of Obama amounts to?

Some people genuinely seem to hate Obama more than they hate actual terrorists. Kind of hilarious, really.


Some of those same people think he is a terrorist.
 
2013-02-11 02:59:19 AM  

Zeppelininthesky: Biological Ali: Somacandra: muck4doo: Shut your whore mouth! At least now our dear leader kills US citizens with drones!

I love how some people never seemed to care that over 4000 American soldiers died for a lie in Iraq, but cannot get over that 2 members of AL-QAEDA  were hosed in a country they can't spell. And they expect someone..anyone to take them seriously? Is this what criticism of Obama amounts to?

Some people genuinely seem to hate Obama more than they hate actual terrorists. Kind of hilarious, really.

Some of those same people think he is a terrorist.


Try to remember these people are the same group that listened to Obama give a speech saying, "Nazis were bad," and replied with, "Of course Obama doesn't understand all the GOOD things the nazis did."

No, seriously.
 
2013-02-11 05:45:59 AM  

Mrbogey: Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Um, so are you saying that privatizing social security and medicare are good ideas?

Had we partially privatized SS as was proposed by Republicans circa 2005, those eligible would have started investing in early 2009. They would begin retiring next year. The growth rate from 2009 to current in the market would have been wildly beneficial. The gov't would have unloaded debt obligation and retirees would have made significant financial growth in their retirement accounts.

This is looking back of course but it disproves the argument of the dangers of privatized accounts.

Medicare will eventually collapse either way at this point so old people are farked either way.


Your argument for the benefits of privatizing social security is that after the market crashed and hit bottom in 2009 that the people fortunate enough to start investing then would see a great return.  Well, holy shiat, you're a genius.  If you just ignore the clusterfark that killed retirement accounts (i.e. the danger of investing) that opened before 2009 then everything is super duper!  What about the people who were already retired or were just about to retire when the markets tanked?   If only there were some way for retirees to make ends meat while their investments regained value....
 
2013-02-11 06:44:35 AM  

Somacandra: muck4doo: Shut your whore mouth! At least now our dear leader kills US citizens with drones!

I love how some people never seemed to care that over 4000 American soldiers died for a lie in Iraq, but cannot get over that 2 members of AL-QAEDA  were hosed in a country they can't spell. And they expect someone..anyone to take them seriously? Is this what criticism of Obama amounts to?


They actually dont care. See, if you notice, after it was slowly and carefully explained to them for the 23rd time that Benghazi wasnt a scandal but instead a political dead end, they all 'coincidentally' shifted to this topic. All their posts are now the same, screaming 'Obama drones (and CHILDREN)!' because they were told to say it. It is an important issue, but if they werent ordered to parrot outrage, they would never have given a fark in the first place.

They are disingenious and proud of it.
 
2013-02-11 09:59:31 AM  

o5iiawah: rewind2846: Once regulation after regulation after law after law was repealed from the Carter administration through today, giving Wall Street unprecedented power and control over the national economy,

Wall street would have no control over the economy if it didn't have government there to back up its bad bets and false financial products.  What Enron did was illegal. What bernie Madoff did was illegal. What Allen Sanford did was illegal.  People dont give a shiat where their bank invests their money because their deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC and the banks have no incentive to invest responsibly because their bets are backed up by the Fed and "too big to fail"


This is precisely the mindset I just wrote about. o5iiwah seems to believe that these banks and financial institutions just had to engage in their risky, illegal and downright stupid practices because "the government made them".

If the government won't come to arrest you and put you in prison, would you go out and kill people? Steal from them? Rape them? When these people on Wall Street do the things they do, are they doing them "because they have the backing of the government", or are they doing the things they do because they are amoral greedy assholes?

That's the dividing line here. Don't blame the government for these people doing evil, blame the evil people for doing evil.

/just finished watching "ENRON: The Smartest Guys In The Room"
//why there weren't people burned at the stake for this sh*t I will never understand
 
2013-02-11 12:15:01 PM  

rewind2846: This is precisely the mindset I just wrote about. o5iiwah seems to believe that these banks and financial institutions just had to engage in their risky, illegal and downright stupid practices because "the government made them".


My favorite part of his argument is that every depositor who utilizes a bank for their savings or checking account should do a complete research of all the diversified assets in that entity or we get to laugh at them for losing their money.
 
2013-02-11 04:43:47 PM  

rewind2846: If the government won't come to arrest you and put you in prison, would you go out and kill people? Steal from them? Rape them? When these people on Wall Street do the things they do, are they doing them "because they have the backing of the government", or are they doing the things they do because they are amoral greedy assholes?


Good freaking lord, you are dumb.

Theres nothing to be gained out of the raw act of murder or rape.  What inspires the otherwise sane to commit rape (human sex trafficking) or murder (hits for hire) is money - even though both acts are illegal people still do it.  You act so surprised that if you remove the penalty of failure from a person or company, that you will eventually see them resorting to the most drastic measures to make as much money or extract as much gain as possible since other players in the game are doing the same thing.  You call it "greed" to give it a pejorative that some occupier or Mother Jones editorial page taught you to repeat ad nauseam.  The rest of us who know the world simply call it rational self-interest.

In the tragedy of the commons, there's no incentive for a fisherman to moderate his catch in the name of sustainability if he cant be certain that others will be severely punished for being greedy and overfishing.  A fisherman who only catches his quota might find that others have overfished, leaving the fishery depleted and since there is no penalty for overfishing, each player assumes the other will try to maximize his gain.

 

Fart_Machine: My favorite part of his argument is that every depositor who utilizes a bank for their savings or checking account should do a complete research of all the diversified assets in that entity or we get to laugh at them for losing their money.


My credit union hands one out every quarter and it takes me roughly 10-15 mins to go through it.  People will spend all day at a car dealership, apple store or trying on clothes but dont give a crap who has their money and what is being done with it.  When you think about buying a video game, you read the review on IGN.  When you think about seeing a movie, you read the reviews on rottentomatoes.  Why are you so against people acting like adults?
 
2013-02-11 04:48:30 PM  

Baryogenesis: What about the people who were already retired or were just about to retire when the markets tanked?   If only there were some way for retirees to make ends meat while their investments regained value....


If you are less than 10 years from retirement, you probably shouldn't have 100% of your income tied up in the stock market, or a single investment idea. In fact, if you are 55 or older, 80% of your portfolio should be rock-solid bonds or cash money.  A senior who invested 80/20 in 2008 would have lost 10% of their portfolio and 5 years later, would have earned it all back

If you walk into a bank and ask to speak with a retirement professional, they will tell you this in the first 5 minutes of the conversation.
 
2013-02-11 05:05:53 PM  

o5iiawah: In the tragedy of the commons, there's no incentive for a fisherman to moderate his catch in the name of sustainability if he cant be certain that others will be severely punished for being greedy and overfishing. A fisherman who only catches his quota might find that others have overfished, leaving the fishery depleted and since there is no penalty for overfishing, each player assumes the other will try to maximize his gain.


So are we now back to blaming the government for not regulating enough?

You really haven't refuted rewind's argument, you've justified it.
 
2013-02-11 05:17:42 PM  

o5iiawah: Baryogenesis: What about the people who were already retired or were just about to retire when the markets tanked?   If only there were some way for retirees to make ends meat while their investments regained value....

If you are less than 10 years from retirement, you probably shouldn't have 100% of your income tied up in the stock market, or a single investment idea. In fact, if you are 55 or older, 80% of your portfolio should be rock-solid bonds or cash money.  A senior who invested 80/20 in 2008 would have lost 10% of their portfolio and 5 years later, would have earned it all back

If you walk into a bank and ask to speak with a retirement professional, they will tell you this in the first 5 minutes of the conversation.


Oh good, that totally explains why American retirement accounts didn't lose trillions of dollars in value and there were no people who lost huge chunks of their savings.
 
2013-02-11 06:28:59 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.


Didn't you notice that he blamed the global financial crisis on the Democrat Congress that was elected in 2006?  It was the Democrats' fault when Congress was D and Bush was in charge, but now that Obama is in charge and Congress is R, it's the Democrats' fault.
 
2013-02-11 06:30:19 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.


Oh, also, http://www.robertsinclair.net/comic/asshole.html
 
2013-02-11 08:17:05 PM  

namatad: who KNEW that I would learn something new today?
CRAZY interesting, of for no other reason, it makes for a nice pattern.


The crazy part is that when I was looking into this back around 1988 or so, it looked like there was going to be a multi-year recession starting in... 2006. Off on the timing by about 2 years.
 
2013-02-11 08:31:41 PM  

Baryogenesis: Your argument for the benefits of privatizing social security is that after the market crashed and hit bottom in 2009 that the people fortunate enough to start investing then would see a great return. Well, holy shiat, you're a genius. If you just ignore the clusterfark that killed retirement accounts (i.e. the danger of investing) that opened before 2009 then everything is super duper! What about the people who were already retired or were just about to retire when the markets tanked? If only there were some way for retirees to make ends meat while their investments regained value....


Since you failed to realize that 2009 was the target year back when the law was proposed for the program to start I'm going to guess that you've not done a lot of research into it. In a typical portfolio a lifetime return averages slightly higher than SS which is around 2%. So yea, if someone invested in a typical fund across several years they'll outpace SS in their return. It's just highly amusing that had we gone with partial SS privatization we'd have a lower obligation for SS further down the road, retirees would have a fatter retirement, and our credit rating would be rosier instead of redder.

I did make one error though, the plan actually started with those under 55. Not 59. So they'd begin their retirement a few years from now.
 
2013-02-11 09:03:11 PM  

Mrbogey: It's just highly amusing that had we gone with partial SS privatization we'd have a lower obligation for SS further down the road, retirees would have a fatter retirement, and our credit rating would be rosier instead of redder.


It would be even more amusing when Wall Street inflates and pops another bubble with that sweet, sweet SS money, wiping out retirees' savings AND their safety net all in one go.

SS isn't an investment, it's insurance.
We might all be a lot richer if we invested our health insurance premiums instead. Unless we got sick...
 
2013-02-11 11:32:15 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: It would be even more amusing when Wall Street inflates and pops another bubble with that sweet, sweet SS money, wiping out retirees' savings AND their safety net all in one go.


And yet across a typical lifetime retirement targeted funds haven't had that happen.

Sergeant Grumbles: SS isn't an investment, it's insurance.
We might all be a lot richer if we invested our health insurance premiums instead. Unless we got sick...


I don't see why you're insisting we all buy insurance policies that are likely to be voided before we collect on them. Seems rather foolish.
 
2013-02-11 11:42:16 PM  

Baryogenesis: o5iiawah: Baryogenesis: What about the people who were already retired or were just about to retire when the markets tanked?   If only there were some way for retirees to make ends meat while their investments regained value....

If you are less than 10 years from retirement, you probably shouldn't have 100% of your income tied up in the stock market, or a single investment idea. In fact, if you are 55 or older, 80% of your portfolio should be rock-solid bonds or cash money.  A senior who invested 80/20 in 2008 would have lost 10% of their portfolio and 5 years later, would have earned it all back

If you walk into a bank and ask to speak with a retirement professional, they will tell you this in the first 5 minutes of the conversation.

Oh good, that totally explains why American retirement accounts didn't lose trillions of dollars in value and there were no people who lost huge chunks of their savings.


Caveat emptor.  If you're 5 years from retirement, dont bet your whole nest egg on stocks.
Talk to a retirement professional. They will tell you this.

Sergeant Grumbles: So are we now back to blaming the government for not regulating enough?

You really haven't refuted rewind's argument, you've justified it.


I sometimes wonder how an individual, presumably with a public school education could extrapolate that out of what i said.  Government removed the penalty of failure from banking institutions that made risky bets, therefore banks were presented with a situation where they had no downside and tremendous upside to engaging in risky loans and junk financial products trading.

If banking were so deregulated, then after the collapse in 2008, the government would have auctioned all the assets off in bankruptcy court to credit unions and smaller banks that wanted to take a flyer on servicing the debt - likely for pennies on the dollar.
 
2013-02-12 11:14:43 AM  

Mrbogey: And yet across a typical lifetime retirement targeted funds haven't had that happen.


Already addressed.

Baryogenesis: Oh good, that totally explains why American retirement accounts didn't lose trillions of dollars in value and there were no people who lost huge chunks of their savings.


Mrbogey: I don't see why you're insisting we all buy insurance policies that are likely to be voided before we collect on them. Seems rather foolish.

 Nice way to move those goalposts. SS is fine with minimal tinkering. It's more foolish to turn all that money over to Wall Street. They really want to get their hands on it, and it's not to provide a better retirement for grandma.


o5iiawah: Government removed the penalty of failure


After the fact. After it became apparent that they had failed so spectacularly they could bring down the entire economy. After a decade of them assuring us they could police themselves. Before? Banks were overfishing, as per your example. They could have chosen to be sustainable, and in fact, some did, but the large majority wiped out their stocks, as per the fish analogy. The government had no hand in the banks' bad behavior.

o5iiawah: If banking were so deregulated, then after the collapse in 2008, the government would have auctioned all the assets off in bankruptcy court to credit unions and smaller banks that wanted to take a flyer on servicing the debt - likely for pennies on the dollar.


Even that would have required MORE regulation, numbnuts. And I can just hear the Republican screeches that government selling off bank assets is a gross intrusion into the free market. I heard that enough with "Government Motors".
Stop with this morbid fantasy that deregulation works both ways.
 
2013-02-12 12:21:23 PM  

o5iiawah: My credit union hands one out every quarter and it takes me roughly 10-15 mins to go through it. People will spend all day at a car dealership, apple store or trying on clothes but dont give a crap who has their money and what is being done with it. When you think about buying a video game, you read the review on IGN. When you think about seeing a movie, you read the reviews on rottentomatoes. Why are you so against people acting like adults?


/facepalm

You're really comparing trying on clothes and videogames to the maze of diversified investment that the Commodities Futures Modernization Act allowed banks to delve into?  Seriously?  Complaining about insurance for consumer depositors that has been around for over 70 years as contributing to banks getting mixed up in bad investments while deregulation allowed them to do so in the first place?  And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.
 
2013-02-12 12:35:36 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: After the fact. After it became apparent that they had failed so spectacularly they could bring down the entire economy. After a decade of them assuring us they could police themselves. Before? Banks were overfishing, as per your example. They could have chosen to be sustainable, and in fact, some did, but the large majority wiped out their stocks, as per the fish analogy. The government had no hand in the banks' bad behavior.


This.  The same morans who claim "the government made them do it" are also the ones who wanted them deregulated in the first place because they claimed it hindered the inspiration of the market.
 
2013-02-12 12:36:09 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Mrbogey: And yet across a typical lifetime retirement targeted funds haven't had that happen.

Already addressed.

Baryogenesis: Oh good, that totally explains why American retirement accounts didn't lose trillions of dollars in value and there were no people who lost huge chunks of their savings.

Mrbogey: I don't see why you're insisting we all buy insurance policies that are likely to be voided before we collect on them. Seems rather foolish.
 Nice way to move those goalposts. SS is fine with minimal tinkering. It's more foolish to turn all that money over to Wall Street. They really want to get their hands on it, and it's not to provide a better retirement for grandma.


If by addressed, you mean a post was made with a connection. If by addressed you mean a coherent response that rebuts the argument was made, then no.

I stated funds and plans. Not individual stock investments played like a slot machine. At no point was a complete divestment proposed that allowed people to invest in individual stocks were proposed.

Look, I get it that your ideology can't ever be wrong in your reality. However, in this reality, it's wrong.
 
2013-02-12 01:20:02 PM  

Mrbogey: a coherent response that rebuts the argument was made


It was. You can't turn around and claim the 2008 crash didn't happen just because some investments have recovered. We're not talking about overall market health, we're talking about individuals, with funds and plans that were STILL wiped out by stock market tomfoolery.
 
2013-02-12 01:49:29 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Even that would have required MORE regulation, numbnuts. And I can just hear the Republican screeches that government selling off bank assets is a gross intrusion into the free market. I heard that enough with "Government Motors".
Stop with this morbid fantasy that deregulation works both ways.


You really are dumb.

The operation of bankruptcy courts is a legitimate, enumerated power of our federal government.  General motors did not go through lawful bankruptcy else it would have been divested according to the wishes of the bondholders.  That never happened.

Fart_Machine: You're really comparing trying on clothes and videogames to the maze of diversified investment that the Commodities Futures Modernization Act allowed banks to delve into?  Seriously?  Complaining about insurance for consumer depositors that has been around for over 70 years as contributing to banks getting mixed up in bad investments while deregulation allowed them to do so in the first place?  And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.


I can read by Credit union's quarterly balance sheet in about 20 minutes.  I guess that is too much to ask.

Sergeant Grumbles: After the fact. After it became apparent that they had failed so spectacularly they could bring down the entire economy. After a decade of them assuring us they could police themselves. Before? Banks were overfishing, as per your example. They could have chosen to be sustainable, and in fact, some did, but the large majority wiped out their stocks, as per the fish analogy. The government had no hand in the banks' bad behavior.


Government encourages banks to make loans to people who cant pay them. Government assures banks that the public treasury will back those loans ($9Tn in assets held by Fannie and Freddy) Government assures banks are too big to fail. Banks fail. Government bails out banks.  But apparently banks arent regulated enough.

Again, no sensible reasonable bank would decide to trade in absurd financial products without some assurance that they would be bailed out or able to offload their assets onto the public treasury.  Seeing as how both happened, I'd say my point is proven.
 
2013-02-12 02:06:37 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Mrbogey: a coherent response that rebuts the argument was made

It was. You can't turn around and claim the 2008 crash didn't happen just because some investments have recovered. We're not talking about overall market health, we're talking about individuals, with funds and plans that were STILL wiped out by stock market tomfoolery.


We'd have a more productive discussion if you read what was written and reply cogently.

My retirement account is held by fidelity. They provide, to me, 15 options to invest my money for retirement. Across five years(Jan2008) the worst performing one was -1.66%. The best was 8.24%. So from the height to today there's a slight loss to slight gain.

Again, stop acting as if the proposals would have allowed single stock "slot machine" investing.

If an investor was allowed, per the proposed 2005 legislation, to begin investing they'd have seen between 3 to 18% return easily from 2009 to today. That beats the SS return of 2%.
So yea, in retrospect retirees are worse off today than had the plans gone forth.
 
2013-02-12 02:52:06 PM  

o5iiawah: I can read by Credit union's quarterly balance sheet in about 20 minutes. I guess that is too much to ask.


And I thank you for completely ignoring or missing the point. But I'm glad you brought this up.  Most Credit Unions are not-for-profit cooperatives who don't have to worry about satisfying shareholders and they're highly regulated.  They also cover their depositors with federal insurance under the NCUA.  Banks on the other hand were deregulated and pursued risky investments because they had to satisfy stockbrokers as well as their own bottom line.  It wasn't because of the FDIC.  It was because they were greedy and were pressured to satisfy investors.

o5iiawah: Government encourages banks to make loans to people who cant pay them.


/facepalm again

No they didn't.
 
2013-02-12 04:18:16 PM  

Mrbogey: from 2009 to today.


Stop glossing over the crash, you farkwit. Your bullshiat only works if you ignore the entire reason it's a bad idea!
 
2013-02-12 05:20:44 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Mrbogey: from 2009 to today.

Stop glossing over the crash, you farkwit. Your bullshiat only works if you ignore the entire reason it's a bad idea!


The legislation was set to take effect in 2009. All major funds have recovered from the crash. Im not glossing over it. I'm stating and proving it doesnt matter.

If you insist on being a farking retard could you just learn to not advertise it?
 
2013-02-12 05:44:29 PM  

Mrbogey: All major funds have recovered from the crash. Im not glossing over it.


You did. Right there.
It matters for next time. What happens to all those funds and plans that have their value wiped out the next time the market crashes? What happens to all those people trying to retire?
Because there's no talk or effort to prevent crashes. Oh no, it's deregulate this, deregulate that, the market is never wrong, the marker always provides, the market always recovers, we'll police ourselves just like we did last time.... except the next time they'll be able to get their hands on that sweet SS money that's currently sitting there doing nothing but waiting for grandma. And I'll bet you dimes to farking dollars that it won't be grandma that's going to see the return if or when the market recovers.
Leave SS as retirement insurance. It's not supposed to be an investment.
 
2013-02-12 06:35:18 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: . What happens to all those funds and plans that have their value wiped out the next time the market crashes?


They come back in about 3 maybe 4 years. Sometimes they don't even go away.

Sergeant Grumbles: And I'll bet you dimes to farking dollars that it won't be grandma that's going to see the return if or when the market recovers.


Please, a pussy like you place a bet? Your vagina is quivering over the idea that you may take a 1% loss.

Sergeant Grumbles: Leave SS as retirement insurance. It's not supposed to be an investment.


I'll make a deal with you. I won't advocate for SS reform as long as you refuse to save or invest any funds. You have to live solely off of what SS provides. No pension. No 401k. No IRA.

Are you up for it?
 
2013-02-12 06:54:06 PM  

Mrbogey: They come back in about 3 maybe 4 years.


You're missing the point.

Mrbogey: Please, a pussy like you place a bet? Your vagina is quivering over the idea that you may take a 1% loss.


Still missing the point.

Mrbogey: I'll make a deal with you. I won't advocate for SS reform as long as you refuse to save or invest any funds. You have to live solely off of what SS provides. No pension. No 401k. No IRA.

Are you up for it?


Wow, strike three.

media.tumblr.com

You do realize the market recovering in 3-4 years means jack and shiat if you money NOW?
SS is at least a baseline to fall back on assuming nothing else works out, giving you time and money to survive those 3-4 years.
It's insurance, not an investment.
It doesn't matter that it doesn't provide the greatest return, what matters is that you have a safety net if your other retirement options don't pan out.
You can make more money investing your health insurance premiums than you probably will using it for healthcare. Do you think that's a good idea or a bad idea?
 
2013-02-12 07:11:16 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: SS is at least a baseline to fall back on assuming nothing else works out, giving you time and money to survive those 3-4 years.


So, you're taking me up on it and refusing to have any other investments?

Look, we get it. You suck at long term planning and you're incapable of taking care of yourself. Stop assuming everyone else is as dumb as you.

Besides, I proved already that almost everyone today today would be better off with the 2005 SS partial privatization plans due to the way it was structured and how the market has done over the past 4 years.. The math's against you. Suck it up and move on.
 
2013-02-12 07:19:48 PM  

Mrbogey: So, you're taking me up on it and refusing to have any other investments?


Quit with the strawman and answer my question.

Sergeant Grumbles: You can make more money investing your health insurance premiums than you probably will using it for healthcare. Do you think that's a good idea or a bad idea?

 
2013-02-12 08:12:18 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Sergeant Grumbles: You can make more money investing your health insurance premiums than you probably will using it for healthcare. Do you think that's a good idea or a bad idea?


Not always true. As a young person who spends no money on healthcare then yes. Putting the funds you'd spend on a Cadillac plan into a fund and then buying catastrophic coverage would be the way to go. As you get older it's better to go towards full coverage.

That's smart investing. Demanding everyone be a dumb investor by banking on SS is a bad idea and you should feel bad for it.
 
2013-02-12 08:32:58 PM  

Mrbogey: As a young person who spends no money on healthcare then yes.


Unless you get sick.
Just like privatizing SS works unless the market tanks.

That's the whole point.
That's why it's insurance, not investment.
 
2013-02-12 09:09:23 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Unless you get sick.
Just like privatizing SS works unless the market tanks.

That's the whole point.
That's why it's insurance, not investment.


This is really difficult to explain to you since you apparently lack the ability to understand basic arguments and the experience to understand how insurance and investments work.

Let me repeat this the only way possible... with caps.

CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE!!!! It means you pay a low premium that covers virtually nothing but the worst cases because typically minor illnesses will not rack up enough to warrant the thousands each year in premiums.

I brought up the whole 2009 investing thing because it's a real world example of why your thinking fails. Even if people invested before 2009 the market recovered those losses for most any approved fund. Each post you're proving how much of a failure you are at basic planning. Let's hope Darwin works and your line dwindles. The world needs less paste eaters.
 
2013-02-12 09:38:18 PM  

Mrbogey: CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE!!!!


Yeah. It's what SS is, essentially. Catastrophic retirement insurance.
You're smart enough to realize going without health insurance is bad, even for the young, even if you could potentially get a better return if you invested and didn't get sick. Why is retirement insurance bad?
 
2013-02-12 10:27:31 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Yeah. It's what SS is, essentially. Catastrophic retirement insurance.


The rates suck and the return sucks. It's the shiattiest catastrophic insurance you could have. But I guess if the target market is rubes it makes sense.
 
2013-02-12 11:36:27 PM  

Mrbogey: The rates suck and the return sucks.


At the risk of repeating myself, it's insurance, not investment.
It's not supposed to maximize returns. It's not supposed to be an attractive investment. It's supposed to be a stable, dependable stream of income to prevent total destitution in old age, which was a huge problem before SS was enacted. Unlike health insurance, which you may never need to utilize, everyone is pretty much guaranteed to get old.
Opening it up like an investment will do nothing to fix it because it isn't supposed to work that way. Introducing unnecessary risk undermines the entire idea.
I secretly suspect that's the true motivation the "government = bad" types, anyway.
 
2013-02-13 12:22:54 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: At the risk of repeating myself, it's insurance, not investment.


And I bet you'd be the first in line to buy insurance on your 200,000 house with a yearly rate of 1,500 and a deductible of 100,000. Hey, it's insurance, right? You clearly don't understand how insurance works. You don't ever want to get a policy that costs more or equal to the payout. SS is a sucker's game. As I demonstrated you could literally place the money on almost any major fund and beat SS across any random career lifespan. Even with the collapse of the markets in 2008 you'd at worse have made slightly less than SS.

I have never said this before but perhaps America would be better off if people who don't know how to plan weren't allowed to vote.
 
2013-02-13 01:01:56 AM  

Mrbogey: I have never said this before but perhaps America would be better off if people who don't know how to plan weren't allowed to vote.


Just go with the unofficial Republican platform, the poor shouldn't vote.

See, that's the thing. I might be inclined to believe you if I had any faith Wall Street wouldn't take, inflate, pop, and crash the money from SS. SS doesn't need that kind of volatility. It doesn't matter what the average is across a career lifespan, the fact that it can be affected by crashes at all undermines the entire idea.
I still might be inclined to believe you if there wasn't a huge portion of the electorate that absolves Wall Street of blame for the crash, still crying for deregulation, still insisting the free market fixes everything and shouting down any attempts to reduce excesses.

But I don't see any attempt to move in that direction, so I'm disinclined to believe you, or that privatizing SS is anything but a cash grab by entities with no interest in grandma's retirement.
 
2013-02-13 01:03:47 PM  

Fart_Machine: /facepalm again

No they didn't.


you're right. THe CRA and the $9TN in mortgage assets held by the federal government dont exist.
 
2013-02-13 01:07:34 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Mrbogey: CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE!!!!

Yeah. It's what SS is, essentially. Catastrophic retirement insurance.
You're smart enough to realize going without health insurance is bad, even for the young, even if you could potentially get a better return if you invested and didn't get sick. Why is retirement insurance bad?


And what is funny is that social security DISASTER CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE costs as much as what retirement professionals suggest a person should put aside to retire comfortably.
 
2013-02-13 03:09:14 PM  

o5iiawah: And what is funny is that social security DISASTER CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE costs as much as what retirement professionals suggest a person should put aside to retire comfortably.


Why is that funny when the cost determines how much you get back?
People keep acting like there's supposed to be some huge return. As I've been trying to explain, there isn't. That's not the point of the program. Trying to increase the return while also increasing risk does exactly the opposite and won't do anything to fix the perceived problems the program has. Problems, I might add, that are almost entirely invented by the people pushing these kinds of solutions.

What's funnier is that you still think the CRA forced banks to give free money to black people.
 
Displayed 458 of 458 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report